Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAfter only three Republicans in Congress voted for President Obama's stimulus bill, new data from the White House projects that the stimulus will create more jobs in Republican districts than in Democratic ones, according to Sean Quinn's crunching of the numbers. Quinn says GOP Congressmen will net an average of 418 more jobs per district over a two-year period. Oh, the irony! Maybe that's why Republicans are now touting projects they publicly opposed.
Four Republican governors, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Florida's Charlie Crist, Connecticut's Jodi Rell and Vermont's Jim Douglas, supported the stimulus, leading The New Yorker's Rick Hertzberg to remark that "a Republican governor, you might say, is sort of like a Republican congressman--except with actual responsibilities."
True enough, except not all Republican governors take those responsibilities equally seriously. At least four prominent GOP govs--Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, South Carolina's Mark Sanford, Mississippi's Haley Barbour and, fittingly, Wasilla's own Sarah Palin--say they may refuse federal funding at a time when their states are in deep economic crisis.
Says Jindal: "We'll have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the strings and see whether it's beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars."
"I'm better off not to get it," said Barbour. Rejecting $2.3 billion and 30,000 jobs might not sit well with residents of his state as unemployment rises to 8 percent, tax revenues for the year are $90 million below projected and Barbour's cutting financial aid for 21,000 students at public universities.
Talk about fiscal irresponsibility.
All of these governors may run for president in 2012 and want to curry favor with their party's right-wing base, which favors massive tax cuts and (suddenly) limited government spending. Their recent statement are more of a reflection of what's best for their short-term political careers rather than what's best for their state.
UPDATE: Govs Sanford of South Carolina and Rick Perry of Texas say they'll begrudgingly take the money. How generous. No definitive word yet from the other '12 wannabes mentioned above.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
No surprise Ari that you have it exactly backwards.
You have 3 liberal and one moderate (Crist) saying they will take the money...no surprise.
It's refreshing to see more and more elected Republicans like Jindal, Palin, Barbour and others actually act like conservatives and not belly up to the taxpayer trough.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:32am
If their states end up screwed because of this choice then they will have just voted themselves out.
I do like though that it's Republican states who are benefiting the most from handouts from the government.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 11:38am
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:32am
"Four Republican governors, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Florida's Charlie Crist, Connecticut's Jodi Rell and Vermont's Jim Douglas"
Umm. You're wrong LVL. He said they were all Republican. If you do two seconds of research you will see that every one of them belongs to the Republican party.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 11:40am
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:32am
I don't know where you get this stuff from LVL. Just because YOU don't want to call them Republicans doesn't mean they are not Republican.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 11:42am
By the way I love how smug you are LVL.
"No surprise Ari that you have it exactly backwards."
That you can make that statement seem so condescending even when you know they are all Republican governors by party affiliation.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 11:48am
I do like though that it's Republican states who are benefiting the most from handouts from the government.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 11:38am
Even though CA has a Republican RINO governor, it is hardly a Republican state.
BTW, hope you enjoy all of the new taxes we just got in California.
"The final version of the plan would raise the state sales tax by 1% and nearly double the vehicle license fee, to 1.15%. It would also reduce the dependent credit Californians are allowed to claim on their taxes. The package would increase personal income tax rates by 0.25%."
But we have a new revolt started in California that will be every bit as powerful as the Prop 13 battle was. We won then and we will win again so that we can retake California back from the marxist/socialist Democrats who never stop trying to increase taxes and socialize every aspect of our lives.
http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/johnandkenshow/index.html
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:51am
That you can make that statement seem so condescending even when you know they are all Republican governors by party affiliation.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 11:48am
They are RINOS. Schwarzenneger is despised by Republicans in California who cannot wait until he leaves office.
He won't even attend party events because we ignore him.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:53am
"..new data from the White House projects that the stimulus will create more jobs in Republican districts than in Democratic ones, according to Sean Quinn's crunching of the numbers. Quinn says GOP Congressmen will net an average of 418 more jobs per district over a two-year period."
I would love to see how the number 418 was arrived...and why this would make sense to anyone...
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/19/2009 @ 11:56am
YoJoMa- would you rather it didn't benefit repub districts more?
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 12:03pm
If their states end up screwed because of this choice then they will have just voted themselves out.
I do like though that it's Republican states who are benefiting the most from handouts from the government.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 11:38am
Tue enough...unless the people recognize what a spending boondoggle and political reward raiding the treasury is for the dems ...
so, the same would hold true for the dems in the House and Senate and WH...if the choice to spend the money screws up the country?
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/19/2009 @ 12:17pm
...unless the people recognize what a spending boondoggle and political reward raiding the treasury is for the dems ...
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/19/2009 @ 12:17pm
So to you attempting to help create a smarter healthier society here is bad, and attempting to help kill a weaker poorer society in another nation is good?
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 12:28pm
Does anyone here on the left even understand that the money for all of these government bailouts is borrowed? And that interest will have to be paid?
Think. Who gets that interest payment? You, as a taxpayer? Think again. Who?
If you add interest the stimulus package will cost future generations trillions of dollars. Just who will receive that money? Ever think about that?
Everyone who supports the so-called stimulus package is oblivious to the consequences. You are the same idiots who think the FDIC is actually insurance for your deposits. Or that social security isn't a political ponzi scheme.
I wonder who our politicians will blame for the coming inflation. They certainly won't assume responsibility.
Posted by freiheit1 at 02/19/2009 @ 12:33pm
Think. Who gets that interest payment? You, as a taxpayer? Think again. Who?
Everyone who supports the so-called stimulus package is oblivious to the consequences.
Posted by freiheit1 at 02/19/2009 @ 12:33pm
Can you say 'investment' in 'We the people'?
I know it may be a hard concept, but it's kinda like - spend money to make money, only it's buying the (neglected for oh so long) tools most people need to be successful. An investment in 'We the people', not in the military industrial complex or big oil or the insurance companies or big business no-bid sink holes.
Come on, 'We the people' are not a lost cause; it's worth a try. The cost does not outstrip the multiple benefits to us in the future.
And if it doesn't work, we're still screwed a la hsuB/cHeney new con repub ongoing legacy of dry drunk self destruction-- so see-- there's still hope for how'd you like things continuing to be.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 12:54pm
hsuBfools, You are blind to reality. You are just like the patriotic americans who fervently believed our invasion of Iraq was about spreading democracy. Did you think those people were misguided?
You are a fool to believe that bigger government is in the interests of "We the people".
It is we the people, hsuBfools for whom I am concerned. You have no idea from your post above what I want. "Continuing to be"? I want the Federal Reserve Act to be repealed. I want far more change to our system than you do punk.
You still think this is a Dem vs Repub thing? Fool.
Posted by freiheit1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:03pm
Tue enough...unless the people recognize what a spending boondoggle and political reward raiding the treasury is for the dems ... so, the same would hold true for the dems in the House and Senate and WH...if the choice to spend the money screws up the country? Posted by YourJomamma at 02/19/2009 @ 12:17pm
Precisely. If the stimulus works and the only stragglers are the ones who didn't take the money they voted themselves out. If the stimulus doesn't work and we sink deeper into recession then the Demo's have more than likely voted themselves out.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:06pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:51am
I don't mind them. If it gets the state up and running again I will pay my fair share.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:11pm
Everyone who supports the so-called stimulus package is oblivious to the consequences. You are the same idiots who think the FDIC is actually insurance for your deposits. Or that social security isn't a political ponzi scheme.Posted by freiheit1 at 02/19/2009 @ 12:33pm
Most on the left are not opposed to the idea of stimulus, but to the unduly weighted paper tiger sink hole.
You've got a severe case of the "trickles". Better not share this with your SSI buddies. Your social life might smolder into nothingness.
Your idealogical "purity" is about as productive as your weekend excursions into the city to play "handball" & about as productive. You'll be single for the rest of your life.
If I've got you confused with another bub lite case so be it. Take your crap to a fern bar, dreamer.
Posted by Sorelish at 02/19/2009 @ 1:11pm
Posted by Sorelish at 02/19/2009 @ 1:11pm
Huh?
Posted by freiheit1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:15pm
Huh? Posted by freiheit1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:15pm
I didn't get that one either.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:38pm
He won't even attend party events because we ignore him. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:53am
We? I thought that 'you' weren't a Republican. You said you were a libertarian.
It's pretty hard to respect your point of view when you change sides whenever it's convenient. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you ARE a republican. That's Ok, however.
And then... "we will win again so that we can retake California back from the marxist/socialist Democrats who never stop trying to increase taxes and socialize every aspect of our lives." There's that ubiquitous 'we' again.
I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't a capitalist. He was a socialist.
Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 1:40pm
"But we have a new revolt started in California that will be every bit as powerful as the Prop 13 battle was. We won then and we will win again so that we can retake California back from the marxist/socialist Democrats who never stop trying to increase taxes and socialize every aspect of our lives."
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:51am
This is also funny. In the past you have said that it is up to the states whether they want to be socialist or not. Yet now you demean a state because you posit that they are trying. Now I don't truly believe California is even close to becoming socialist it's just funny that now you change your view on states rights.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:46pm
hsuBfools, You are blind to reality. You are just like the patriotic americans who fervently believed our invasion of Iraq was about spreading democracy. Did you think those people were misguided?
I want the Federal Reserve Act to be repealed. I want far more change to our system than you do punk.
You still think this is a Dem vs Repub thing? Fool.
Posted by freiheit1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:03pm
So you 'do' equate spending money on war the same as investing in 'We the people' ? No dif., really?
And thus would rather not even try.
You'd rather rant completely irrelevant to the emergency at hand. Problem is while you contemplate water desalination technique (a worthy goal BTW) our homes are burning down. Yes we need water, you're just being dysfunctional to the situation at hand.
HELLO, speaking of fool-- not a smart move on your part.
And I never said bigger gov. That's all your delusional rant.
For example-- Al Gore proved that gov can be more efficient and focused. Made it smaller. Don't get 'We the people' gov mixed up with new con repub blood sucking tick incompetent disease. Very different.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 1:59pm
Let them refuse who cares, I personally couldn't care less myself...if they care so little for their own constituents and are so hard core obstructionists that they would sooner see them suffer let them have at it. The whole country will see them for what they are and they are becoming more and more of a joke each day...they are out of touch, out of control, outdated and should be out of here. Useless bunch of fools.
Posted by Caj at 02/19/2009 @ 2:10pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:51am
Also what I love about this post LVL is that yesterday you were ranting about how Obama's tax decreases aren't permanent so they are no good and he is a liar. The tax increase in California is also temporary and will be decreased if they do in fact receive federal money.
What you have also ignored it he 15 billion dollars in spending cuts. You claim that these people won't give up spending but they HAVE given up spending. 15 billion dollars of it in fact. If they give up 15 billion dollars in spending a year and then borrow 11 billion that should in theory halve the deficit in short time.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 2:17pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/20california.html?ref=us
Should read that article LVL.
Hey my industry is getting tax breaks.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 2:20pm
I don't mind them. If it gets the state up and running again I will pay my fair share.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:11pm The tax increase in California is also temporary and will be decreased if they do in fact receive federal money.
What you have also ignored it he 15 billion dollars in spending cuts. You claim that these people won't give up spending but they HAVE given up spending. 15 billion dollars of it in fact. If they give up 15 billion dollars in spending a year and then borrow 11 billion that should in theory halve the deficit in short time.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 2:17pm |
I have never seen in my 60 years here where the Democrats ever agreed to a tax cut in California.
And the budget only addresses this years shortfall; they will be back asking for more in a couple of months.
You may be happy paying the 2nd highest taxes in the nation, but most Californians are angry about it.
Also, I register and sometimes vote Republican because we are a 2 party nation. But I often vote 3rd party when I don't like a candidate. My principles are libertarian in general, and I look for candidates like everyone does who best aligns with my values and principles.
Certainly in California I can't think ever of a Democratic candidate who exposed conservative values and principles.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 2:23pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 2:17pm
On Obama's so-called tax cuts (I notice you now have changed your terminology-did you receive Democratic talking points?), are not really tax cuts and do not apply to 95% of Americans as Obama keeps lying about.
At best they hit about 50% of Americans and they are not tax cuts. Perhaps you could cite what the new tax rates are if that is the case?
They also are not the "biggest tax cut in history" as liberals are saying. In fact they are one of the smallest in our history.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 2:41pm
On Obama's so-called tax cuts (I notice you now have changed your terminology-did you receive Democratic talking points?), are not really tax cuts and do not apply to 95% of Americans as Obama keeps lying about. At best they hit about 50% of Americans and they are not tax cuts. Perhaps you could cite what the new tax rates are if that is the case? They also are not the "biggest tax cut in history" as liberals are saying. In fact they are one of the smallest in our history. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 2:41pm
No the reason I "changed my terminology" is because I was mimicking your terminology. Or can you not see that? I don't subscribe to talking points as you do.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 2:59pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 2:41pm
Oh by the way did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? You seem to be turning into more and more of troll every day. You will soon be giving pontificus a run for his money.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 3:00pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 2:41pm
Oh by the way did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? You seem to be turning into more and more of troll every day. You will soon be giving pontificus a run for his money.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 3:00pm
I have never seen in my 60 years here where the Democrats ever agreed to a tax cut in California. And the budget only addresses this years shortfall; they will be back asking for more in a couple of months. You may be happy paying the 2nd highest taxes in the nation, but most Californians are angry about it. Also, I register and sometimes vote Republican because we are a 2 party nation. But I often vote 3rd party when I don't like a candidate. My principles are libertarian in general, and I look for candidates like everyone does who best aligns with my values and principles. Certainly in California I can't think ever of a Democratic candidate who exposed conservative values and principles. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 2:23pm
Maybe because California can't sustain a tax cut? We are the largest state in the union with on of the largest populations. Of course we would have a higher tax rate. We have more that the state has to handle.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 3:02pm
Please please please I hope they all refuse and stick to their guns. I assume that it will mean more for the rest of us.
Posted by julien38 at 02/19/2009 @ 3:06pm
Also LVL. What is your suggestion for fixing Californias deficit. And I want specifics. Not just cut spending. Where and how fast?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 3:06pm
Oh by the way did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? You seem to be turning into more and more of troll every day. You will soon be giving pontificus a run for his money. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 3:00pm
Exactly. He started out all meek and respectful, then launched the hemorrhoid diatribes.
For a christian he's sure full of disrespect. I keep thinking that religious folks are supposed to be about love and forgiveness, but that never seems to be in evidence.
One similarity (among many) between him and pontificus is that they are a 'self repairing' mechanism. Whenever you find a chink in their armor, they post a lengthy piece about how their life is almost perfect, a testament to the milk of human kindness. Then they come here and spew. I wipe the screen off after every viewing.
Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 3:18pm
Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 3:18pm
Funny how that works. Yet it's often the liberals that they detest who go over seas and feed the hungry and carry out good deeds around the world. How many liberal college students join groups like the Red Cross or the Peace Corps.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 3:36pm
Funny how some of these Senators from the Rep side who voted no on this bill are now bragging about getting money from it. Talk about hypocrisy!!!
Posted by Caj at 02/19/2009 @ 4:29pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 02/19/2009 @ 12:33pm
--More libertarian, laissez faire propaganda, wrapped up in that condescening "Ours is the only true economics, you ignoramus" attitude they specialize in. Rachel Maddow has been pulling the same crap from the liberal side of the equation lately, by the way.
Does anyone here on the left even understand that the money for all of these government bailouts is borrowed? And that interest will have to be paid?
--Yes, it's been made pretty clear that we'll have to borrow the money from our current creditors (China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the international bourgeoisie).
Think. Who gets that interest payment? You, as a taxpayer? Think again. Who?
--The nations, banks and people we've borrowed from. Are these the $50 Jeopardy questions before we get to the $500 ones?
If you add interest the stimulus package will cost future generations trillions of dollars. Just who will receive that money? Ever think about that?
--Same answer! I will say, though, that this is a good argument against deficit spending during good economic times (which these are not). I don't want to pay interest to the wealthy if I don't have to.
Everyone who supports the so-called stimulus package is oblivious to the consequences.
--While you and most libertarians are oblivous to those of following the same policies that got us into this mess.
You are the same idiots who think the FDIC is actually insurance for your deposits. Or that social security isn't a political ponzi scheme.
--Enlighten me, I haven't heard the one about the FDIC. The folks at Liberty magazine call social security an intergenerational ponzi scheme, but its the establishment "fixes" from 1982 on that have put the system in danger, not demographics.
Posted by cka2nd at 02/19/2009 @ 4:48pm
One similarity (among many) between him and pontificus is that they are a 'self repairing' mechanism. Whenever you find a chink in their armor, they post a lengthy piece about how their life is almost perfect, a testament to the milk of human kindness. Then they come here and spew. I wipe the screen off after every viewing.
Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 3:18pm
au contraire. my life is far from perfect, and I don't know any serious follower of Christ that believes they do live a perfect life. However, I just point out that your view of what I and millions of other Christians actually do in following Christ is so far removed from our reality. You simply have fixated in your mind very narrow stereotypes that have gotten from who knows what mix of sources.
the supposed chinks are merely your assumptions, not the reality.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 5:04pm
Bottom line: Societies that don't make things anymore cannot be wealthy.
That's all there is to it.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 02/19/2009 @ 5:19pm
"AMERICANS SHOULD NEVER FORGET THAT REPUBLICANS WANTED TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY FOUR YEARS AGO; BUT WERE BLOCKED BY DEMOCRATS CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT YOUR RETIREMENT PROSPECTS WOULD BE LIKE IF BUSH AND HIS ROBOTIC REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS HAD SUCCEEDED IN BANKRUPTING SOCIAL SECURITY LIKE THEY HAVE BANKRUPTED THE REST OF AMERICA???"
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 5:39pm
Does anyone here on the left even understand that the money for all of these government bailouts is borrowed? And that interest will have to be paid?
Think. Who gets that interest payment? You, as a taxpayer? Think again. Who?
I rarely post to these threads. Yet, I do read them often. It is amazing how the right wing crazies here have such a problem with government spending now. Lest we forget that Mssr.s Bush and Cheney went to war and cut taxes- a first in American history. Yet, then, all of the government profligacy was fine. Unfortunately, that money was wasted. The American taxpayer will never see that money again.
The conservative "tax and spend" mantra has always been false. At least democrats would raise the money they would spend. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't have the luxury to do so. He has to play the hand he was dealt by gross dereliction of responsibility by past presidents. That includes the traitor Reagan, Bush senior, Clinton and W.
Posted by erazma at 02/19/2009 @ 5:55pm
....We are the largest state in the union with on of the largest populations. Of course we would have a higher tax rate....
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 3:02pm
From yesterday's lead Editorial in the WSJ: The Decline of California, it listed a table of the states with the highest sales and income taxes.
California, with the coming increase for sales tax, will STAY the highest, at 8.25%, while the nat'l median is 5.5%....Texas is at 6.0%.
On income tax, Cali will be up there at 10.56% while the nat'l median is 6.0%....Texas is 0%.
Also listed among the high-tax table, is Vermont, with its income tax rate of 9.5%. IF I'm not mistaken, VT is a small state....can you square that fact with your statement: "We are the largest state in the union with on of the largest populations. Of course we would have a higher tax rate..."
Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 6:02pm
the supposed chinks are merely your assumptions, not the reality. Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 5:04pm
You seem to be less venomous now. I will, in return, keep my posts at a more civil level of discourse, as it should be. But the only thing I am truly fixated on are the variances in your point of view. Your exchanges with emile were not a high point of the week, pastor.
I am also human and flawed as well, if that's any consolation. I would never profess to be otherwise.
................................ Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 5:39pm
Right on, brother. And now the foot dragging, finger pointing, filibustering blame game commences. I'm still not certain what EXACT provisions in the stimulus package that they hate so much. Somebody clear that up, will you? I mean, outside of just calling any part that helps the less fortunate 'socialism'. If there's truly a lot of 'pork' in it, I would oppose that as well. Those unnecessary provisions to be precise.
Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 6:05pm
Yes, it's been made pretty clear that we'll have to borrow the money from our current creditors (China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the international bourgeoisie).
Posted by cka2nd at 02/19/2009 @ 4:48pm
Here's another example where our MSM, swarming with tingles-up-the-legs and dream-of-sex-with-Magic idiots have failed the American people!
It's certainly true our deficits have been financed externally as our trading partners racked up, annually, several hundred billions of trade surplus (w/us alone) which are recycled into US Treasuries. Key word: trade surplus!
Now, there is a global consumption slowdown.....affecting all trading partners. Did you see anywhere in the MSM, any mention that Japan is in the dumps and overall, running trade deficits now for 5 months running? Or China's trade surplus is tanking? Or the oil-producing countries are now using their savings to continue funding on-going mega projects in an environment of <$50 oil?
The complete (global) picture is out there....just NOT in the MSM! To expect the `traditional' buyers of our debt to keep buying at the same pace as the recent past is delusional.....my bet is on much lower purchases....which means, our deficits will be financed by the printing presses!
Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 6:15pm
Why is spending for 'We the people' programs-- socialism? Yet bail outs or no bid contracts for corporations not fascism?
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 6:29pm
Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 6:02pm
Isn't the argument you guys posit that states should get rid of income taxes and just have sales taxes?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 6:39pm
Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 6:02pm
And yes I can. Vermont's people want a lot of things from their state government. They probably also get A LOT more for their money because their are so much less of them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 6:41pm
Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 6:15pm
Read an interesting article about Japan letting in more immigrant to expand their workforce actually. And yes about China's tanking economy as well.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 7:31pm
I'm still not certain what EXACT provisions in the stimulus package that they hate so much. Somebody clear that up, will you? I mean, outside of just calling any part that helps the less fortunate 'socialism'.
Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 6:05pm
If you read my postings for any length of time you will discover that I am a strict constitutionalist on enumerated powers. The Congress has only those powers designated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The 10th amendments says all other powers are granted to the states individually and to the people.
Thus, I say that the Fed oversteps their authority on issues like welfare, healthcare, education and the like that are entrusted to state and local govt's to decide.
I keep stating that if the left here wants socialized or Universal Health care all they have to do is petition state govt's to make that change. The problem is that they want to force everyone to adopt these issues whether they want to or not. That's why we are a Republic instead of a single entity. People have the freedom to live in the state that best reflects their values and vision of govt.
James Madison Federalist 45
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 7:51pm
You seem to be less venomous now. I will, in return, keep my posts at a more civil level of discourse, as it should be. But the only thing I am truly fixated on are the variances in your point of view. Your exchanges with emile were not a high point of the week, pastor.
Posted by ficheye at 02/19/2009 @ 6:05pm
I don't often resort to that level, but there is a long history here between Emile and myself. I'm a vet and a supporter of our military while Emile has a propensity for slinging all kinds of vitriol towards our men and women in uniform. He is one of those who thinks of them as baby killers and ignorant dupes who are not capable of rising to his level of superior intellect and reason.
My apologies for your getting caught in the midst of the mud.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 7:54pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 7:51pm
Then why do you denigrate Californians when that is what they ask for? Why don't you just move to another state?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 9:00pm
Isn't the argument you guys posit that states should get rid of income taxes and just have sales taxes?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 6:39pm
I have never posited that states w/income taxes dump them! I'm quite HAPPY of the high taxes, most especially the big, BLUE ones, slap on high income taxes. Good for Texas and Florida!
Pretty amazing TX has just 6.0% sales tax vs. the nat'l median of 5.5%.....we have high % property taxes but then, our properties are sanely valued. Of course, we have severance tax collected from energy production which you Calis turn your noses up at....smart, heh?
Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 10:39pm
--Yes, it's been made pretty clear that we'll have to borrow the money from our current creditors (China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the international bourgeoisie).
•• well, they're kinda nervous about that. and broke.
•• actually, the money's borrowed from "the future".
Posted by cka2nd at 02/19/2009 @ 4:48pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2009 @ 11:47pm
I don't buy it. These Governors will take the money. The only one who might actually be dumb enough to carry out the threat is Sarah Palin. Although, with oil prices tanking, Alaska will be hurting.
Posted by koroviev at 02/20/2009 @ 12:11am
Mississippi? Really? One of the poorest states in the country couldn't use some extra money?
People losing jobs and homes...Schools decay even further...businesses closing...
...And the Governor bathes in the Delta's scented mud...
Posted by koroviev at 02/20/2009 @ 02:51am
Then why do you denigrate Californians when that is what they ask for? Why don't you just move to another state?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 9:00pm
1. I'm a native Californian who remembers a different California-having been here since the 1940's.
2. My children asked me to move back here to be closer to my grandchildren-something I wanted also.
3. coming back here, I intend to fight to restore California back to some sanity. If not, reluctantly I may leave which would sadden me
4. There is no evidence that the majority of Californians want higher taxes-can you cite anything to back that contention?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/20/2009 @ 10:13am
Of course we would have a higher tax rate. We have more that the state has to handle.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/19/2009 @ 3:02pm
Thats because everything is a right out there and you give away all the money tax payers sweat to pay in to illegals and every other group.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/20/2009 @ 11:25am
Republicans May Reject Stimulus Money
that'll be the day...
Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 12:32pm
Hey, gold just hit $1000 an ounce. Market tanking again, seems some people believe that spending our way out of the crisis might not actually be a good idea. Thanks Obama!
McCain's bounce had evaporated, and Obama re-took his lead in the polls, in mid- to late-September. At that time (September 19, specifically), the Dow Jones stood at 11,388.
By the end of September, as Obama's lead widened and solidified, the Dow had fallen to 10,325.
It continued its slide through October. The day after the election, it dropped 486 points to 9139.
By inauguration day, when reality could not be finessed any longer, it had fallen to 7949.
In the month since the inauguration, it has continued to drop, and is now at 7530 [Ed.: Now 7466.]. This is the lowest it has been in 12 years, lower by a considerable measure than it was in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 (when the denizens of Wall Street had to fear not just for their portfolios, but for their physical survival).
To sum it up, the market has lost a third of its value in a scant four months -- the four months in which it became clear that Obama would become, and then did become, President.
We hear all the time that the market dive is due to factors that occurred on Bush's watch. That sounds quite plausible; indeed, it's partly true. But mostly it isn't, because it misses the central fact that the direction of the market is about the future, not the past. In other words, the market is much more about expectations than about the financial report for last quarter (which has almost always been anticipated and thus discounted). So it's not Bush's or Paulson's blunders that have put the market where it is today. It is the (unfortunately realized) expectations about Obama's stewardship of the economy that are driving this train,
Posted by pontificus at 02/20/2009 @ 12:47pm
This newest new con repub blood sucking tick drivel screams of fear and desperation.
I think your greatly under/mis/representation of an already unfactual definition of what constitutes "expectations"-- is astounding in it's de-emphasis of how far the hsuB/cHeney admin took their secret deals with an energy, insurance and military industrial / unitary executive / complex - anti-constitutional government.
For the last 8 years trillions of dollars have been siphoned from 'We the people's coffers; what could have been used for our infrastructure, healthcare, education, jobs - investment-- here in the USA. Trillions upon trillions wasted on a war to nowhere / concurrent with tax cuts for the richest and their corporations. Even our back-door drafted wary soldier's future mostly goes to the 'dead'-end job in its hidden healthcare cost which increasingly leads to that six-feet-under solution.
Insurance costs unchecked, energy costs unchecked, healthcare/pharm costs unchecked, disaster relief unchecked, wall street unchecked, banks unchecked, food unchecked-- ultimately from terrorists unchecked... And all so that those with "expectations" of no bid bail outs for the rich and powerful go unchecked.
And that is Obama's fault!?!?!?!
That is simply far fetched and extremely desperate new con repub blood sucking tick revisionist drivel.
But then again Obama is conveying confidence and hope. If anything -- this situation we're in as a nation could be a lot worse if not for the confidence and hope Obama is providing.
Naturally, the new con repub blood sucking ticks would confuse, their own 'hope' of convincing others to shift blame from their own sucking things up so much, to Obama's inability to be the god of curing us of the new con repub blood sucking tick plague.
Posted by hsuBfools at 02/20/2009 @ 3:30pm
It's refreshing to see more and more elected Republicans like Jindal, Palin, Barbour and others actually act like conservatives and not belly up to the taxpayer trough.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
"NOT belly up to the taxpayer trough"?!?!?! Say WHAT?!?!?
Mississippi ALREADY receives more than twice as much money from the federal government than they pay in to it. Compared to all the other states, they rank #2 in receiving federal largesse. Alaska is #3, Louisiana is #4.
To pretend they are now going to reject federal dollars because they are standing on their principles...
...is to laughably pretend that they HAVE principles!
Posted by Lillian at 02/20/2009 @ 4:21pm
repug principles, Big Foot, the Loch Ness monster, alien abductions, etc
Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 5:27pm
Rejection of Obamas policies seem to upset the handout crowd. Good for those that do not want strings attached to their states. If states accept money then they are beholden to Obamas radical ideas of fairness. Control of the masses through the redistribution of the taxpaying class of people is the ultimate wish for an angry black man like Obama.
Posted by apoorspic at 02/20/2009 @ 11:07pm
Trillions upon trillions wasted on a war to nowhere Posted by hsuBfools at 02/20/2009 @ 3:30pm
Trillions and trillions? You sure about that?
By the way, can those in favor of the stimulus give us a timeline on when it will kick in and turn the economy around?
Posted by twillie at 02/20/2009 @ 11:27pm
GOP lawmakers tout projects in the stimulus bill they opposed
By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON -- Rep. John Mica was gushing after the House of Representatives voted Friday to pass the big stimulus plan.
"I applaud President Obama's recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America's future," the Florida Republican beamed in a press release.
Yet Mica had just joined every other GOP House member in voting against the $787.2 billion economic recovery plan.
Republicans echoed their party line over and over during the debate: "This bill is loaded with wasteful deficit spending on the majority's favorite government programs," as Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., put it.
But Mica wasn't alone in touting what he saw as the bill's virtues. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, also had nice things to say in a press release.
Young boasted that he "won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners last night in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/20/2009 @ 11:33pm
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More
By Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz
Sunday, March 9, 2008; B01
There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/20/2009 @ 11:35pm
Hey Pontificas,
You are over interpreting the market and its ability to predict the future. 4th quarter returns are down (e.g. HP).
The 4th quarter occurred in 2008. Obama was innaugurated on January 20th, 2009. One month ago.
Spin all you like.
Posted by Irmanator at 02/20/2009 @ 11:37pm
In reading the history of nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities; their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first. We see one nation suddenly seized, from its highest to its lowest members, with a fierce desire of military glory; another as suddenly becoming crazed upon a religious scruple, and neither of them recovering its senses until it has shed rivers of blood and sowed a harvest of groans and tears, to be reaped by its posterity. At an early age in the annals of Europe its population lost their wits about the Sepulchre of Jesus, and crowded in frenzied multitudes to the Holy Land: another age went mad for fear of the Devil, and offered up hundreds of thousands of victims to the delusion of witchcraft. At another time, the many became crazed on the subject of the Philosopher's Stone, and committed follies till then unheard of in the pursuit. It was once thought a venial offence in very many countries of Europe to destroy an enemy by slow poison. Persons who would have revolted at the idea of stabbing a man to the heart, drugged his pottage without scruple. Ladies of gentle birth and manners caught the contagion of murder, until poisoning, under their auspices, became quite fashionable. Some delusions, though notorious to all the world, have subsisted for ages, flourishing as widely among civilized and polished nations as among the early barbarians with whom they originated, -- that of duelling, for instance, and the be
Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 11:38pm
CRA! CRA! CRA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1) the April 1998, decision of President Clinton's Working Group on Financial Markets to quash a proposal by Brooksley E. Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to regulate derivatives;
2) enactment of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act on November 12, 1999 allowing consolidation of commercial and investment banks;
3) passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 removing derivatives from federal oversight;
4) the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003;
5) the failure of the Federal Reserve to take responsibility for regulating derivatives; and
6) the Securities and Exchange Commission decision in April, 2004, to allow large investment banks to increase their debt-to-capital ratio from 12 to 1 to 30 to 1, or higher.
CRA! CRA! CRA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/20/2009 @ 11:39pm
Jindal has said he wont take $90 million for 3 federal alterations to unemployment benefits. He says it is because when the federal money runs out in 3 years, it would result in an increase of taxes on businesses in Louisiana.
Of course he could just phase out the new benefit clauses in 3 years.
The Louisiana state legislature can overrule the governor and accept the money, thanks to the proviso included in the stimulus bill added by Rep. Clyburn.
So 23k+ unemployed in Louisiana wont suffer for Bobby Jindal's political posturing.
Posted by Irmanator at 02/20/2009 @ 11:46pm
Suicides among serving American soldiers reached a record high last year, as more troops were sent back for multiple tours of the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.The US Army saw suicides among active duty troops leap 20 per cent from 2006, with 121 soldiers taking their own lives during 2007. The increase in attempted suicides and self-inflicted injuries was higher still, jumping six-fold since the war in Iraq began in 2003.
what was the satanic preacher's reaction to this news? first he branded everyone of those men pansies. these are men who served in war, unlike the military loving preacher himself, who was strictly a peace time warrior.
these men who served multiple tours in this fool's errand of a war in Iraq and afghanistan, were pansies. they were not as good a previous generations, which presumable included the satanic preacher himself, a paragon of courage and patriotism.
he also slimed the fathers of these soldiers. it was THEIR fault that their sons iced themselves .they did not raise them right, the way the satanic preacher raised his sons, most honorable men . the blame for their suicides is strictly confined to the soldiers and their parents, en famille so to speak.
the insults the satanic preacher hurled at me, the messenger, and my son, were slight in comparison to the calumny he poured over these men.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 11:52pm
Funny how some of these Senators from the Rep side who voted no on this bill are now bragging about getting money from it. Talk about hypocrisy!!!
Posted by Caj at 02/19/2009 @ 4:29pm ---------------
You are right that it is hypocritical in light of their vote but perhaps it is a sign that they voted "no" under duress.
When they see the economy start turning around hopefully the belligerence and animosity will thaw and perhaps they'll unclench their fists and participate more co-operatively.
Posted by Irmanator at 02/21/2009 @ 12:03am
When they see the economy start turning around hopefully the belligerence and animosity will thaw and perhaps they'll unclench their fists and participate more co-operatively. Posted by Irmanator at 02/21/2009 @ 12:03am
So, when will that economy start turning around? Any takers?
Posted by twillie at 02/21/2009 @ 12:47am
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More By Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz Sunday, March 9, 2008; B01 There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home. Posted by frosty zoom at 02/20/2009 @ 11:35pm
They make no secret of their contempt for both Bush and the war. Think there is an ax to grind? Nah...I'm sure it's all honest accounting. Including the assumption of the "cost" of $100 a barrel oil.
Posted by twillie at 02/21/2009 @ 01:10am
...The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy,....
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/20/2009 @ 11:35pm
How does that square with the opinion of most economists, and historians, that it was WWII that pulled the US out of the GD? Or that the roaring 60s' was attributed to, at least in large part, to the VN War?
In this Age of Magic, isn't all spending GOOD? I mean a bullet fired or drone-dropped missile have to be replaced by manufacturing, labeling, packaging, counting, transporting....paying....inventorying...
IF you read the story of the Air Force veteran whose home in Mesa, AZ is underwater and being raffled off.....part of her problem, shared with many veterans still on active duty, is that their pay is 60% of what it was while deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan while drawing Combat Pay...
So, whether one supports the wars or not, there are ample evidence that spendings for war are stimulative!!!
Posted by Happy at 02/21/2009 @ 2:58pm
A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.
All of them "preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality".
And when we read of the further actions by the selfish 'right' in response to helping our nation forward, and not languishing in a cesspool of their own making, one wonders if the war between the north and the south ever really ended at all.
When you hear repeated name calling, specifically 'Barack the Magic Negro', or 'those on the left', the answer is pretty clear. Racist nationalism.
They also fail this test, invariably:
All fish live in the sea. Sharks live in the sea.. Therefore, sharks are fish.
Right Wing Authoritarians think that sharks are fish.
Posted by ficheye at 02/21/2009 @ 4:25pm
So, whether one supports the wars or not, there are ample evidence that spendings for war are stimulative!!!
Posted by Happy at 02/21/2009 @ 2:58pm
what the fork..............
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/21/2009 @ 5:59pm
So, whether one supports the wars or not, there are ample evidence that spendings for war are stimulative!!! Posted by Happy at 02/21/2009 @ 2:58pm
...............................
Did you just run out of things to say or.... No, there's no chance of that, I suppose.
In the case of the Iraqi war there were so many thieves and subcontractors that the money didn't come back into the economy like it did in most other instances.
But if it's so stimulative, get on over there and make a difference! We'll be proud of you! Send you some cigs and girlie mags! It'll be fun!
Posted by ficheye at 02/21/2009 @ 8:28pm
A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity". As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction. All of them "preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality". And when we read of the further actions by the selfish 'right' in response to helping our nation forward, and not languishing in a cesspool of their own making, one wonders if the war between the north and the south ever really ended at all. When you hear repeated name calling, specifically 'Barack the Magic Negro', or 'those on the left', the answer is pretty clear. Racist nationalism. They also fail this test, invariably: All fish live in the sea. Sharks live in the sea.. Therefore, sharks are fish. Right Wing Authoritarians think that sharks are fish. Posted by ficheye at 02/21/2009 @ 4:25pm
Wow. Been taking drugs? "preached a return to an idealized past". Haven't you heard the Left, on these pages even, clamoring for another New Deal? "Obama can save us, just like FDR."
Also, you may want to check who coined the term, "Barack the Magic Negro". Turns out it was a biracial writer (and leftie, to boot) in the LA Times.
Posted by twillie at 02/21/2009 @ 11:26pm
Any takers on a timeline for the recovery? No? I mean, you all DO think the stimulus will turn the economy around, right?....
Posted by twillie at 02/21/2009 @ 11:54pm
Also, you may want to check who coined the term, "Barack the Magic Negro". Turns out it was a biracial writer (and leftie, to boot) in the LA Times. Posted by twillie at 02/21/2009 @ 11:26pm
Nope. You go check it out, twill. It's the derogatory inference implied by those who use it, not where it came from that I was specifically talking about. The person who created it agreed with that judgement. And if you had read the article you would clearly get the sense that he didn't like Obama very much. ( Quote: He's not MY president" ), so I'm not sure you can really call the guy a 'lefty' or a liberal or whatever. He seems more libertarian. David Ehrenstein. And the quote is from his response to the song and hijacking of his unfortunate choice of words. "If you read my original op-ed with a bit more care you'd not that it was not about Obama personally but rather about the then-growing perception of him in the popular imagination."
No drugs... Thought I'd ask you. Sunny out, tho...
Posted by ficheye at 02/22/2009 @ 12:17am
I read the article. "Derogatory inference implied by those who use it". Are you a mind reader? Are you saying that anyone who uses it is racist? Because, that's what it sounds like you're saying.
It seems to me that those on the left are very skilled at dismissing those with opposing views by labeling them ("Bush is stupid." "Rush is a racist."), rather than arguing the issue. "Conservatives are neurotic". Now, where on the political spectrum do you suppose the authors of that study lie?
Posted by twillie at 02/22/2009 @ 12:32am
bush is stupid.
no doubt.
why don't you ask HIM for a timeline, twillburt.
1) the April 1998, decision of President Clinton's Working Group on Financial Markets to quash a proposal by Brooksley E. Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to regulate derivatives;
2) enactment of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act on November 12, 1999 allowing consolidation of commercial and investment banks;
3) passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 removing derivatives from federal oversight;
4) the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003;
5) the failure of the Federal Reserve to take responsibility for regulating derivatives; and
6) the Securities and Exchange Commission decision in April, 2004, to allow large investment banks to increase their debt-to-capital ratio from 12 to 1 to 30 to 1, or higher.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2009 @ 02:04am
Now, where on the political spectrum do you suppose the authors of that study lie? Posted by twillie at 02/22/2009 @ 12:32am
I thought I heard a thought process.
Part the first:
It's a lot more subtle than that, tweedle-dee, and you know it. You are just doing a dance. ( Sigh)
Now, pay attention class!!
There are some who would use it as a pointed racial slur.
There are some, like maybe you, who would say it, snicker, then say you weren't being racist, like nobody gets the fact that you are being 'patrician racist'. Polite, plausible denial.
And there are others (who might say it innocently) but they are liable to say "what the f**k?'.
It is still being hijacked as a slur, while keeping the guise of moron innocence, just like the ape cartoon of recent news. There's a lot of "What, Me Worry?" in that thinking. Let's not forget the Barack Obama sweatshirts with the monkey on them that some guy down south made, same kind of idiot denials that it wasn't racist. 3 instances which have this pattern denial issue.
How about his quote, etc? It simply refutes what you think is true, that a true blue 'liberal' thought it up and the repugs just ran with it. Don't make me laugh. No, DO make me laugh. The guy didn't like Obama. He was having some leakage on the brain. Factor that in.
As to the study, I'm looking for source, I have to admit. But the place I got it from is usually well researched. I won't forget.
And let's not forget either that Bush was stupid. I'll argue that when the thread goes there, but denying it (?) could be a full time profession. More vacation days than any other president. Let's start there.
Posted by ficheye at 02/22/2009 @ 05:30am
Republicans are demanding to know why the psychologists behind the report,
'Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,
received $1.2m in public funds for their research from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
Have at it Twee. There's the name of the report. Google it.
Posted by ficheye at 02/22/2009 @ 12:38pm
1. "There are some who would use it as a pointed racial slur. 2. "There are some, like maybe you, who would say it, snicker, then say you weren't being racist, like nobody gets the fact that you are being 'patrician racist'. Polite, plausible denial. 3. "And there are others (who might say it innocently) but they are liable to say "what the f**k?'. Posted by ficheye at 02/22/2009 @ 05
1. I, and almost all others in the center and right reject those people and that thought. 2. No, I would not say it, for the simple reason, that it is impolite. However, I would not label everyone using it as a "racist nationalist", like you do. That is a simplistic and unreasonable smear that prevents you from having to consider the views of anyone on the other side of the political spectrum.
3. Whaaa???
Have at it Twee. There's the name of the report. Google it. Posted by ficheye at 02/22/2009 @ 12:38pm
I did. two of the four authers are from UC Berkeley. I rest my case.
One main tenet of their paper is that conservatism is defined as "endorsement of inequality". What elitist liberal ivory tower hogwash. I'm pissed too that they were showered with 1.2 million in tax dollars to produce this drivel.
More vacation days than any other president. Let's start there. Posted by ficheye at 02/22/2009 @ 05:30am
Prove it. With a source other than Daily Kos or moveon.org.
Posted by twillie at 02/22/2009 @ 5:27pm
How about his quote, etc? It simply refutes what you think is true, that a true blue 'liberal' thought it up and the repugs just ran with it. Don't make me laugh. No, DO make me laugh. The guy didn't like Obama. He was having some leakage on the brain. Factor that in.
Posted by ficheye at 02/22/2009 @ 05:30am
Libertarian, lib, or prog, it doesn't matter. The term was not coined by a racist repub, which you suggest, as he is clearly NOT a repub.
Posted by twillie at 02/22/2009 @ 5:50pm
I did. two of the four authers are from UC Berkeley. I rest my case.
Posted by twillie at 02/22/2009 @ 5:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
I toured UC Berkeley with my daughter when looking at schools for her. A very interesting part of the trip was when we happened along a campus building that had 2 parking places right in front that were marked with "NL" in large letters. A parent asked what the NLs stood for. The student guide responded that the "NL" stood for "Nobel Laureate" and the parking spaces were reserved for a couple of them who were on the current faculty in that department. UC Berkeley has had some 20 Nobel Laureates.
'Resting your case' simply because the authors of a study you didn't like were from UC Berkeley makes you appear pretty...
...assinine.
Posted by Lillian at 02/22/2009 @ 9:49pm
Bush on track to become the vacation president
By JULIE MASON Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
Aug. 9, 2007, 9:01PM
President Bush tries to set an example for Americans whenever he can, in terms of physical fitness, faith, optimism and a certain overall moral rectitude. He also sets an excellent example on taking vacation.
On Thursday, Bush left for a weekend in Kennebunkport, Maine, and his family's summer compound, Walker's Point. On Monday, he heads to his Crawford retreat, where he has spent all or part of 418 days of his presidency, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS News White House correspondent and meticulous record-keeper.
The presidential vacation-time record holder is the late Ronald Reagan, who tallied 436 days in his two terms. At 418 days, and with 17 months to go in his presidency, Bush is going to beat that easily.
Even so, this year's August vacation for Bush is a contrast to previous years such as 2005, when he dragged out vacation in Texas to five weeks. That was also the year Bush remained on vacation immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/mason/5042364.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2009 @ 9:50pm
HOW LONG SHOULD A MAN'S VACATION BE?;
President Taft Says Every One Should Have Three Months -- What Big Employers of Labor and Men of Affairs Think on the Subject.
July 31, 1910 Sunday Section: MAGAZINE SECTION,
HOW long should vacations be? According to President Taft, in his heart-to-heart talk before Ear Harbor folk last week, an annual recreation period -- that is, a vacation -- of ten days or two weeks is insufficient.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/22/2009 @ 9:52pm
Libertarian, lib, or prog, it doesn't matter. The term was not coined by a racist repub, which you suggest, as he is clearly NOT a repub. Posted by twillie at 02/22/2009 @ 5:50pm |
Boy, I read my post real hard twill... I don't believe that I said that.
I acknowledged the author and his kookiness, then said that the right took the 'slogan' and twisted it to meet their needs. I mean, that's what 'those the right' are saying. I thought you were from over there. Oh, I forgot... you're a 'centrist conservative... and I'm a centrist liberal. Somethings getting pretty deep around here, and it's not the thought process!
I don't think you are actually reading this stuff. And as for proving that Bush is the ' vacation ' president, that's a known fact of huge proportions. Some of the other bloggers pointed that out, but if you just googled it you'd come up with an amazing number of hits. Dare you! This is so non-debatable. Try arguing with me about something worthwhile. This isn't it.
And I stand by the analysis of conservative psychology. In fact, your postings here (and many of those by others here as well) seem to prove some of the allegations... to wit: "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity". No subtlety allowed. Therefore all sharks are fish to you.
And as far as the monkey and gorilla references in general, I've coined a term which seems to fit this growing and recurrent trend of feigning innocence while racist ...'Implausible deniability'.
And just a bit of information to close: sharks are not technically fish; they are vertebrates which closely resemble fish but differ by having cartilage and a different digestive tract, among other things.
The point here is... if it doesn't apply to you anyway, why so upset?
Posted by ficheye at 02/23/2009 @ 03:18am
We hear all the time that the market dive is due to factors that occurred on Bush's watch. That sounds quite plausible; indeed, it's partly true. But mostly it isn't, because it misses the central fact that the direction of the market is about the future, not the past.
Posted by pontificus at 02/20/2009 @ 12:47pm
In other words, PONTI has absolutely no idea.
Posted by Hman23 at 02/23/2009 @ 09:34am
In other words, PONTI has absolutely no idea. Posted by Hman23 at 02/23/2009 @ 09:34am
Why, what a surprise!
Yes. Let Bush off the hook, invent another world, figure out why it's mostly Clintons fault (but let's not go into the past). Ponti has gone into a fairly liberal forgiveness mode on that post. He'll be back, though.
The Enquirer has gotten into the act. "Bush Depressed and Suicidal" was a recent headline. I guess his 'Whack-a- Mole' business isn't panning out.
Posted by ficheye at 02/23/2009 @ 6:51pm
"And when we read of the further actions by the selfish 'right' in response to helping our nation forward, and not languishing in a cesspool of their own making, one wonders if the war between the north and the south ever really ended at all. When you hear repeated name calling, specifically 'Barack the Magic Negro', or 'those on the left', the answer is pretty clear. Racist nationalism."
"The point here is... if it doesn't apply to you anyway, why so upset? Posted by ficheye at 02/23/2009 @ 03:18am
The point is this... I despise people twisting the truth to prove their ingrained, rigid ideology. If Limbaugh had not picked up on "Barack the MN", it would have passed into well-deserved obscurity. Because he picked it up and ran with it, we have proof of "racist nationalism".
Furthermore, you offer up a reference to "those on the left" as racist nationalism? Maybe you can clarify that in this debate.
See, no "fear and aggression" here!
Posted by twillie at 02/23/2009 @ 10:34pm
"I toured UC Berkeley with my daughter when looking at schools for her. A very interesting part of the trip was when we happened along a campus building that had 2 parking places right in front that were marked with "NL" in large letters. A parent asked what the NLs stood for. The student guide responded that the "NL" stood for "Nobel Laureate" and the parking spaces were reserved for a couple of them who were on the current faculty in that department. UC Berkeley has had some 20 Nobel Laureates. 'Resting your case' simply because the authors of a study you didn't like were from UC Berkeley makes you appear pretty... ...assinine." Posted by Lillian at 02/22/2009 @ 9:49pm
Lill, tell me how you REALLY feel....
In 2000, author Dan Flynn tried to speak at Cal. Among the words of encouragement from students: "NAZI!" "FASCIST!" "WHITE MOTHERF**CKER!" His crime: writing a book about Mumia Abu-Jamal. A member of the student senate suggested that he be arrested if he spoke.
In 2001, when David Horowitz put an ad in the Cal newspaper (I guess he figured an editorial, about why reparations for slavery were a bad idea, probably wouldn't get past the editorial board on the paper), students stormed the editorial offices to demand they print an apology for running the ad. They did.
I'm a graduate of the UC system, so I know Berkeley, Lil. When I said "I rest my case", it was because that paper is the expected product from Cal.
Oh, and those NLs? In Chemistry and Physics. But, I'm sure you knew that, Lillian.
So, just to review: UC Berkeley - good place for chemistry and physics, bad place for free speech. And views opposed by the wing nut left.
Posted by twillie at 02/23/2009 @ 11:01pm