Here are two sharp reads from writers who aren’t buying the Clinton campaign story line.
Christopher Hitchens gleefully dissects the Clintons’ serial fibs, dynastic ambition and sexual baggage and wonders “what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family drama — yet again — a central part of our own politics.â€
And Slate writer Timothy Noah takes on the prevailing unexamined myth of Hillary Clinton’s vast experience.
218 Comments
Amazing, the front runner for the Democratic party is attacked by hit pieces perpetuated by the newspaper- and for what? I had to ASK the editors run a thing on Huck’s Anti-constitutional statement…and now he is saluting the Confederate Flag. Sexual baggage? What did HILLARY do that she deserves this criticism?
And yet, while she offers to bring us back to the best years of American life…the republican party represents more of the same nastiness of the Bush legacy.
No thank you. I’ll take Hillary.
Hey P-Mom,
Have you seen the surveys that show the dumbest of the democrats make up Hillary’s supporters?
Maybe you should read the ‘hit pieces’ before you start your knee-jerk defense of Monica Lewinski’s ex-boyfriend’s wife.
No I haven’t seen that. What idiot would believe that?
NBC news, 7:20AM, on the upcoming NC primary and who is likely to vote for Obama vs. Clinton. According to the polls, black women are split between the two, with the more educated women supporting Obama, the less educated ones supporting Clinton.
Not idiots, pmama, but results of actual voter polls.
I saw the same news story on KSN, nunya. And while it didn’t say “dumbest” it did say less educated.
Hey P_Mom,
Wal-Mart seems to be a favorite target of social liberals. So while Hillary sat on the board, what exactly did she get accomplished? Better working conditions? Better pay? Better insurance?
He, let’s lob you a softball. In all her ’35 years of experience’ can you list 20 years that she actually held ANY office? How about in all those ’35 years’ what exactly did she accomplish?
And here I thought the “liberal media” (sic) would never attack a Democrat.
“But, when asked what she did about the company’s benefits for workers when she served on the board, she replied, “Well, you know, I, that was a long time ago … have to remember…”
“And the board Hillary Clinton sat on was rabidly anti-union, was exploiting sweatshop labor around the world, discriminating against women workers, forcing workers to labor off the clock and destroying communities that did not want them. This should not be a shock: Clinton was a partner in the Rose law firm, one of the most active anti-union law firms in the country.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0207-34.htm
As a Republican, I would say this. For my party, I hope the Democrats nominate Hillary, because that will unify and energize the Republicans like nothing else. For the country, I hope the Democrats nominate Obama, because if the Republicans do lose, I think Obama has a chance to be a a much better president with his undeniably inspiring message and demeanor.
We could still run against him on policies and experience, but he wouldn’t bring out the same passion Hillary would.
Slate nailed that ‘not-wanted’ poster right on the Post Office wall didn’t they. :D
Thanks for the hit piece, Randy.
Hillary on the economy and how she would restore the era when business prospered and government worked (remember then…?):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21clinton.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
SD-
Where was she when she sat on the board @ WalMart? She had her hands IN that pie and she accomplished…
Sol,
If the WalMart hit is the best you and Ron Paul set have, I’d say that Hillary could put that under her eyelid and still feel pretty comfortable.
I don’t want to see the Hillary creature as a candidate. She is one big liar with no experience. The republicans has a better slate of candidates. No Hillary care. Maybe those who would vote for her want to see pervert Bill Clinton and his red faced antics again. Bring on the cigars.
Hank
Posted January 21, 2008 at 7:10 am | Permalink
Hey P-Mom,
Have you seen the surveys that show the dumbest of the democrats make up Hillary’s supporters?
Maybe you should read the ‘hit pieces’ before you start your knee-jerk defense of Monica Lewinski’s ex-boyfriend’s wife.
Political_mama
Posted January 21, 2008 at 7:12 am | Permalink
No I haven’t seen that. What idiot would believe that?
—————————————————————————————————-
None of them believe it.
Really? She is the socialist warrior and did absolutely NOTHING about WalMart WHEN SHE WAS ON THE BOARD.
And can you speak of her <35 years of experience> ::big f’in eye roll:: ? What exactly has she accomplished in her <35 years of experience>?
You people really need to wake up. What has any republican ever done for you or the state of KS? Having been in KS politic all my life as well as all of my family, it seems to me non of you really understand politics. You think you are republican because you think you are better than everyone else, when you are really showing your ignorance. What the republicans do to this country whenever they are in office is astonishing at best. The worst you can say about Clinton is he got sex while in office, which you men are just jealous. At least if Hiliary is elected, the republicans have cleared her of everything they could think of throwing at her, so maybe she can get the things done this country so desperately needs. THis country is in serious trouble and for anyone to be so trite about any candidate is very sad. And just so you remember you are in the USA, whether you are educated or not, you still have a vote, at least until the republicans change that too.
Aren’t unions left leaning socialist organizations?
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Clinton’s+’experience:’+Exactly+what+is+it?&articleId=0d7ca376-f7f5-445d-9ab7-993be0893015
“Her husband is keeping secret many of those records — 2,600 pages worth, a National Archives official told The New York Sun. The Clintons have claimed that the National Archives won’t release the records, but the Archives official in charge says Bill Clinton has not authorized their release.
This is not a trivial issue. Among those records is Mrs. Clinton’s schedule, which would help show just how involved she really was in her husband’s administration.
Because she has made her “experience” her primary qualification for the presidency, the people deserve to see exactly what experience she really has. Which policies did she help shape? Which did she oppose? Did she serve as a de facto staff member or did her role primarily consist of whispering suggestions into her husband’s ear? That history is blackened out, and she is keeping it that way. Why?”
I hope Clinton is the Dem nominee:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-records-re-hillary-s-health-care-reform-plan-0
Among the highlights of the documents released by Judicial Watch:
• A June 18, 1993 internal Memorandum entitled, “A Critique of Our Plan,” authored by someone with the initials “P.S.,” makes the startling admission that critics of Hillary’s health care reform plan were correct: “I can think of parallels in wartime, but I have trouble coming up with a precedent in our peacetime history for such broad and centralized control over a sector of the economy…Is the public really ready for this?… none of us knows whether we can make it work well or at all…”
• A “Confidential” May 26, 1993 Memorandum from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Hillary Clinton entitled, “Health Care Reform Communications,” which criticizes the Task Force as a “secret cabal of Washington policy ‘wonks’” that has engaged in “choking off information” from the public regarding health care reform. The memorandum suggests that Hillary Clinton “use classic opposition research” to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton Administration from Task Force deliberations and to “expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists” in order to deflect criticism. Senator Rockefeller also suggested news organizations “are anxious and willing to receive guidance [from the Clinton Administration] on how to time and shape their [news] coverage.”
• A February 5, 1993 Draft Memorandum from Alexis Herman and Mike Lux detailing the Office of Public Liaison’s plan for the health care reform campaign. The memorandum notes the development of an “interest group data base” detailing whether or not organizations “support(ed) us in the election.” The database would also track personal information about interest group leaders, such as their home phone numbers, addresses, “biographies, analysis of credibility in the media, and known relationships with Congresspeople.”
Conclusion of Judicial Watch:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-records-re-hillary-s-health-care-reform-plan-0
“These documents paint a disturbing picture of how Hillary Clinton and the Clinton administration approached health care reform – secrecy, smears, and the misuse of government computers to track private and political information on citizens,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “There are millions more documents that the Library has yet to release. The Clintons continue to play games and pretend they have nothing to do with this delay. The Clintons should get out of the way and authorize the release of these records now.”
To read about Judicial Watch’s pursuit of other Clinton era documents click here.
But Clinton has TONS of EXPERIENCE!
?
?
?
http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/showthread.php?t=127143
Default Hillary Rodham Clinton: An Analysis Worth Reading
“I thought she was the most gifted person of our generation.” Bill Clinton
An Analysis Worth Reading
By Dick Morris, former political advisor to President Bill Clinton
If you happen to see the Bill Clinton five minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying that he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary’s background . . .
beware . . .
As I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone, I offer a few corrections;
Bill says: “In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.”
The facts are: Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.
Bill says: “Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children’s rights project for poor kids.”
The facts are: Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.
Bill says: “Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.”
The facts are: She flunked the DC bar exam, yes, flunked, it is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas, none, and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She did not join the prestigious Rose Law Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.
Bill says: “President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its chairman.”
The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary then became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.
Bill says: “She served on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital.”
The facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-mart board of directors, for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.
Bill says: “Hillary didn’t succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994 but she kept working at it and helped to
create the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance.”
The facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I know; I helped to negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals’ tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.
Bill says: “Hillary was the face of America all over the world.”
The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.
Bill says: “Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for children’s and women’s issues.”
The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 911 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation. Presently she is trying to have the US memorialize the Woodstock fiasco of 40 years ago.
WTF? Are these “I hate Clintons” threads going to be a regular feature for the WE? We had one yesterday too. Not to mention the day before, and the pro-obama thread featuring the loser has been jill docking. (Remind me again why we should care WTF jill docking thinks? Why it is “news”?)
Facts mean nothing when the mighty anti-Clinton wurlitzer gets wound up. I wouldnt even TRY to dispute any of the hill haters here. It would be like dipping out of the ocean with a teaspoon. Does anyone REALLY think their minds can be changed?
Scroll over territory. The repukes wont vote for a dem, no matter WHICH dem wins the nomination. But pander away WE. I say abandon these threads to the clinton haters. At least all their vitriol will be contained to one thread where they can all congratulate themselves on their irrationality.
And the sebelius bots have already endorsed Obama, and as we all know, no one in this state crosses governor leadership or her merry band of henchmen. Obviously the WE has been bought and sold by jill docking and the sebelius “I heart Obama” crowd.
And folks here accuse some posters of irrational bushhate? heheheheheheh. Randy, I thought better of you. Does jill docking have your direct line on speed dial? (big eye roll)
Hypocrisy, thy name is…
grrl,
If it makes you feel any better, the Obama/anti-gay problem is all over the net. Too bad the MSM hasn’t picked up on it.
I wonder when the Hsu and other Clinton Culture of Corruption Campaign investigations will be complete?
December 2008?
Hey the KC Star just endorsed Clinton!
The Eagle is adding some balance. (If only a tiny bit of balance)
Sol, why is that a “problem” for Obama?
Does Clinton have a lock on the homosexual market?
Dick Morris and Judicial Watch.
Definitely two sources to take with a grain of salt. One definitely has his own ethics issues and is certainly bitter towards the Clintons, the other is a very conservative advocacy group.
Doesn’t make what they say wrong, but they are very very far from unbiased sources.
And in fact, Dick Morris is scum. Period.
Hillary is not the socialist monster Max makes her out to be (but then, probably anyone to the left of someone like Karl Peterjohn is a potential socialist monster to someone like Max). I personally am very unenthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. I think she is ambitious first, and I would agree she overstates her experience. And, as has been pointed out, she arouses passion in the Republican base (probably completely unjustified in proportion to what she actually has done). I was at the Cosmosphere recently, and I have to say I think we can use an inspiring leader who at least appears to be above the partisan pettiness of the last 16 years. I can pretty much guarantee that we will have a continiuation of that sort of pettiness we have had even if Clinton herself tried to rise above it, because she has been so demonized by the right wing media machine that the Republican party will unite to oppose pretty much everything she does. There won’t even be a honeymoon with a Clinton presidency. And that’s assuming she wins. I think Clinton is a very beatable candidate for someone like a McCain.
And for the sake of balance, particularly in the federal judiciary, we can not afford a Republican Administration in 2009.
Christopher Hitchens is a professional Clinton Hater, a dues paying member of that right wing fraternity.
He adds about as much to the political discourse as Jay Leno.
Hitchens is strictly scroll over material.
All three of the top tier Democrats would make a better president than any of the Republicans.
And no one could be a worse president than George W Bush, except maybe Guiliani and Romney.
Farmgrl if McCain is the repub nominee and Obama is the dem candidate – I will vote for Obama. There you have it. One republican who will vote democratic.
ksagnostic, sorry, but I think no matter who the dems nominate, the wingnuts will go after them hammer and tong. I dont think there is going to be a honeymoon no matter which person wins the White House.
Thinking that if the dems and/or the left are just “nice enough” the wingnuts will cooperate is fantasy of the Pelosi/Reid kind.
I’m with JR on this on. No conciliation, no playing nice. Just hardball until the democracy hating wingnuts are beaten into oblivion.
Burn ‘em down, then salt the earth underneath them. That’s the ONLY way we can wipe out facism in these “united” states.
WSClark
Posted January 21, 2008 at 10:28 am | Permalink
Christopher Hitchens is a professional Clinton Hater, a dues paying member of that right wing fraternity.
“Hitchens is an outspoken atheist and antitheist, and he describes himself as a believer in the Enlightenment values of secularism, humanism and reason. His 2007 book god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything claims that organized religion is “violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.”[8][9"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens
WS you might want to look a little harder at Hitchens. He is hardly right wing.
And if Hillary gets the nod I’m ever so sure the campaign will be ice cream and tater chips. You’ve already seen how she attacks her own kind. Cut her lose on a republican.
…and wouldnt it be nice to restore competance to the federal government? No matter how trite, it WOULD be nice to have the trains run on time, and Clinton certainly could do that.
Or, we could just continue the wholesale looting of the US treasury and the Halliburton and Blackwater relief programs masquerading as national security.
See also: Katrina, etc.
Hate is going to be the order of the day for this country for a very long time. Might as well make the trains run on time, since no matter the occupant, the White House will preside over a deeply divided nation.
Farmgrl you and JR are certainly a pair. Hatred eats the vessel carrying it from the inside out. You might should work on that.
“Christopher Hitchens is a professional Clinton Hater, a dues paying member of that right wing fraternity.”
Actually, Hitchens is a professional jerk, and he is pretty equal opportunity in his jerkdom. He goes after sacred cows on both the right and the left, and does it in the most offensive way he can. Sometimes he is even right. Lots of times he greatly (and intentionally) exaggerates. He is, in fact, a truly professional troll.
Sol, until either the left or the right wins complete control of the government, we’re gonna have deep hatred here. Personally? I’d rather be rid of the facists among us.
And why in the hell, when Hillary tells the truth about Obama is it “going after him”, but when Obama talks against the Clintons, it’s just “politics”?
Like I give a buggered rat what germie thinks?
hehehehehehehhehehe!
Obama has finally said enough is enough when the Clinton machine came after him again. Look at the Drudge report today. He has declared war on Bill for his lies and expects Hillary to straighten him out or kick him off the campaign.
The country is fed up with the Clinton Dynasty.
Double standards abound.
One of the things I liked about Bill Clinton was that he actually was a uniter. Not real fond of a lot of his policies, but he reached across the aisle.
I don’t see Hillary doing that. Not in the least. And as you advocate, more derivation. I don’t see that as headway.
Ksgrm, I hope before you would vote for Obama over McCain, you look at their records.
I don’t love McCain either, but he is the lessor of those 2 evils. Here are 6 differences, supported by the links below:
http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/John_McCain.htm
McCain plusses over Obama:
–Tough on Crime – Favors 3 Strikes laws, For Death Penalty
–Supports 2nd Amendment – Voted against Brady
–Favors some private ownership of Social Security
–Favors school vouchers
–Opposes tax increases (though he voted against the Bush tax cuts)
–Lastly and probably the biggest difference: Strong on National Defense
Farmgrl it is easy to throw out names like facist but much harder to define them. What exactly are you referring to as ‘facist’?
If you remember the repubs had complete control of the gov for a short while. They didn’t use that capital and ’shared’ power with the left. What a mistake. What makes you think that one party having all of the control would benefit one party or the other?
“Strong on National Defense”
Do you equate continued war as national security? If you think about it, the war has drained our security. We lose equipment and personnel.
Re-think your McCain backing. While stumping in Michigan, McCain was asked “If president, how many more wars would you get us into?”
McCain’s response “Many, but we’ll win them all. “
A(nother) war hungry president? Thanx no, I’ll pass.
ksfarmgrrl
Posted January 21, 2008 at 10:36 am | Permalink
Hate is going to be the order of the day for this country for a very long time. Might as well make the trains run on time, since no matter the occupant, the White House will preside over a deeply divided nation.
——————————————————————————————————–
This says it all about farmgirl. Full of hate and vile contempt.
Max I have looked at his record. His actions don’t mesh with his actions. His best friends in DC are left wingers. He talks out of both sides of his mouth and I’m not sure I could support someone that hypocritical.
Hope he is not the candidate but it would take some soul searching or Hillary being the nominee to make me a McCain supporter.
“One of the things I liked about Bill Clinton was that he actually was a uniter.”
A rare occasion, Mr. Dev VB and I agree on something.
At least Clinton tried to work with the Republicans, even as they were trying to boot him out of office.
That is a lot more than the self-proclaimed “Uniter, not a Divider” has done.
One of the main reasons that I support Barack Obama is that I DO believe that he can and will work to unite us and bring real solutions to the table, not just Democratic or Republican talking points.
deep hatred here? Facists? Have I been reading a different blog? Other than the venom being spewed out by this ksfrmgrl person, I haven’t seen any real animosity…did I miss the hatred part?
Tsk tsk.
Randy was VERY obvious in his hatred for Senator Clinton the other day.
He must be one of those Obama idiots who think the right can be “worked with”.
Instead of an umpteenth hit thread on Senator Clinton, could we have something new?
ksgrm
Posted January 21, 2008 at 10:44 am | Permalink
Farmgrl it is easy to throw out names like facist but much harder to define them. What exactly are you referring to as ‘facist’?
——————————————————————————————————-
This is simply a democraticundergound.com talking point.
There is no rationale behind this statement or anything else on that web site except for:
Gimme Gimme Gimme More From Big Government
ie: Complete Income and Asset redistribution as the Big Government sees fit to do.
. . .it WOULD be nice to have the trains run on time, and Clinton certainly could do that.
Isn’t that what good ol’ Benito was famous for?
LOL
Hank I always think of what Pelosi said when she was running for speaker of the house. It will take a woman to clean this house out. She set the women’s lib movement back at least a decade. Hillary said something in that same order. Can’t remember the exact verbage so won’t quote it.
Pelosi hasn’t done a blasted thing since becoming speaker – except improve the menu in the house cafeteria. Just as a good mommy would do.
Hillary has painted herself in that same corner by being emotional after losing Iowa and having her hubby tell the world that ‘the boys are picking on me’.
I can’t see how anyone can vote for her with a clear conscience. It must be the handouts she offers. It certainly won’t be because she is qualified.
Go ahead and attack the credibility of Judicial Watch if you like, but then you would also have to discredit the documents themselves that they have just exposed.
From Jay Rockefeller (A Democrat US Senator!):
http://judicialwatch.org/files/2007/0108HRCHealthcareRockefeller_0.pdf
From Alexis Herman (US Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton) and Mike Lux (Special Assistant to Bill Clinton):
http://judicialwatch.org/files/2007/0108HRCHealthcarePublicLiaison_0.pdf
From P.S. (Could be: Paul Starr (born May 12, 1949) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University.
…
In 1993, Starr was the senior advisor for President Bill Clinton’s proposed health care reform plan.)
http://judicialwatch.org/files/2007/0108HRCHealthcareCritique_0.pdf
Hillary would be one of the most pre-vetted candidates in history, there will be no surprises. Just alot of recirculation of old rumors and accusations.
Pelosi has not been ABLE to do anything substantive exactly because of foot draggers like you “ksgrm”.
They tried to expand health care for children without insurance. bush killed the program.
They tried to end the occupation of Iraq. YOUR side spun it as leaving the troops without funding.
You are not about America or getting things done “ksgrm”. You are about what bush got you. The one and only issue of getting YOU more.
Ksgrm – You brought up a very interesting point. You said if it was McCain against Obama, you would vote Obama. Apparently, a lot of Republicans DO NOT LIKE McCain. I didn’t realize this since I’m not of the party and do not listen to Rush, Hannity, etc. So my thinking is if it’s Obama and McCain, we could possibly have quite a bit of crossover from the Republicans. However, if it is Clinton, I cannot imagine ANY crossover, because Republican hate for Clinton is more than Republican dislike for McCain.
“She set the women’s lib movement back at least a decade.”
Huh? The first female Speaker of the House set the women’s rights movement back? She hasn’t got a lot done because the Republican obstructionists are doing the same things that they accused the Democrats of doing.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – Cite This Source – Share This
fas·cist /?fæ??st/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[fash-ist] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
2. (often initial capital letter) a member of a fascist movement or party.
3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.
–adjective 4. Also, fa·scis·tic /f????st?k/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[fuh-shis-tik] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation. of or like fascism or fascists.
Duh germie. Duh Max. Check out number three. Sounds like you “two” if you really are two people…
Max quotes Dick Morris and germie quotes Drudge and then they whine about democratic underground?
hehehehehehehehehhehehehehehhehehehehheheheheeh!
TDT not sure what you meant about not being of the party and not listening to talk radio. You must have me confused with JR. He listens to talk radio. I do if in my car which isn’t often during the day.
I do read Drudge each day because he give a balanced picture and also some interesting reading you don’t see in the MSM. An article today on cell phone use before bedtime was very interesting.
I am a curious person who looks at the entire picture, does my own homework and then makes an informed decision.
Try it – it is very enlightening.
I also think it is side-splitting funny that two of the BIGGEST wingnuts on the board, seeing the repukes about to get their asses kicked in November, want to talk NOW about cooperation?
I think the time for that was in 2000.
Ya know what they say, paybacks are a biotch. I hear the sounds of all those newt/bush/lott/hastert chickens coming home to roost in the voting this November.
And color me surprised that both max and germie COULD support a homophobe like Obama…
“I do read Drudge each day because he give a balanced picture”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh yeah, drudge will give you the ENTIRE picture.
HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEEEEEEEEEE!
Farm grl number one certainly describes the left wing. Number 2 not so much anyone I know and number 3 you say describes the right wing.
What you didn’t do was define fascism. What do radical right wing people believe in? What do radical left wing people sympathize with?
Didn’t do your homework well. I would have to give you an ‘incomplete’ on this one.
hehehehehheheheh. Still laughing.
“does my own homework and then makes an informed decision.”
So grmie, in your search for fairness and balance, which LEFT WING websites do you research?
Go ahead and attack the credibility of Judicial Watch if you like, but then you would also have to discredit the documents themselves that they have just exposed.
From Jay Rockefeller (A Democrat US Senator!):
http://judicialwatch.org/files/2007/0108HRCHealthcareRockefeller_0.pdf
From Alexis Herman (US Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton) and Mike Lux (Special Assistant to Bill Clinton):
http://judicialwatch.org/files/2007/0108HRCHealthcarePublicLiaison_0.pdf
From P.S. (Could be: Paul Starr (born May 12, 1949) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University.
In 1993, Starr was the senior advisor for President Bill Clinton’s proposed health care reform plan.)
http://judicialwatch.org/files/2007/0108HRCHealthcareCritique_0.pdf
Frmgrl I will have to give you a thumbs up on being able to laugh often. Your endomorphins must be off the scale. Take off the liberal glasses. Look at Drudge and rate each story right, left or centrist and post your numbers.
Interesting.
I’m shocked, SHOCKED I say that germie doesnt think that dictionary.com definition defines fascism. hehehehehehheehhehehehehehehe. BIG surprise there.
You know wingnuts. When they ask for something and you give it to them, one’s too many and a hundred’s not enough.
I think grmie would rathter discuss the meaning of the word “is”.
Or maybe dictionary.com has a political bias?
See also: communist under every teacup
FG well I don’t read the Demoundergrnd. I do look at several news sources among them the AP, ABC, FOX, UP and several mags including Newsweek and Time.
What makes up your reading list?
Oh it’s not just those “two” kfg.
There seems to be wide and deep “grudging ok” with Obama on the right.
I note blog proll for the soulless GOP paulthecon is not scrambling to post frantic links against Barack.
I note also the better? on the left wanting to choose Obama out of a desire to end the fighting.
Politics aint a tea party.
Just yesterday on cspan, I saw Karl Rove giving a motivational speech to the GOP national committee!
They are not putting away THEIR knives. We should not be nominating a girl scout to deal with them.
“So grmie, in your search for fairness and balance, which LEFT WING websites do you research?”
Nice dodge. I didnt think you’d answer the question.
I guess we can assume you ONLY research the sites that agree with you?
color me surprised….
heeeeeeee JR, dont you mean boy scout?
The gop thinks the dems and the left will AWAYS play Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football.
“Nominate Obama and we will play nice and cooperate” says the repukes.
“This time we REALLY mean it”.
Big eye roll…
“A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition …”
http://www.mrlambersky.com/terms.html
Farmgrl, Did your homework for you. Hardly defines conservatism does it? Would be much more defining of liberals. Put one person in charge of everyone and all of the money. They despense it as they see fit.
Ksgrm,
Farmie has no idea how to identify specifically what beliefs define a person to be “fascist”.
All Conservatives are fascists according to Farmie.
“What makes up your reading list?”
I never made the assertion that I researched the opposition.
If I want to know the wingnut talking points for the day, I just come here.
Farmgrl I have to leave now but you just keep having this conversation with yourself. You will hardly notice I’m gone. Catch you on the flip side.
“. . .it WOULD be nice to have the trains run on time, and Clinton certainly could do that.
Isn’t that what good ol’ Benito was famous for?”
And isnt it interesting that bush couldnt even do as good a job as Benito?
Except for the fascism part…
Neoconservatism
1. Taxes and Federal Budget: “Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth.” In Kristol’s view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: “One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth.”[8]
2. Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. “Neocons do not feel … alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable.”[8]
3. Traditional Moral Values: “The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives”. Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservates in using the government to enforce morality: “Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power.”[8]
4. Expansionist Foreign Policy: “Statesmen should … distinguish friends from enemies.” And according to Kristol, “with power come responsibilities … if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.”[8]
5. National Interest: “the United States of today, inevitably … [will] feel obliged to defend … a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces …that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II … that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today.”[8]
““A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition”
OMG and grmie and max think that defines the LEFT?
Hehehehehhehehehhehehehehhehhhehhehhehehheheh…..
Sounds like a spot on definition of bushco and the republican right.
Rush is expounding RIGHT NOW on how Huckabee and McCain are conspiring to draw votes away from Romney and drive old Willard outta the race.
The candidate of choice for the neocons SEEMS to be Willard Romney. YOU know? The corporate raider?
And the march to corporofascism continues.
So… WHEN will we get a thread on
THE CASE AGAINST OBAMA.
Or…
THE CASE AGAINST ROMNEY
Or…
THE CASE AGAINST ANYONE BUT HILLARY
??????
Fascism, the most misunderstood and misused word in political and social debate today methinks.
Fascism can be right or left. It can be economic or social or both.
I’m all for the “CASE AGAINST ROMNEY”
How bout it WE editors? How bout some good old Romney Voter Fraud?
How bout some good old flat out ROMNEY LIES threads? How bout you do a little research on the tripe ROMNEY spewed in Michigan? How about SOMEONE in the media call him on his BS?
JR
corporofascism, nice word there JR, you make that up?
I’m with ya there kfg.
Senator Clinton is certainly vetted by trial by fire.
She needs no more trials.
Barack gets a pass.
Romney? We don’t even know much about his faith and we have the GOP aok with writing religion into the Constitution.
Come on Randy! I expect this stuff from Rhonda. Exercise your intellectual curiousity. Senator Clinton has all the considerable mind power behind talk radio turning her inside out.
Let’s have some exploration of the other candidates.
Such a lame defense of HRC.
Yawwwwwnnnnnnnn………
Hey tippy, I read what you posted on pmom’s blog.
And I dont have a mullet….
bigot
Funny how a warped perspective can bend your sense of reality.
After getting almost exclusively left slanted threads regarding this election, and participating in the pillaring of conservative candidates, the liberals whine like children when someone posts a thread topic critical of their favorite.
Actually, it is hillaryous.
You are a person of faith outlander.
What do YOU know about the religion of Willard Romney?
What do any of us know?
Now it is not my side of things tends to writing religion into law outlander.
Maybe you yourself might be concerned. If Willard Romney is your candidate, what tenets of his faith would he try to write into the Constitution?
Should we not better understand that faith? You know, before he gets in the position to legislate it on us?
If Willard Romney is your candidate, what tenets of his faith would he try to write into the Constitution?
—-
I’m undecided JR. But why don’t you raise the same question with any other candidates? Hmmmm… Prejudiced?
Not at all prejudiced outlander.
Your guy so far as I can tell is Huckabee.
He wants to change the Constitution to reflect his (your) faith.
The faith of such as you and Huckabee is a known quantity. And we don’t want THAT wrote into the Constitution.
Should we not better understand the religion of Willard Romney before we afford him the try at writing it into law? You know, since it is a less know quantity?
Since when is a search for information prejudice?
JR
What about Billary’s religion? What do we know about that? She sure spends a lot of time campaingning in churches, does she even believe in God or is she just pandering?
I’m concerned that Obama and Hillary might write their beliefs into law.
What, you mean they can’t legislate?
Oh sorry. I guess that was a stupid comment. Sound like anything else you heard here?
Hey like I say, it is not my side of things talking about altering the Constitution to accomodate religion.
JR put your little mind at rest. Presidents can’t rewrite the constitution.
When we start vetting every candidates religion then we will probably get to Romney. After all C comes before R.
Oh and JR I was in my car just now listening to Rush. Had an errand to run. He was putting that caller on. Get it. He was quietly making fun of him and the caller just didn’t get it.
As I said dumb listeners shouldn’t tune Rush in. He didn’t today nor has he yet endorsed a prez candidate.
If you are going to report on talk radio you have to get it right or you will lose that job.
Rush will only show who he is against.
He’s against Huckabee and McCain. Rudy isn’t running and Fred is just awaiting burial.
Who does that leave?
“As I said dumb listeners shouldn’t tune Rush in.”
Correct, I agree completely. Dumb listeners are way too smart for Rush Limbaugh. Only true idiots understand Rush. He speaks their language.
“As I said dumb listeners shouldn’t tune Rush in.”
If it wasn’t for “dumb listeners”, his ratings would tank.
This is a great post about Obama racking up the homophobe endorsements and the special endorsement from shrub’s “spiritual advisor”.
Oh, and you repukes should feel free not to click.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×4141581
Hehehehehe. Bush’s “spiritual advisor” and jill docking are on the same team?
Kansas democrats must be EVER so proud…
MAX — Dont you consider a Tax Cut in your bracket to be a “handout” from government??
If not, WHY not??
Heckler —
Hillary IS now, and as far as I know, has ALWAYS been a Methodist(United Methodist). She was a Methodist growing up in Chicago burbs, and has always been affiliated with them. Not a good idea for you to want to take on the 2nd largest protestant denomination in the country!!
Chas, it would be a handout if the Government gave me back MORE then I paid in.
That’s the big debate right now in Congress.
How to enact a tax cut and give money to people who don’t pay any taxes.
THAT would be welfare.
A tax cut returns money to the taxpayers who EARNED it. It wasn’t the Government’s money before they took it.
If you don’t pay any taxes, then there is nothing to cut. What do you want, NEGATIVE taxes? That’s what the Unearned Income Tax Credit is.
An $800 refund would be less then 10% of what I pay in.
How about you Chas?
Max – a lot of that arithmetic depends on whether you include payroll taxes in your calculation.
And by the way – EIC is calculated based on EARNED income – interest, dividends, other investment income etc are excluded. Check out the forms, worksheets, and calculations.
It wasn’t the Government’s money before they took it.
It was and still isn’t the Government’s money. It belongs to those that earned it.
The proper term is theft.
OK so that sounded really stupid. It was NEVER the government’s money
Much more gooder.
MAX — I didnt ask you about the proposed $800 rebate (which will add to the AGI next year)..
I clearly asked you if you consider a Tax Cut in your bracket to be a hand out from government..
If not, WHY not?? It is money given to YOU by the government, that you dont have to pay!!
Thing is Sol – how can the government pay for things like Bush’s war without revenues?
I love this reasoning… Lets CUT our income, and by cutting our Income, we increase what we make?? That is one good fiduciary trick!! LOL total fabrication!!
CHAS,
If I take $1,000 from you, then I return $100, is that a hand-out?
No.
What income are you talking about cutting Chas?
Chas,
You can look at Federal Revenues after the Reagan tax cut in the 1980’s and see that after the tax cut, Federal Revenue Increased!
The same thing happened after the Bush tax cuts.
Max – on the other hand, if I do $1000 work for you (say fighting a stupid war) then the $100 back IS a hand-out.
Max, youre the self-proclaimed genius… you figure it out… IF you get a tax cut, that means you dont pay in at the $1,000 rate… but at the lower rate…
The income?? Well, taxes paid from people like you and me… They want to CUT that income (tax cuts), and then they claim that will increase Income to the government!! Ridiculous!!
Only a Socialist Liberal looks at Federal Tax Revenue as Income!
The Income is earned by The People.
Ben
Posted January 21, 2008 at 2:29 pm | Permalink
Thing is Sol – how can the government pay for things like Bush’s war without revenues?
Ben,
By exiting or most bogus adventure in the middle east, pulling our troops off of foreign soil, collapsing the bloated government back to where it should be, we can eliminate income tax and still have a budget to protect our borders, defend our nation, etc. etc. etc.
Max, Federal Tax Revenue IS the Income of the Government…. It’s their pay check!!
You could call YOUR annual income revenue, if you want… Can you LOSE revenue in your business, and then say that your lost revenue will boost your future revenue??? That is what BushCo claims happens by making Tax Cuts!! It doesnt float, Max!!
Perhaps Sol – I’m not sure. But at least we are on the same page about Bush’s war – a war that, as I recall, max supports. Just doesn’t want to pay for.
Chas,
The fed has more income than just income tax. If I pay in 1,000 in taxes and receive $100 back, that is in no way shape or form a -hand out-. Quite the opposite. I have been robbed of $900.
A war that will be paid for with oil dollars. Still waiting for THAT dog to hunt.
Sol — I was not talking about a REFUND, which is what you described… I was referring directly to the TAX CUT…. TAX CUT, Sol… Not TAX REFUND… I do know the difference… Hang with the same page here…
IF your business brings in $100,000, and then you lower your “prices” and you lose $20,000… How can you call that an increase in your business revenue???
And yet, that is what Bush keeps on saying… By using tax cuts, he thinks he can increase government income!! Basic Bookkeeping says differently!!
Sol – NO PROBLEM! After the “weeks, maybe months, definitely not years” when the war is over we simply pump the oil from peaceful democratic Iraq.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Questions Congress Needs to Ask Before Authorizing Bush’s ‘See, Hear, Speak No Evil’ Saudi Arms Deal
* Has the Saudi Arabian Government stopped Saudi financing of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq through charity fronts and otherwise, and how will this interdiction be monitored?
How will Saudi Arabia monitor its 814 kilometer border with Iraq and make it impenetrable to clandestine movement of equipment, men and funding in support of those interests intent on sabotaging the Iraqi government and presenting grave danger to coalition forces (please see post “Iraq’s Oil Production at Post Invasion Lows. Cui Bono?,” 4/02/06)?
Good point Ben.
If the Government takes $1,000 from me and spends $1,200 there is a deficit of $200.
If the Government gives me back $900 without cutting spending, yeah it makes the problem worse, a deficit of $300.
I’d be real happy if the Government would tax me $900, spend $900, and give me back nothing.
From a long-term perspective -
A Recession calls for:
Tax Cuts, Spending Increases
A Rapid Expansion calls for:
Tax Increases, and Spending Decreases
THAT MODEL WORKS. The problem is, Government NEVER, EVER has or will CUT Spending!
Chas: The reason that you don’t understand why tax cuts can increase revenue to the government is that you assume the pie is limited. Economic activity produces tax revenue. Tax cuts produce economic activity. There is a certain point along the tax rate/tax revenue frontier that where revenue is maxed out. Try not to be so stiff in your thinking.
Ooops, if the Gov’t gives me back $100, not $900.
(Who Cares? Gov’t can’t get the math right either!)
And when you take that pie, and you recut all the pieces to be the same (regardless of who made that piece of pie), you have completely lost any incentives for making more pie.
Thus, Socialism results in a shrinking Total Pie, though the pieces all become equal.
Psssssssssssst, Outlander, what about the deficit and the National Debt?
Trickle down economics has never produced a balanced budget, so when will begin paying the bills?
Outlander… IF you lose 1/3 of your income, does it produce economic activity, and boost your income because of it?? And especially if you increase or even maintain your level of spending??
MAX only in your mind are the pieces of the pie being re-cut…
If YOU get a tax cut, and I get a tax cut, then that is $X that the government will NOT get… but that doesnt make your income and mine the same!! Knock off with your crazy Socialist paranoia for a while, and just do the math!!
Chas,
The way the government gets money is not the same as a business. Your analogies are silly.
If the government can stimulate the economy by encouraging people to invest and spend money by taking less from them (or giving them a tax refund or credit), it will in turn increase revenue to the government.
WSClark
Posted January 21, 2008 at 3:04 pm | Permalink
Psssssssssssst, Outlander, what about the deficit and the National Debt?
Trickle down economics has never produced a balanced budget, so when will begin paying the bills?
—————————————————————————————————-
And that is because the SPENDING has never been cut during periods of Economic Growth.
(See post above)
Chas: How can you compare an individual with an economy? Tax cuts are not decreasing the government’s income (tax revenue), dependent upon where you are on the tax rate/tax revenue frontier. You are likely increasing it.
Now, of course, there is a point where further tax cuts cannot produce enough extra economic activity to make up for the reduced tax rate. I’m not an economist so I don’t know where we are along that frontier.
Nathan, thats pure trickle down, voo doo economics… never has worked yet… and IMHO, it never will!!
The ONLY possibility for that to make extra revenue for the Feds, is IF the tax payers are able to make SO MUCH extra revenue, that they rise to a higher tax bracket!! In which case, the original tax credit(cut) is bogus!!
Max
True dat
Chas – the theory is that by cutting prices I sell more. That way I make less per unit but more overall. While the parallel is not exact the theory would then be that by stimulating the economy oevrall revenues would increase. This is called the Laffer curve.
The problem we are facing is that the GOP-controlled government ran up such huge deficits over the past six years.
They are mis-applying Keynesian economics. According to Keynes we should run deficits in hard times (prime the pump) but run SURPLUSES in good times. Clinton is the only president in my lifetime who understood that.
Chas,
You really are being silly.
If you raise taxes, you decrease the expendable revenue of the taxpayer. Ergo, the taxpayer spends less. The economy suffers.
If you increase the tax burden from the payer, you increase disposable income. The taxpayer can invest or spend more – stimulating the economy.
This is really basic stuff chas.
Thats sort of like telling FORD or GMC to cut all their prices by 30%, and they will sell so many new units that they will more than make up for their price cut!!
If you descrease the tax burden from the payer,
1. Chas.
Posted January 21, 2008 at 3:18 pm | Permalink
Thats sort of like telling FORD or GMC to cut all their prices by 30%, and they will sell so many new units that they will more than make up for their price cut!!
The percentage may not be accurate, but you may be getting it.
I don’t think the fed is really looking at it as the “bulk” retail solution though. I think they are seeing it as if the taxpayer has more in his/her pocket, they are more willing to spend.
Spending by taxpayers is what stimulates/depresses the economy.
Starting to get it?
still sounds like mumbo jumbo to me Sol… The best way for government to increase revenues, is to add taxes… sales tax, or otherwise!!
This is like arguing economics with a 10 year old who still thinks that money grows off trees and out of dad’s wallet.
Sigh…
I think we are going about this the wrong way.
Perhaps we should start at the very basic concepts of economics and work our way up to something complicated like stimulating the economy, which Chas obviously is not going to grasp the concept of.
” out of dad’s wallet.”
You mean it doesn’t?!
:(
“And that is because the SPENDING has never been cut during periods of Economic Growth.”
What? Reagan lost his veto pen? Forgot where it was?
Neither Reagan or the Bushes ever offered a balanced budget economic plan.
Ever.
Republicans claim that the Democrats are the Party of Tax and Spend.
So they take the approach of Borrow and Spend.
Sheesh………………..
Which is likely to cause the most long term damage?
“They are mis-applying Keynesian economics. According to Keynes we should run deficits in hard times (prime the pump) but run SURPLUSES in good times. Clinton is the only president in my lifetime who understood that.”
Exactly.
By the way – now you know how I feel dealing with science issues!
“If you raise taxes, you decrease the expendable revenue of the taxpayer.”
This is true, but it pre supposes the taxpayer would or was keeping the revenue moving or spending it. If they are just socking it away or investing it in a greedy corporation, the revenue is a net loss to society. Indeed, it could even be employed in ways harmful to society. Such as investment in a company that outsources jobs or employs illegal aliens.
The govenernment would USE that money. Maybe not always as we might wish. But the revenue moves and is maintained domestically for the mutual benefit of everyone. Well, except when it is wasted on foreign adventure.
At one extreme end of this equation is total feudalism. Where the few control ALL the wealth and so power. At the other end is total socialism where everyone shares everything equally without regard to work or other endeavor.
I don’t want to live in either place. But I’ll err to share. It promotes a harmonious society and the betterment of all and lets the truly greedy find creative ways to hide their money where they and it can be alone. That or behave in charitable ways and get a refund.
Ben,
There is a huge difference in not even grasping the concept of something and intelligently rejecting the idea of that something.
If Chas understood what we were saying, but merely disagreed with doing it, that would be an entirely different story.
I agree nathan. Like I said about dealing with people who do not grasp the fundamental concepts …
“It promotes a harmonious society and the betterment of all”
I’ve seen too many who just keep their hands out. Even when opportunity knocks and they can provide for themselves but that would mean extra work and therefore is foregone in their mind.
I HOPE that I am seeing the negative side of those that receive, but seein is believing and the entitlement mentality is a tough one to shake.
ksgrm
Posted January 21, 2008 at 12:33 pm | Permalink
JR put your little mind at rest. Presidents can’t rewrite the constitution.
Yeah, that’s what we all thought when Bush was elected. We know better now, so being a little paranoid about how the next President will use, or as in Bush’s case abuse, their power should be expected.
How many spending bills did George W Bush veto prior to the Democratic take over of Congress after November 2006?
Answer = zero.
Yet under Bush, the National Debt has increased from $5.6 trillion to over $9.0 trillion.
Bush has increased the rate of federal spending by more than twice that of Bill Clinton, yet Republicans claim that they are the party of fiscal responsibility.
Yeah, right.
Bill Clinton is not running for president.
George Bush (I or II) is not running for president.
Reagan is not running for president.
Why are you so hyped up WS?
WS Clark,
That is exactly one of the biggest examples of why my father, I, and many other Conservatives say that Bush is not one.
Believe me when I tell you that Conservatives do not like the way that Republicans have spent money at all.
J R
Posted January 21, 2008 at 3:32 pm | Permalink
“If you raise taxes, you decrease the expendable revenue of the taxpayer.”
This is true, but it pre supposes the taxpayer would or was keeping the revenue moving or spending it. If they are just socking it away or investing it in a greedy corporation, the revenue is a net loss to society.
JR – That is why they are talking about getting the bulk of the relief to middle income and lower income workers, because we HAVE to spend the money, we CAN’T sock it away.
Well
There’s “entitlement” mentality at both ends of the spectrum. LATELY we are erring at the high end to the detriment of the middle and lower classes. A very wealthy, well invested person, feels entitled to that station without regard to how they are staying there. As long as the returns are good, they can turn a blind eye to the destruction of American manufacture and the devalue of American labor.
TDT
I wasn’t advocating against the currently proposed tax refunds.
More I was addressing folks like Max who want no taxes at all or “fair” taxes that are by their very nature unfair.
It’s about time the middle got a break. We’ve been working with an eye to the top heavy too long.
JR – Even on this blog if you go back ?6 months? maybe. There were a lot of people that would not believe that times were hard. They were putting up posts and links showing that unemployment was down, building contracts were up, their stocks were doing okay, etc. However, for those of us who are living paycheck to paycheck, we could see the struggle, and feel the winds of fortune begin to change.
Reaganomics was a failure. As Paul Krugman explains:
There was a boom in the mid-1980s as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.
When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House.
Some good things did eventually happen to the U.S. economy — but not on Reagan’s watch.
For example, there was no growth in productivity under Reagan. Eventually productivity did take off — but even the Bush administration’s own Council of Economic Advisers dates the beginning of that takeoff to 1995.
Like productivity, American business prestige didn’t stage a comeback until the mid-1990s, when the U.S. began to reassert its technological and economic leadership.
I understand why conservatives want to rewrite history and pretend that these good things happened while a Republican was in office — or claim, implausibly, that the 1981 Reagan tax cut somehow deserves credit for positive economic developments that didn’t happen until 14 or more years had passed. (Does Richard Nixon get credit for “Morning in America”?)
Like Ronald Reagan, President Bush began his term in office with big tax cuts for the rich and promises that the benefits would trickle down to the middle class. Like Reagan, he also began his term with an economic slump, then claimed that the recovery from that slump proved the success of his policies.
And like Reaganomics — but more quickly — Bushonomics has ended in grief. The public mood today is as grim as it was in 1992. Wages are lagging behind inflation. Employment growth in the Bush years has been pathetic compared with job creation in the Clinton era.
That is very true JR, and the Congressman I saw Sunday morning talking about the stimulus package very specifically pointed out that giving someone who makes $200,000/yr more money than giving someone making $35,000/yr would not likely stimulate the economy at all, because the higher wage earner is not living paycheck to paycheck and will be more likely to save it, not spend it, which would defeat the purpose of the stimulus.
And I agree with you that we have “been working with an eye to the top heavy too long.” Good old Reaganomics, anybody with a brain knew there would be no trickle down.
“Why are you so hyped up WS?”
Because I am throughly ticked off about the lack of a dialog about the deficit and the National Debt.
None of the candidates have talked about those subjects, although the Republicans have talked about MORE tax cuts.
I don’t know how old you are, Mr. Dev VB, and it really isn’t important, but I am 55 and I do not want to leave a massive debt for my children and grandchildren.
And their grandchildren.
The lack of control by Congress and the President is stunning in it’s level of irresponsibility.
The numbers are REAL dollars and they have to be addressed.
And it irritates me when Republicans call themselves the party of fiscal responsibility.
They have hardly been responsible over the past thirty plus years.
You know, speaking of Reaganomics, I have a t-shirt from the 1984 election that says something like “Reaganomics, can we afford another 4 years”. Gotta love it. I think I may still have a button for Mondale/Ferraro as well.
Reagan’s tax cut of 1981 resulted in 2 years of decreased Revenue – FOLLOWED BY 5 years of increasing and Record High Revenue.
And with Bush in 2003, there was 1 year of decreased Revenue – FOLLOWED BY 3 years of increasing and Record High Revenue.
Amazing how jobs are created when The People get to spend more of their own money. Then more jobs leads to more Personal Income. And more personal income leads to more Tax Revenue!
X = Reagan Tax Cut
Y = Bush Tax Cut
YEAR Tax Revenue Spending
1980 … 517.1 … 590.9
X 1981 … 599.3 … 678.2
1982 … 617.8 … 745.7
1983 … 600.6 … 808.4
1984 … 666.5 … 851.9
1985 … 734.1 … 946.4
1986 … 769.2 … 990.4
1987 … 854.4 … 1,004.10
1988 … 909.3 … 1,064.50
1989 … 991.2 … 1,143.80
1990 … 1,032.10 … 1,253.10
1991 … 1,055.10 … 1,324.30
1992 … 1,091.30 … 1,381.60
1993 … 1,154.50 … 1,409.50
1994 … 1,258.70 … 1,461.90
1995 … 1,351.90 … 1,515.90
1996 … 1,453.20 … 1,560.60
1997 … 1,579.40 … 1,601.30
1998 … 1,722.00 … 1,652.70
1999 … 1,827.60 … 1,702.00
2000 … 2,025.50 … 1,789.20
2001 … 1,991.40 … 1,863.20
2002 … 1,853.40 … 2,011.20
Y 2003 … 1,782.50 … 2,160.10
2004 … 1,880.30 … 2,293.00
2005 … 2,153.90 … 2,472.20
2006 … 2,407.30 … 2,655.40
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=952453479788+9+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Pssssssssssssssssst, Max, neither Reagan nor the Bushes have ever proposed a balanced budget, nonetheless a surplus.
When are we going to start paying our bills?
Bush the Dumber has increased the Debt by $4 trillion in just seven years, from $5.6 to over $9 trillion AND COUNTING.
Is that fiscal responsibility.
No shit Clark!
Had ANY of our wonderful politicians in Washington DC controlled spending, then we would have been seeing years of Black Ink instead of Red Ink!
Clark, you keep trying to show how Dems are better then Repubs. Dontcha get it?
THEY BOTH SUCK!
CUT THE SPENDING!!!!!!!
Tax Revenue is at a record high level now!
Check the link Clark and show me ONE Administration that EVER cut Federal Spending.
Now if we can all agree to cut spending, we can get down to the tough job -
Cut What Spending?
For starters, why not agree to FREEZE Government Spending at current record high levels.
That’s one step.
Then working on targeting the cuts.
Bill Clinton proposed balanced and surplus budgets.
Reagan and the Bushes did not.
Why isn’t Bill Clinton your hero?
Eh?
Why isn’t Clinton my hero?
He balanced the budget through the largest tax increase in the history of America. This tax increase was also RETROACTIVE!
He punished people who worked hard, played by the rules, and were successful.
He increased Socialist spending, yet did nothing to improve the Poverty Rate.
He attacked the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution banning to include banning several firearms and accessories, increasing FFL fees and shutting down legitimate gun dealers though higher fees, and Gestapo type harrassment.
He gutted the US Military to an unsafe level.
He did nothing to fight terrorism in the 1990’s and keep America safe.
Just a few things, off the top of my head.
MaxHeadRoom writes, He balanced the budget through the largest tax increase in the history of America. This tax increase was also RETROACTIVE!
Completely false.
Actually, Clinton reduced taxes on the rich more than Bush did. Clinton cut tax rates for the rich from 30 to 22 percent. Bush only cut them from 22 to 17 percent.
****
DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Yeah, I love to trot this one out when somebody goes, “Oh, you’re from the New York Times. You must be, you know, pro-Democrat or liberal or whatever.” I’m the guy who broke the story and reported on the fact that Bill Clinton gave the super rich, the 400 highest income people in America a big tax cut. They were paying 30 cents out of each dollar of their income to the federal government when he came into the office. When he left, it was down to 22. Bush has lowered it to 17. Now, first of all, notice you’re probably paying more than 17 cents. May well be paying more than 22. But Bush gave them an eight cent tax cut– I’m sorry. Clinton gave an eight cent tax cut and Bush only gave them five cents.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/transcript5.html
Oh btw, Nixon was the last President prior to Clinton who enjoyed a balanced budget.
Bill and Dick.
Quite the pair.
You obviously got the Republican “Blame Clinton” talking points memo, Max.
No point in discussing anything with you.
Tax increases are going to be REQUIRED to address the Debt and deficits.
There is no escaping that fact. We cannot continue to cut taxes and ignore the deficits. Deficits are the not-so-hidden cost of tax cuts.
There will come a tipping point when Republican generated Debt cripples this country and turns us into a lesser nation.
If we do not address the issue NOW, we are destined to fall.
Mark my words.
Also, the poverty rate went DOWN for the last five years of the Clinton presidency.
It’s gone UP for the first five years of Bush’s presidency.
Max, I tell you what.
Just take everything you think you know about Repukes and Dems and believe the exact opposite.
Then you’d be right.
Here’s our President kicking back with a few of his best homeboys:
When did Nixon balance the budget?
So Bill Moyers is a credible source for Gov’t statistics?
Hardly.
His guest is an award-winning journalist with the biggest newspaper in . . .
Oh, nevermind, Max.
You win, of course.
:roll:
Just ONCE Clark, address the SPENDING side of the equation.
In other words, Clark, I’m getting my ass kicked here so please change the topic . . .
“Just ONCE Clark, address the SPENDING side of the equation.”
I did – Reagan and the Bushes NEVER proposed a balanced or surplus budget, despite the claim that “Piss On You” economics were supposed to raise revenue to the point that it DID provide for a balanced or surplus budget.
Easy right?
Trickle down economics have never worked.
Ever.
Clark wants more Big Government like this:
Chicago Police Superintendent to Review Case of Officer Who Beat Man in Wheelchair
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324372,00.html
Need Help? Just dial 9-11.
Right.
Beating me?
Right.
Spend away. It ain’t your money, so who cares?
More Government abuse of The People:
Want Fries With That Arrest? Granny Nabbed at McDonald’s Drive-Thru After Confrontation
Monday, January 21, 2008
A 75-year-old grandmother of eight was arrested at a Florida McDonald’s drive-thru after police said she wouldn’t pull her car forward.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,324249,00.html
Cruel Grandma:
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5540898&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
“Clark wants more Big Government like this:”
Huh? What the Hell does that have to do with anything?
But Max, I did address the issue of spending several days ago.
Eliminate the spending on the War on Iraq.
Reduce or eliminate our foreign military bases.
Have the Germans, Japanese and South Koreans pay for their protection or eliminate those bases.
Those are big ticket items.
That is where you have to start.
Didn’t Bush fire a Dept of the Treasury deputies for telling the press that the War on Iraq could cost as much as $200 billion, when the official Bush doctrine stated that it would cost less than $40 billion?
Yeah, I recall the incident but not the name.
Now, we would be looking at $200 billion as a bargain compared to the CURRENT $1 trillion price tag.
It’s a damned good thing that Bush didn’t take up building houses. He would be a serious failed businessman.
Wait! That’s right, Bush was a seriously failed businessman.
My bad. Sorry.
Bill Clinton
“Has a Dream”
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01212008/news/regionalnews/bill_has_a_dream_474243.htm
NY Post is a tabloid.
Capn
Saudi Arabia is the LARGEST contributor to the Clinton Presidential Library.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124.html
WS
The NY Post shows a picture of Bill Clinton taking a nap during a civil rights speech. If Bush did that, you would eat him alive, as would the press.
Attack the source, if you can not attack the message, huh?
Gosh! You mean you actually are critical of her highness for a change???
Here is a picture of Hillary Clinton kissing Soho Arafat:
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hillarSy.htm
What Bill and Hill want is power period. They do not care a hoot about any of you and you are foolish if you think that, by attending a black church once in 2 years or going to the kitchen of a hotel and taking pictures with the Mexicans that work in it, they care about you. They do not. At all. And if the opportunity comes to sell you out, they will do it in a second! Just like Bill did with NAFTA. All they want is another opportunity to raid the treasury, make their friends rich and steal yet another set of china and silverware from the white house. If you folks make the mistake of trusting these two again after all the LIES and SCANDLES they put the country through the last time, you deserve what you get. But it will probably not be what you want.
And Bush and Reagan are not running in 2008. Let’s deal with the choices we have. The choices are Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I would never vote for Hillary in a primary. Or Bill for that matter. I may have to hold my nose and vote for her in the general but I am hoping not to be given such a horrific choice.
“Attack the source, if you can not attack the message, huh?”
Paul, it’s WWWAAAAAYYYYYY too easy to take you down, please work on your stuff and come back when you have something worthwhile to say.
And I don’t even waste my energy clicking on a NY Post link.
If I want to dig up some shit, I’ll go poop-scoop the backyard.
“Attack the source, if you can not attack the message, huh?”
If I want to dig up some shit, Paul, I’ll go poop scoop the backyard.
Heres an idea we eliminate the income tax to stimulate the economy. for me thats 4000 to 5000 a year increase in pay.
“Heres an idea we eliminate the income tax to stimulate the economy. for me thats 4000 to 5000 a year increase in pay.”
And the deficit and debt go up by how much?
“Heres an idea we eliminate the income tax to stimulate the economy. for me thats 4000 to 5000 a year increase in pay.”
And the deficit and debt will go up by how much?
Max, earlier you stated McCain’s support for three strikes laws were one of his pluses, now your complaining about police abuse? Its a good thing such laws aren’t widespread or else the granny could be in for a long jail sentance, plus if she was on McDonald’s property the police have authority to ticket her unless called by McDonald’s
WSclark, obviously you would need to cut government spending, I bet even you can think of a dz government programs,mandates,agency,depts that could easily be eliminated, and the income tax but one of many sources of revenue for the feds.
Yes, Mr. Paine, I have mentioned a number of programs to be cut – the Republitypes have not commented – perhaps you will.
But with the Bush Budget, an elimination of the income tax would go directly to deficit and debt.
Tom Paine
Posted January 21, 2008 at 6:16 pm | Permalink
Heres an idea we eliminate the income tax to stimulate the economy. for me thats 4000 to 5000 a year increase in pay.
===========================
Funny, Tom, thats what Nathan and Max were saying earlier… Somebody show how eliminaating income tax stimulates(grows) the economy?? All it does is increase spendable income!! That doesnt guarantee government growth, or reduction of the deficit, or anything like that!!
Capn said:
Completely false.
“Actually, Clinton reduced taxes on the rich more than Bush did. Clinton cut tax rates for the rich from 30 to 22 percent. Bush only cut them from 22 to 17 percent”
Then why in the world are we roasting the repubs for cutting taxes for the rich and lauding Bill Cinton?
Chas says:
“That doesnt guarantee government growth, or reduction of the deficit, or anything like that!!”
Chas that is the point, government shouldn’t be growing. It is a monster now which is eating more and more of the pie.
Grm, If it doesnt GROW, the deficit will only get farther out of control than it already is!!
If you noticed, I even said that in my previous post!! BUT, like normal, you only took a little piece of what I said, so you could attack one phrase!! PLEASE improve your reading comprehension!!
Oh, and before you jump all over me, a number of others have questioned your reading comprehension besides me… So, dont even start!!
How does eliminating the income tax help the economy? First the 1.2 trillion taken in by the government is spent or saved by the public in the economy. put simply people have more money, that would certainly help with the mortgage crisis, it helps the people living paycheck to paycheck, having to choose between rent,food, or medicine would be alleviated. the list goes on and on. but the goal is not to increase government spending and revenue but to reduce it. and Chas government growth doesn’t equal a gain for the economy, increases in public income would whether that’s thru spending, saving, or paying off debt, all positives.
“How does eliminating the income tax help the economy? First the 1.2 trillion taken in by the government is spent or saved by the public in the economy. put simply people have more money,”
When I see comments like this, I simply shake my head. The libertarian/free enterprise absolutely rules people make a couple of very flawed assumptions.
First of all, the math is extremely simplistic. “1.3 trillion dollars” would not be taken in and saved by the public. First of all, the basic principle of economics is relative scaricity of resources verses wants and needs. People look at the money taken out in taxes and simply assume that that money would be theirs if there were no taxes. Guys, taxes are a cost that is factored in to the economy. There is no reason to assume that spending power would be greater if the income tax would be greater, because there is no reason to assume that the money that goes into taxes would come to them. In other words, some of the money listed in your paycheck is there to pay taxes. If there were no taxes, that money would be going somewhere else. Sure, if someone ended the income tax, then at first that money would go to the taxpayer. However, I would not expect gross wages to increase at the same rate if gross equals net. Secondly, the public sector, despite the claims of anarcho-capitalists, is a big part of the economy, not just a drag on it. Many of the services and infra-structure that keeps the economy going are tax supported. This not only includes government employees, but private oompanies that contract with governments. And, reality check here, the private is always more efficient than public meme is complete and absolute bullsh*t. There are several things that the public sector does more efficiently than the private sector by providing a single vendor for pubic services, or by being a single entity for vendors to deal with. Those services are performed by people who need to be able to purchase the resources to perform those services, and who need to be compensated for those services. If each member of the public has to pay for services that are now public, it will not only be less efficient, but it will draw on the money that the public “got back” by not paying taxes. In fact, more than likely it will draw on that money and then some.
“There is no reason to assume that spending power would be greater if the income tax would be greater, because there is no reason to assume that the money that goes into taxes would come to them.”
Should be:
There is no reason to assume that spending power would be greater if the income tax was not there, because there is no reason to assume that the money that goes into taxes would come to them.
An agnostic Socialist rant for sure.
It’s a crime to allow people to keep more of their own money.
How dare they!
Freedom in America is no longer a top priority, or even a priority at all.
Taking property from hard-working Americans and giving it to others is THE priority. And an all-powerful Government is necessary to perpetrate this crime.
And taking property from someone is taking their freedom. When you no longer have a right to earn money, you have no freedom.
The Government will decide how much money you keep.
The Government will decide the food, clothing, housing, cars, etc.. that you can be allowed to have.
Yeah, the Government is fair.
And the Government does such a great job with their big Social programs today! Let’s have more big Social programs. Let’s get rid of private companies. Let’s get rid of private property.
The Government can provide for us all, equally and fairly.
Hillary all the way!
Tom Paine
Posted January 21, 2008 at 6:29 pm | Permalink
Max, earlier you stated McCain’s support for three strikes laws were one of his pluses, now your complaining about police abuse? Its a good thing such laws aren’t widespread or else the granny could be in for a long jail sentance, plus if she was on McDonald’s property the police have authority to ticket her unless called by McDonald’s
————————————————-
What Tom, you don’t have faith that the wheels of our Court Justices will bring fairness to the McDonalds grandma case? You don’t trust almighty Government?
Ok, so eliminate 3 strikes laws. Continue to release repeat offenders from prison. Continue to allow bad cops to patrol our streets.
But then, let’s stop complaining about crime.
And let’s make sure people continue to have the legal right to defend themselves from all these felons running the streets.
hmmm, guess animations are spam. :(
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2558/shootsignvd3.gif
Chas.
Posted January 21, 2008 at 7:44 pm | Permalink
Tom Paine
Posted January 21, 2008 at 6:16 pm | Permalink
Heres an idea we eliminate the income tax to stimulate the economy. for me thats 4000 to 5000 a year increase in pay.
===========================
Funny, Tom, thats what Nathan and Max were saying earlier… Somebody show how eliminaating income tax stimulates(grows) the economy?? All it does is increase spendable income!! That doesnt guarantee government growth, or reduction of the deficit, or anything like that!!
—————————————————————————————————-
Aw Chas,
And to think I wrote my 4:22 post just for you!
Good one Regular.
Too violent though for this “G” rated blog.
Chas, if you got a raise what would you do with the extra income? That doesnt guarantee government growth That is what we need to avoid. The government needs to shrink. Reduction of the deficit does nothing for the economy either. This has been explained over and over. What part don’t you get?
Bill Clinton invested in Dubai to pay for his sexual harassment lawsuits:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120097424021905843.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
$20 Million dollar return by Bill Clinton for investing in Dubai?
That’s no SMALL change!
Gotta be better then the Cattle Futures market even!
I wonder how much money the Clintons made out of their Presidency?
It would interesting to compare their Net Worth in 1992, to 2007.
How did they ACQUIRE that much money?
Hmmmm….
“An agnostic Socialist rant for sure.”
I think you are confused as to what a rant is, Max. What followed with this comment far better meets the definition of “rant” than what I did.
Nice reflexive name calling, by the way.
By the way, Max’s rant was against a total straw man version of my argument.
1) I did not in any way propose the abolition of personal property. Max seems to subscribe to dichotomous A-not A thinking where one either is or isn’t a socialist. That’s not the real world.
2) I stand by the accuracy of my comments. Economics is based on wants/needs verses resources. To maintain an economy, corrections occur when personal resources are high to keep people working. This is true in the private and public sector (and the division and overlap between the two is far less sharp than, I would suspect, people like Max would tell you it is).
3) Hillary is not my candidate, although I will vote for her if she is the nominee. Such might not have been the case if the situation had been different (eight years of Clinton followed by eight years of Gore).
4) Agnosticism has nothing to do with economic politics.
A rant by any other name is still a rant. Your economic “theory” is closer to a Marxist sermon then anything else.
Go ahead and list “Several Things” that the public sector does more efficiently then the private sector:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
“And, reality check here, the private is always more efficient than public meme is complete and absolute bullsh*t. There are several things that the public sector does more efficiently than the private sector by providing a single vendor for pubic services, or by being a single entity for vendors to deal with.” KSAgnostic
Hillary stop the rhetoric. He used someone else words they are in the declaration of indepence and Martin Luther KIngs speech . get a grip.
When did Reagon unite country?
8 Trackbacks
Jessie…
Great post. I have added you to my digg bookmark…
Jessie…
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin…..
California Health Insurance Leads…
Sounds like an idea of the month!…
exchange exchange exchange home link link link sat…
This enables authors to keep track of who is linking to, or referring…
income insurance mortgage protection…
…
Jessie…
Hopefully you can find the time to visit my site. I appreciate your effort and the quality of the information you provide….
bill nighy diana quick…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
Kadim Al Saher…
…