ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [183] -- What I'd Call "Class Warfare"

[ Posted Friday, September 30th, 2011 – 16:26 PDT ]

...[T]here's a lot of competition in the media world in this quasi-reality show, it seems, that's being created in the GOP primary. It's just the nature of the beast right now..."

--Sarah Palin
[quoted recently on the subject of the media hype about the Republican primary contenders, and the mini-uproar over her calling "Herb" [sic] Cain the "flavor of the week."]

 

So You Think You Can President?!?

Welcome back, everyone, to this week's edition of So You Think You Can President?!?

Just to remind everyone, this year we've got the Republican field of candidates for the party's nomination to take on Barack Obama in next year's exciting presidential race. After the American television-viewing audience expressed its dismay over stale and boring formal debates, we here at Fox jumped at the chance to winnow the field down in the exciting format of a reality show, where our contestants get to prove they know how "to president" by performing various wacky tasks for our collective amusement.

To recap last week's show: Rick Perry's up! Rick Perry's down! Will he be eliminated by our panel of pundits and party bigwigs, or will he get a second chance from our audience participation voting system (brought to you by the wonderful folks at Diebold, of course)? Stay tuned!

Also last week, Mitt Romney calmly jumped through the flaming hoops we had set up for him, and barely got singed! Looks like he's got more staying power than we gave him credit for! Herman Cain had to take a trip to the "Fight A Candidate Who Isn't In The Race Yet" ring, where he exchanged blows with none other than Fox News contributor Sarah "Mama Grizzly" Palin! You just can't get more exciting than that, folks!

Michele Bachmann dropped last week -- after turning in a very lackluster performance in audience voting -- and has now been banished to the "On The Brink Of Elimination" room, from which neither Jon Huntsman nor Rick Santorum was able to break out of last week. Sorry guys, you'll just have to try harder, or we're going to kick you out of the "Lightning Question" round at the end of each show.

Ron Paul is still a scrappy little fighter, and tonight we're going to see him take on the So You Think You Can President?!? center-ring "What Would Ronald Reagan Do?" task -- which involves the question: "Should a president order a terrorist strike or not, if the target is an American citizen?" Ron Paul's answer, of course, may tend to get some in our audience of Republican primary voters rather upset, so don't miss it!

Tonight, also, we have Newt Gingrich in the spotlight, as he presents his project assigned last week, to come up with a campaign document that voters can both understand and get excited about. We all remember Mitt Romney stumbling badly on this task, with his -- what was it, 287-point plan? -- so we'll see what Newt has put together. No bonus points will be awarded for re-using the phrase "Contract With America" -- but we didn't tell Newt that, so we'll see his reaction to this news later in the program!

But before we get to all that, we're going to open with our signature weekly event -- "Who Can We Convince To Run Next?" This week ...[drumroll]... we have in our studios... Chris Christie!!!

[Christie enters, as drumroll becomes bongo drum solo, then segues into Jethro Tull's "Fat Man" -- which continues playing, while a video montage of Christie's "greatest hits" clips (of him screaming at his own constituents) plays on the big screen overhead. The music fades away with the final line of the lyrics echoing through the theater: "Roll us both down a mountain / And I'm sure the fat man would win" -- as a massive wave of applause slowly dies away.]

Great to have you here tonight, Governor Christie! We'll be right back to talk to him after this message from our sponsors. Stay tuned, because there's much more of So You Think You Can President?!? coming right up!!!

 

[Note: I wrote most of this last night, before I had read a similar article in the Huffington Post written by Jeffrey Feldman, titled "GOP Candidatemania" -- which I highly recommend. Also, I wouldn't have brought up the whole "fat man" thing, except apparently the inside-the-Beltway punditocracy has been so off into the weeds on the Christie will-he-or-won't-he thing that they've actually spent time discussing whether Christie's weight would be a problem for him as a candidate. Which is one of the reasons I was inspired to set this whole circus inside the reality-show format, since we're quite obviously edging pretty close to it, folks. Sheesh.]

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

We're not even sure these folks identify as Democrats or not, but since we make the rules, we are also allowed to bend them pretty much at will. So we're going to go ahead and award the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

This people-powered organization has been protesting Wall Street for the past two weeks, although this may come as news to some due to the lack of mainstream media coverage. Compare and contrast, for example, what coverage (led, no doubt, by Fox News) a similar event would have had if it had been put on by a Tea Party organization.

But, media grumbles aside, we admit that we're suckers for street protest and political theater here. Getting people out in the streets to protest something important is tough enough to do even without discussing the media's coverage of such events. Occupy Wall Street may be a bit unfocused as to their ultimate goals, but their sheer persistence is admirable on its own accord.

Live in New York City? Not doing anything this weekend? Head on down and show your support! And while you're there, let them know they've won this week's MIDOTW award. Street theater used to be a solely Lefty tactic, before the Tea Partiers latched onto it. And we heartily approve of any group trying to take the tactic back from the anti-tax Right.

[For more information, please see the Occupy Wall Street official website.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Normally, our rules for handing out these awards limit the eligibility to Democrats who are public figures or are still in office. But that's close enough for us, for this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. As previously mentioned, our Rules Committee for these awards is a pretty forgiving bunch. Ahem.

This week was almost one of those weeks, it bears mentioning, where we made it all the way through the week without being massively disappointed by any Democrat in the news. In such cases, we lock the awards cabinet back up for a week (those golden statuettes ain't cheap, you know), and withhold any presentation at all.

But wouldn't you know it, a name we thought we were done with (at least as far as handing out MDDOTW awards goes) popped back up on our radar. Yes, it seems Blanche Lincoln is back.

Lincoln used to be a senator. She was one of the bluest of the Blue Dogs. Then she lost her seat. Now, apparently, she's making a buck parroting Republican talking points. Her position is that the E.P.A. should just stop issuing all those regulations that business hate, because... um, well... because Republicans say so. So there. If you think that's an exaggeration, I invite you to click that link and read the quote from Lincoln, and see if you can picture a Democrat saying any of it.

This comes as no surprise, really (to anyone who knows of her rampant Blue Doggery in the past), but it's disappointing all the same.

Which is why, for the sixth time -- which ties her on the awards board with Charlie Rangel and Jay "Rocky IV" Rockefeller IV -- Blanche Lincoln is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Maybe she'll do us all a favor, and just change her registration to Republican....

Sigh.

[We're not sure where you can contact ex-Senator Blanche Lincoln, but she probably wouldn't listen to you anyway, unless you had a lot of money to give her.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 183 (9/30/11)

Today's talking points were inspired by (which sounds ever so much nicer than "ripped off from," don't you think?) a comment posted to last week's FTP [182] at the Huffington Post. Our standard policy is we never identify such commenters here by name (or login name) without their previous consent, but I'd still like to publicly thank him or her for the idea.

Last week (as with this week) the subject de semaine was "class warfare." The comment which inspired this week's mini-rants contained a simple, repetitive concept: "When [something outrageous pushed by Republicans happens], nobody calls it 'class warfare'. Maybe we should."

Maybe we should, indeed.

Which led directly to this week's talking points. Barack Obama has been fighting to redefine "class warfare" for the past few weeks, and he's beginning to make inroads with the public on the issue. But he needs help -- from all Democrats discussing politics (whether on the Sunday morning chat shows on television, or around your own company's water cooler).

Here are seven almost-identical points to toss into this conversation. They don't even need their own individual introductions, because they all pretty much speak for themselves.

 

1
   You want to know what I call "class warfare"? Attacking Medicaid.

"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? I'll tell you what I call 'class warfare' -- attacking Medicaid. Medicaid is the federal program that assures that poor people have the choice between getting healthcare and crawling off into the woods to die. Republicans want to strip away this safety net, and allow more people to die for lack of money when modern medicine could easily save their lives. When they talk of slashing Medicaid or letting individual states take it over, this is the end result of what they are talking about -- more poor people with absolutely no option other than die from lack of medical care. And that is exactly what I call 'class warfare'."

 

2
   Making Granny pay

"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? I call Paul Ryan's budget -- which the Republican House overwhelmingly voted for, I remind you -- nothing less than 'class warfare'. Ryan's plan would stick it to poor retirees to the tune of six thousand dollars a year, instead of giving them the Medicare they deserve. Ryan's plan would give old folks a set amount per year, as a voucher, and then leave them to the mercies of the private health insurance market. If that voucher didn't purchase anything near what Medicare covers, well, tough patootie, Grandma. Guess you'll have to fork over six grand out of your Social Security checks each year, just to get what you had been promised all along. How anyone can examine Ryan's plan for Medicare and not call it 'class warfare' is beyond me."

 

3
   Attacking Social Security

"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? Attacking Social Security. From Rick Perry calling it a, quote, Ponzi scheme, unquote, to the age-old Republican dream to privatize Social Security, this is a direct attack on American seniors who rely on those checks for survival. Ever since Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Social Security into existence, one political party has tried to kill it -- over and over again. The Republicans can't stand the concept of Social Security, and they are increasingly unafraid to bluntly admit this. Social Security could be 'saved' right this minute by one simple step -- removing the cap on earnings -- which would make it solvent for the next 75 years. Most people have never even heard of this option, which would not raise taxes for something like 97 to 98 percent of American workers. The media present the only possible options as 'raising the retirement age, slashing benefits, or hiking taxes on everyone' when this is just not true. There's a simple and easy way to fix Social Security -- tax every worker at exactly the same rate. That's it. That's how easy it is. Instead of this simple fix, Republicans fighting for the wealthiest two or three percent want to slash everyone else's benefits rather than making the wealthy pay exactly the same rate as a fireman or policeman. That is indeed 'class warfare', by just about any definition of the term."

 

4
   Union busting

"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? Union busting. This was, in fact, the original class warfare in the United States of America, and it used to involve a whole lot of violence. Speaking of 'warfare' today is almost laughable, when you learn the history of what Unions had to go through to get the basic workers' rights we all enjoy today. The federal government used to be in the business of violently protecting the rich folks' interests by strike breaking and Union busting. Sadly, today's Republicans have latched onto this as a tactic in statehouses across the country, and are now trying to push the idea at the national level. There is no clearer example of 'class warfare' in America today than Union-busting."

 

5
   Voter suppression

"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? Suppressing the vote among the poorest American citizens. The Republican Party is right now engaged in a state-by-state effort to combat what they call 'voter fraud' -- a problem that does not even exist. The Republican thinking is that they can hide behind the 'voter fraud' label to pass laws that make it harder and harder for poor people to vote. This effort is ongoing, and is one of the untold stories of this election cycle, because the news media is too lazy to report it. There is nothing more anti-American than using voting laws to suppress peoples' votes -- the ones you think won't vote for your party. I thought America was beyond such things, but apparently we aren't. And voter suppression is the ugliest and most disgusting form of 'class warfare' that I can even imagine."

 

6
   Bucking the mainstream

"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? Defending to the death tax policy that only the wealthiest agree with, when the overwhelming majority of the American people disagree. Republicans are bucking the mainstream of political thought on this issue, and they're so desperate they're complaining about Democrats wanting to, quote, divide, unquote, the American people. Excuse me while I utter a belly laugh. I mean, excuse me while I roll all over the carpet laughing so hard I can't breathe. I mean, seriously, is there any group in America left which the Republicans haven't scapegoated at one point or another in the past few years? Is there any division in the American people the Republicans have shown any reluctance to widen in order to further their political aims? Kettle, meet pot, in other words. But getting back to my point -- taxing millionaires a wee bit more is about the most popular idea in American politics today. In fact, I defy you to come up with an idea which consistently polls as high as a millionaires' tax in this country. Even a majority of Republicans agree with the concept. Even more astonishingly -- even a majority of the Tea Partiers agree. Taxing the rich a tiny slice more is the most popular mainstream opinion there is. And Republicans fighting this enormous wave of public opinion are indeed the ones attempting -- once again -- to wage top-down 'class warfare' on the rest of us. Only this time, we're fighting back."

 

7
   Holding disaster relief hostage

"You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? Well, I'm glad you asked. Allow me to tell you. I call fighting as hard as you can against extending unemployment benefits for millions of Americans 'class warfare'. How can you not call this 'class warfare'? Fighting to take a check out of a desperate family's hands -- which could mean the difference between being homeless and having a roof over their heads -- how does this not fit everyone's description of 'class warfare'?

"Furthermore, how Republicans can even look themselves in the mirror every morning is beyond me, after they tried to fight for their partisan extremism instead of voting for disaster aid. That's right -- Republicans thought it'd be a good idea to hold hostage the money for FEMA. This goes beyond astonishing to downright obscene, especially in the midst of a year which has seen more natural disasters than anyone could have predicted. Flood victims, tornado victims, hurricane victims, even earthquake victims -- all were told they might have disaster aid cut off if the House Republicans didn't get what they wanted elsewhere in the budget. That's not just 'class warfare' -- that's downright heartless. How the media can report on all of this and not use the term 'class warfare' over and over again is a mystery to me -- they only seem to trot the term out when Republicans want them to use it, it seems. Curious, that."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

61 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [183] -- What I'd Call "Class Warfare"”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    point #1 is an excellent frame to the issue. "warfare" generally means something that endangers people's lives. getting rid of tax loopholes won't cause anyone in the richest tenth of a percent to die, but cutting medicaid's ability to pay for medical treatment will cause many poor people to die. THAT is the real class warfare.

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 -

    You must have missed last week's TP5 and TP6. Here's number 6 in full (I'd still pay money to see someone like Jim Webb say this on the air):

    "I find it seriously offensive for you to sit there and accuse the President of the United States and his political party of waging any kind of, quote, warfare, unquote. Since you seem to have forgotten that our country has brave men and women fighting in real warfare overseas, allow me to remind you of this fact. Is this how your party 'supports the troops'? We are at war, Sir. We have troops in the field who are dying. For you to make the accusation that their Commander-in-Chief is waging warfare against your political party is downright obscene, Sir. You and your party's continued use of the term 'class warfare' seriously disrespects the brave men and women who are currently serving their country, and if you were a decent human being, you would immediately offer them all an apology. Sir."

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,
    i read that last week, but i thought this week's frame was better. everyone realizes that class war is at least semi-idiomatic, so the fact that people die for lack of medicaid does a more adequate job of making the distinction between phony "class warfare" claims, real class conflict and real war.

  4. [4] 
    dsws wrote:

    She was one of the bluest of the Blue Dogs.

    Shouldn't that be 'one of the reddest of the Blue Dogs'?

    see if you can picture a Democrat saying any of it

    Why yes. Yes, I can.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is just going to be a quickie as I am royally beat, but wanted to make this point..

    This was, in fact, the original class warfare in the United States of America, and it used to involve a whole lot of violence.

    As opposed to today when it's the UNIONS who are being violent??

    Armed Union members TAKING HOSTAGES fer chreest's sake!!

    THESE are the people that Democrats defend???

    WHY???

    Michale.....

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess we can see now why the Right uses the "warfare" meme in their political discourse...

    It's effective.. :D

    You want to know what I call "class warfare"? Attacking Medicaid.

    Something MUST be done about our spending..

    We can take ALL the money away from the rich that they have and it won't even make a SMALL dent in our debt/deficit...

    The ONLY way to get things under control is to cut spending..

    This is the sad fact of this country brought to you by the orgasmic out of control spending of Democrats...

    Making Granny pay

    Many "Grannies" are Tea Party people. They WANT to pay... :D

    Hay, if ya'all can use the meme that the Rich *WANT* to pay more taxes, I can use the meme that "Grannies" want to pay more for medicare.. :D

    "You want to know what I call 'class warfare'? Attacking Social Security. From Rick Perry calling it a, quote, Ponzi scheme, unquote,

    Uh.... Sorry to burst ya'alls protective bubble, but Social Security *IS*, by definition, a ponzi scheme...

    I mean, look at it. People pay money into SS, which in turn goes out to people who are *ON* SS... This money is paid in with the expectation (but not guarantee) that the payer will receive a return at some future date..

    How is this NOT a ponzi scheme??

    Note I am not arguing the merits of Social Security..

    But, hell.. Let's at least be honest and call a spade a spade..

    Union busting

    I addressed this above, but I just wanted to follow up..

    With the current tactics that the Unions employ today, they DESERVE to be "busted"...

    Yes, Unions have contributed positively to our society..

    So have corporations...

    Yes, not all Unions employ despicable tactics to achieve their agenda..

    But neither do all corporations...

    So, why is it that, according to the Left, all Unions are the epitome of virtue, pure as the driven snow, yet all corporations are the epitome of evil and have sold their souls to Lucifer??

    "Looks like the pure driven snow has a few tire tracks thru it..."
    -Janet Wood, THREES COMPANY

    :D

    How about we agree that SOME corporations are good for the country and do right by their workers and their customers and some Unions are evil incarnate and DESERVE to be busted..

    Ya think the Left could agree with that???

    When Monkees fly outta my butt... :^/

    The Republican Party is right now engaged in a state-by-state effort to combat what they call 'voter fraud' -- a problem that does not even exist.

    Vote fraud doesn't exist??

    Well, someone needs to let the Hysterical Left know about this. Because they are always screaming voter fraud and voter dis-enfranchisement when THEIR agenda is threatened...

    Regardless, are you referring to the push to have all people show ID when they vote??

    What's wrong with that??

    Bucking the mainstream

    Only when the mainstream is A}wrong or 2}doesn't have all the facts.. :D

    Holding disaster relief hostage

    Near as I read, it was Democrats who screwed over Americans on the disaster relief.. Reid threatened government shutdown because Dems didn't want to compromise on the legislation...

    It's just as I said during the Debt Ceiling debate.. Democrats only want compromise FROM Republicans, not WITH Republicans...

    For Democrats, compromise means "Republicans agree with everything we say and do.."

    But then again, compromise for Republicans means, "Democrats agree with everything we say and do"....

    Whatta political system we have, eh?? :D

    Let's just do away with all political Partys....
    :D

    Michale.....

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    that they've actually spent time discussing whether Christie's weight would be a problem for him as a candidate.

    Once again, I have to point out the disconnect between today's liberals/progressives and the liberals of my childhood..

    I simply cannot imagine a liberal from the 60s or 70s making an issue out of someone's weight and thinking it was a viable topic on contention......

    Simply one more example of how today's liberals and progressives are simply conservatives with a different agenda...

    Present company excepted, of course... :D

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    gaz wrote:

    Michale, you provide no citations, and a bunch of drivel.

    Really, though you nailed it when you said "Only when the majority is wrong"

    Hint: When everybody thinks you are crazy, they are probably correct. Not the other way around.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    So we're going to go ahead and award the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement

    I dunno how "impressive" these protesters are...

    http://www.infowars.com/occupy-wall-street-protesters-call-totalitarian-government-re-election-of-obama/

    Seem to be more moronic anarchists to me... :D

    Michale......

  10. [10] 
    akadjian wrote:

    After watching the Republican debates and the recent Rick Perry "scandal," I'm starting to think that the current crop of Republican candidates are part of the conspiracy to re-elect Obama

    :)

    -David

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    After watching the Republican debates and the recent Rick Perry "scandal," I'm starting to think that the current crop of Republican candidates are part of the conspiracy to re-elect Obama

    You don't like Cain???

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You don't like Cain???

    Like? Yes. Cain's very likable. Personally, I think he comes off as funny and authentic. He's the GOP candidate I'd most want to sit down and have a beer with.

    I just don't agree with any of his positions. At least none I've seen yet.

    His 9/9/9 plan favors the wealthy even more than our current policies.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    I should have been more specific and asked, "You don't like Cain for President?" :D

    I just don't agree with any of his positions. At least none I've seen yet.

    Careful... If conservatives say that about Obama, they are labeled "racist"... :D

    Why exactly don't you like the 9/9/9/ plan?? How exactly does it favor the wealthy??

    Michale....

  14. [14] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Why exactly don't you like the 9/9/9/ plan?? How exactly does it favor the wealthy?

    It makes up for lost income and corporate taxes through a revenue tax or consumption tax.

    Think about it like this. When it comes to necessities, people tend to consume about the same amount or at least within the same ballpark. Food, shelter, cars, etc.

    Let's call this average consumption number $40k a year just for argument. This says the average person spends approximately 40k a year. It may be higher or lower but just for the sake of argument.

    If you make 40k a year, you'd be taxed on your consumption or 100% of what you make.

    If you make 100k a year, you'd be taxed on 40% of what you make.

    If you make 1 million a year, you'd be taxed on 4% of what you make.

    You get the drift.

    This is what is known as a regressive tax or another way to put it would be a massive gift basket to the wealthy.

    Who gets the biggest tax breaks from Cain's plan? The rich.

    I've tried Godfather's pizza. It's not very good and I wouldn't buy it again. And I'm certainly not buying his 9-9-9 plan.

    -David

    "I can't go for that. No can do." -Hall & Oates

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you make 40k a year, you'd be taxed on your consumption or 100% of what you make.

    If you make 100k a year, you'd be taxed on 40% of what you make.

    If you make 1 million a year, you'd be taxed on 4% of what you make.

    So, what you are saying is that the more you make, the less you pay in taxes...

    Hmmmmmmmm

    Seems to me then, this is an incentive to be more successful and make more money...

    The more money you make, the less you pay in taxes... Good for you..

    The more successful you are, the more you provide jobs and such. Good for the economy...

    It actually REWARDS success instead of penalizing success...

    Seems like a win/win to me... :D

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    It actually REWARDS success instead of penalizing success...

    I mean, let's turn it around..

    If you make 40k a year, you'd be taxed on your consumption or 4% of what you make.

    If you make 100k a year, you'd be taxed on 40% of what you make.

    If you make 1 million a year, you'd be taxed on 100% of what you make.

    Here, the incentive is to make as little as possible so as not to be taxed heavily...

    There is actually incentive to make LESS money, be LESS productive so as not to get into the higher tax bracket and lose EVERYTHING you earn...

    Countries like that don't land on the moon. Countries like that don't invent the Internet.. Countries like that stagnate and die...

    Who wants to be THAT country???

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I can't go for that. No can do." -Hall & Oates

    Good quote.. :D

    Michale.....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember how I keep saying that we are worse off now than we were under Bush and ya'all disagreed??

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/03/obama_american_people_not_better_off_than_they_were_four_years_ago.html

    Obama agrees with me.. :D

    Michale......

  19. [19] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    gaz -

    First off, welcome to the site. Sorry I've been remiss about approving your comments -- the first comments you make must be approved (this cuts down on comment spam), but your comments should now appear instantly. Unless you post two or more links per comment, which will also be automatically held for approval.

    Like I said, welcome to the site, and sorry for the delay.

    -CW

  20. [20] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I mean, let's turn it around.

    What are you talking about? No one has any plan that says we should tax millionaires at 100%.

    Please try to keep the discussion to real, actual plans like Mr. Cain's.

    So, what you are saying is that the more you make, the less you pay in taxes.

    Mr. Cain's plan is that the people who make the most should pay the least.

    Absurd.

    It actually REWARDS success instead of penalizing success.

    So you really believe rich people should pay less than everyone else?

    Keep in mind, they're sitting on a trillion or two in cash that they're NOT creating jobs with right now.

    But we should just give them more ... no strings attached.

    Really ...

    That sounds like a big fat corporate giveaway to me. I thought you were against the last bailout?

    -David

  21. [21] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [7] -

    It's the media making the weight argument, not Democrats.

    Michale [16] -

    Actually, you should check your history. The 1950s were one of the most productive eras in American business history. Top tax rate was over 90%. Tax rates in the 1960s were lower, but still mighty high on the top income brackets (compared to now). And that's when we went to the moon, pal. Nice try. Also, Clinton raised top tax rates. A decade of prosperity and jobs followed. Raising tax rates does not kill the economy -- history shows exactly the opposite.

    -CW

  22. [22] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [21] -

    Oh, one last thing. The internet was invented by your tax dollars at work. It was a government project. Look it up (see: DARPA and ARPANet...).

    So, countries that slash government spending are the ones who don't invent the internet.

    But again, nice try.

    :-)

    -CW

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gaz,

    As I am wont to do....

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    Michale, you provide no citations, and a bunch of drivel.

    The way the system is set up here, it loses the impact if one posts multiple links as they post is held in moderation..

    But rest assured, everything I have posted as factual, IS factual and I do have the cites to back it up. Oh sure, I might forget to dot an 't' or cross an 'i' now and again. Like when I thought the Muslim population was 10 billion.. :D But, that was a minor typo that didn't negate the overall validity of the original point..

    If there is a particular point that confuses you, by all means, point it out. :D I'll be happy to give you cites of the facts til the cows come home.. :D

    Really, though you nailed it when you said "Only when the majority is wrong"

    Exactly. Unfortunately, the Left only supports the majority, when the majority supports the Left's agenda.. CrapCare is a perfect example of this.

    To be fair, the Right is the same way...

    Hint: When everybody thinks you are crazy, they are probably correct. Not the other way around.

    I thought we had just agreed that the majority is not always right?? :D

    History is replete with great people "everybody" thought was crazy.

    People like Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr...

    Not that I am comparing myself to them.. But, in their time, "everbody" thought they were crazy too.

    Again, welcome to the party... :D You'll find things are a bit different around here. We don't resort to personal attacks and the like. We argue the message w/o trying to denigrate the messenger..

    You'll catch on.. :D

    David,

    What are you talking about? No one has any plan that says we should tax millionaires at 100%.

    Well, that's good.. Because, as we have established, even taking everything from people who make 10 mil+ won't put a dent in the debt/deficit...

    But I was being facetious..

    In your example, you claim that Cain's plan is flawed because the people who make less have to pay more..

    I say that is an incentive for people to be more successful.. More successful means more productive. More productive is better for the economy...

    So you really believe rich people should pay less than everyone else?

    I believe that all Americans should be given an incentive to succeed.. Should not be penalized when they do succeed..

    Do you believe that the government should penalize success? Do you believe that the government can use money more wisely than a successful businessman??

    If so, what are those beliefs based on...

    Keep in mind, they're sitting on a trillion or two in cash that they're NOT creating jobs with right now.

    As has been established (and heretofore not refuted) the reason that they are sitting on a trillion or two and not creating jobs is because they have no confidence or stability in the economy or the Obama administration.

    And whose fault is that??

    Why should the Government be given MORE money??

    Think of the US Government as a recalcitrant teenager.. Have they shown that they can be responsible with money? Use it wisely??

    No, not even a little bit..

    So, until the snot-nosed brat can learn to better manage their finances, they shouldn't be getting a raise in their allowance...

    CW,

    It's the media making the weight argument, not Democrats.

    Well, of course. Because, overall, the media leans Left.. :D

    No political leader will go on record as saying Christie is too fat to be president. They simply let the Lefty media pundits do their dirty work for them..

    Do a google for 'Liberals Christie Fat'... Once again, I am amazed of the disconnect between today's so-called liberals and the liberals of my childhood...

    Today's liberals seem to be as vindictive and hateful and hurtful as they accuse conservatives of being..

    Oh, one last thing. The internet was invented by your tax dollars at work. It was a government project. Look it up (see: DARPA and ARPANet...).

    So, countries that slash government spending are the ones who don't invent the internet.

    DARPA was military spending.. As we all know, military spending is a law unto itself..

    Maybe it's a bit pollyannish of a view, but I don't view military spending in the same venue as government spending..

    Government spending is things like CrapCare and paying millions so the First Lady and First Kids can go on a European junket and paying trillions for EBTs so that people can buy water bottles, empty out the water, return for deposit to buy cigarettes...

    THAT'S the kind of thing I think of when I think of the kind of "government spending" that can be done away with...

    It's funny how the Left looked after every red cent during the Bush years.. But now the Left simply ignores all the extravagance that "their" guy does in the White House...

    Anyways, my example to David was simply using his example to make my point...

    The fact is, this Administration has a desire to penalize success. If you succeed, you get gutted in taxes and penalties..

    What makes ANYONE here think that the government can use the money better than the people who EARNED the money??

    Have they shown any propensity in that regard to date?? Not on a hot day in hell, they haven't..

    So, I am at a loss to understand why the conventional wisdom around here is to give the government MORE money to burn and waste...

    So, countries that slash government spending are the ones who don't invent the internet.

    With this, you DO make a valid point... The Obama Administration completely gutting NASA and denying space to the US is a prime example of the WRONG king of slashing of government spending..

    Perhaps if Obama was more concerned about the exceptionalism of the USA and less concerned about the Democratic Party agenda, we would have a souped up NASA instead of a Doomed-To-Fail CrapCare.

    I guess what I am trying to say is that I am not against government spending in and of itself..

    I am simply saying that the Obama Administration has proven time and time again that it is, apparently, incapable of spending wisely.

    Therefore, until the administration gets their sh.... er.. act together, giving them MORE money is the very definition of insanity...

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    So you really believe rich people should pay less than everyone else?

    Well, let's see...

    If I make 10,000 a year and you make 10,000,000 a year, you are rich and I am poor..

    If we both pay 10% in taxes, I pay $1,000 and you pay $1,000,000 in taxes..

    So, the rich (you) are paying MORE in taxes than the poor (me)....

    So, in essence, the rich DO pay more in taxes than the poor...

    I'll address your "loophole" argument after you make it. :D

    The problem is, the rich still have a lot of money left, so you think that they should pay even more...

    And therein lies my whole beef with the Left's "STICK IT TO THE RICH" mantra...

    It's a faulty conclusion based on an emotional argument...

    Michale.....

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I believe that all Americans should be given an incentive to succeed.. Should not be penalized when they do succeed..

    Do you believe that the government should penalize success? Do you believe that the government can use money more wisely than a successful businessman??

    If so, what are those beliefs based on...

    at least for myself, it's based on an extensive body of evidence.

    I'll have to be brief since I need to be at work in an hour, but as CW pointed out in [21], the time with the most upper-income tax money under government control was our most successful as a nation. to add contrast to the point, the great depression happened at the time when the least upper-income tax money was under government control. you can call it an aberration or suggest confounding variables if you wish, but that's what happened.

    when we talk about reward and punishment, it strays into my area of expertise. a stimulus (psych, not econ) functions as a reward when the antecedent behavior (productivity) increases. it functions as a punishment when the behavior decreases. unless they are at communist levels, high taxes do not function as a punishment. i say they don't because they haven't. and unless the money saved is needed to buy actual goods and services, low taxes do not function as a reward. i say they don't because they haven't.

    if we're defining reward and punishment in lay terms, then it wades into the murky waters of what people deserve. do people necessarily deserve what they get? vis-a-vis last week's discussion, we've established that some do and some don't. just as among the rich we have our bill gates's and our paris hiltons, among the poor we have our loafers who sit around the house eating cheese puffs and our smart, hard-working folk who just never caught a break.

    but at least functionally, taxes in a market economy are neither punishment nor reward for anyone who has all their basic needs met. as to why that's the case, i'll leave speculation for a time when i have time to speculate.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll have to be brief since I need to be at work in an hour, but as CW pointed out in [21], the time with the most upper-income tax money under government control was our most successful as a nation. to add contrast to the point, the great depression happened at the time when the least upper-income tax money was under government control. you can call it an aberration or suggest confounding variables if you wish, but that's what happened.

    I concede the point to both CW and you..

    I will concede the point conditionally that, in the past, higher taxes lead to increased productivity.. I don't have the knowledge or expertise to refute the point, so I will conditionally accept that, all things being equal, higher taxes may lead to increase productivity..

    That was then and this is now..

    We had responsible leaders back then and things turned out well, as history shows.. We weren't, to the best of my knowledge, in a recession in the 50s and 60s so higher taxes WAS the correct choice...

    MY point is, what has the Obama Administration done to warrant the belief that history will repeat itself??

    My other point is that raising taxes in the middle of a recession is a moronic step to take..

    Don't take my word for it, listen to Obama...

    “The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy and put business in a further whole.”

    This government, in the here and now, doesn't deserve more money until it can show the American people that it can handle the money it already gets..

    Might as well give an M-16 to a chimp...

    To me, it's really that simple...

    Michale.....

  27. [27] 
    akadjian wrote:

    We had responsible leaders back then and things turned out well, as history shows.. We weren't, to the best of my knowledge, in a recession in the 50s and 60s so higher taxes WAS the correct choice.

    Perhaps those leaders were able to be successful leaders because they had the appropriate resources at their disposal.

    If we want another Internet or another space program (which I think is a great idea. let's find the next big innovation or let's restart the space program) it's going to cost money.

    Now you may argue that this should come from the private sector, but for many industries, they can make more short term money by fighting AGAINST innovation. Think the energy industry. Think the financial industry.

    Innovation often comes from government. Liberal government. The space program and Internet are two great examples.

    -David

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps those leaders were able to be successful leaders because they had the appropriate resources at their disposal.

    Perhaps.... Perhaps not...

    One can easily say that Clinton built up a budget surplus because regulations were loosened up allowing for the Dot Com explosion...

    But the Dot Com explosion was an outlier and as such, you can't use it as a reliable template for future events...

    Past performance is not indicative of future trends...

    Innovation often comes from government. Liberal government.

    No...

    Innovation often comes from COMPETENT government..

    We don't have a competent government. Therefore giving them more money is just moronic...

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Innovation often comes from COMPETENT government.

    Competent government. I like how that sounds. I think you hit the nail on the head, Michale.

    That's what people want. I'm not sure if I feel ok about this, but I'm with you 100% on this one. I want a competent government.

    Trouble is that many conservatives want no government. They want to "drown government in a bathtub" to quote Grove Norquist.

    And that's why we don't have a competent government. Because we've elected so many people who don't believe in government.

    If you want a competent government, then you need to elect people who believe in government. Not people who believe in destroying it.

    -David

  30. [30] 
    akadjian wrote:

    How's this quote sound:

    If you elect people who don't believe in government, don't be surprised when you get an incompetent government.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you elect people who don't believe in government, don't be surprised when you get an incompetent government.

    Yea, but the 2008 election was as far from "people not believing in government" as can possibly be...

    So you can't blame the people for the government's incompetence..

    Obama's administration simply has not been competent...

    About the *only* thing that Obama has done right in the last three years was to extend and expand Bush's CounterTerror policies...

    Michale.....

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what people want. I'm not sure if I feel ok about this, but I'm with you 100% on this one. I want a competent government.

    Good.. Common ground...


    Trouble is that many conservatives want no government. They want to "drown government in a bathtub" to quote Grove Norquist.

    There are always fanatics...

    You can't deny that the Left has their fair share....

    No one wants "NO" government.. Except maybe the anarchists of OWS...

    But conservatives, by and large, want a government that knows it's place...

    CrapCare proves that the Obama government does not know it's place...

    Michale.....

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Didn't Obama say he was a "warrior" for the middle class...

    Obama seeks debt collector proposal.....
    To the dismay of consumer groups and the discomfort of Democrats, President Barack Obama wants Congress to make it easier for private debt collectors to call the cellphones of consumers delinquent on student loans and other billions owed the federal government.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEBT_COLLECTORS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-04-06-36-08

    I guess Obama is a warrior for the middle class that doesn't owe money...

    Is there anyone in the middle class that DOESN'T owe money???

    With "warriors" like this, who needs the Huns, eh?? :^/

    Michale.....

  34. [34] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [32] -

    Um, you need to check some facts here. Everyone's for "competent government," it almost goes without saying. But the government right now is not competent. I lay almost the entire blame for this on the Republicans in the Senate (with some left over for Harry Reid for being such a Caspar Milquetoast). Republicans have used "cloture" (or the "filibuster") more times in Obama's term alone than in OUR ENTIRE HISTORY AS A COUNTRY. Add in the times they used it from 2006-08, and it's quite easy to see where the incompetence is coming from. Democrats had something like 7 or 8 months where they had 60 in the Senate, and unfortunately they spent almost the entire time dealing with healthcare reform. But the over-use of the filibuster is absolutely unprecedented in our history, and does not bode well for either party in the future (if you don't think Democrats are going to do the same thing from now on if the GOP takes the Senate, then I've got a bridge to sell you). Actually, when this situation does arise, who are you going to blame then for incompetence? Republicans, or those Democrats who are "blocking what the American people want!" I know which Fox News will be blaming at the time....

    Looking at our examples in the 1950s and 1960s, the filibuster was RARELY used back then. Even on EXTREMELY contentious bills such as the one which set up Medicaid and Medicare -- the minority allowed a straight up-or-down vote, even though they were ENRAGED about the bill itself. The filibuster was used (shamefully, by Southern Democrats) to continue Jim Crow institutional racism as long as possible, but it simply wasn't used on EVERY SINGLE FREAKIN' VOTE. This is the main difference between then and now. Government was competent back then, because the Senate actually worked under gentlemen's agreements that the filibuster would only VERY VERY RARELY be used. That is the main difference.

    How you can not see that the Republicans are now so unreasonable that they actually VOTED DOWN a proclamation HONORING MOTHERS' DAY (for Pete's sake), just to score a cheap political point, is beyond me.

    Going back further in history (sorry, I've been researching all morning), we once did have a government that knew its place, and left things up to the states. It was a current-day Libertarian's dream -- the federal gummint didn't have the power to tax unless the states said OK, they were kept on a VERY short leash, and was as small as possible. Passing any legislation required a 2/3 vote -- ANYthing!

    This period was during the Articles of Confederation. It didn't work. That's why we began giving the federal government a lot more power. Because trying it the other way simply did NOT work.

    And Grover Norquist is not some sort of "fanatic" in the sense you mean. Yes, he is fanatical, but no, he is not some sort of fringe guy that nobody pays attention to. Something like 97 percent of sitting Republicans in Congress has signed his "no taxes, ever!" pledge. That is not some fringe guy, that is the heart and soul of the GOP today. And he was the one who described what he wanted as "make government small enough to drown in my bathtub." There are fringe folks on the Left, but they don't have NEARLY as much power with the party as a whole as the fringe guys on the Right.

    Anyway, sorry for the rant, gotta write today's thing now...

    -CW

  35. [35] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    In re-reading that last comment, I have a correction:

    Democrats had something like 7 or 8 months where they had 60 in the Senate, and unfortunately they spent almost the entire time dealing with healthcare reform.

    That should read "...reform, or on vacation."

    Heh.

    -CW

  36. [36] 
    akadjian wrote:

    There are always fanatics.

    The difference being the fanatics are running the GOP show ;)

    But conservatives, by and large, want a government that knows it's place.

    Just like 99% of the people don't know their place? Who are conservatives to say anyone doesn't know their place?

    Our government, if you recall, is "We, the people"

    I don't recall it saying "We, the conservatives ..."

    That sounds mighty arrogant to me.

    But that aside. Conservatives sure seem to be interested in getting rid of all government except perhaps for the military.

    At least they rage about it enough.

    And that's gonna make for a completely different country than we've ever had before.

    No more "We, the people ..."

    More like "We, the wealthy of this country who have influenced your government ..."

    Or am I wrong here?

    All I'm saying, Michale, is if you want competent government, maybe you should think about voting for people who believe in government.

    Instead of people who believe government is the problem.

    -David

  37. [37] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Apparently, even some Republicans have had enough of Grover Norquist:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/frank-wolf-grover-norquist-taxes_n_994206.html

    Note that: "one of only six GOP House members not to have signed the pledge."

    -CW

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Everyone's for "competent government," it almost goes without saying.

    Kewl!! Once again, common ground.. :D

    . I lay almost the entire blame for this on the Republicans in the Senate (with some left over for Harry Reid for being such a Caspar Milquetoast). Republicans have used "cloture" (or the "filibuster") more times in Obama's term alone than in OUR ENTIRE HISTORY AS A COUNTRY.

    That's what the minority Party does...

    That's what Democrats did when THEY were the minority Party...

    I think your complaint has always been that the Democrats cave in too often...

    So it seems to me that your are saying you are pissed because Republicans are BETTER at opposing Democrats than Democrats are at opposing Republicans...

    But don't you see the inherent contradiction in blaming Republicans??

    When Republicans had the White House and Congress, everything was the Republicans fault..

    When Democrats had the White House and a near lock on ALL facets of government, everything was STILL the Republicans fault..

    WTF???

    If Democrats had the White House and each and every seat in the House and the Senate, would things STILL be the Republicans fault???

    What's it gonna take for Democrats to man up and say, "Yea, we screwed the pooch. This is our fault"???

    Look at the hear and now.. Republicans are pushing Obama's Jobs legislation. Obama said he wanted it done "NOW" so Republicans are obliging him...

    And it's the DEMOCRATS that are blocking it!!!

    So, how exactly is it the Republicans fault???

    David,

    The difference being the fanatics are running the GOP show ;)

    Apparently, "fanatic" is in the eye of the beholder, no??

    I mean, I could point to all the people who claim Obama is doing a good job and label them as "fanatics"...

    Because even Obama himself has stated Americans are worse off now than they were under Bush...

    Before complaining about the fanatics on the Right, perhaps time would be better spent reigning in the fanatics on the Left, no??

    I'm just sayin'... :D

    Our government, if you recall, is "We, the people"

    Exactly...

    But is it the PEOPLE that wanted CrapCare???

    No, it was the Democrats..

    So, you are dead on ballz accurate..

    It *IS* "We the People..."

    It is *NOT* "We, the Democrats"

    Perhaps the LEFT should have remembered that when they were shoving legislation down the throats of the American people that were clearly against it..

    NOW ya'all are complaining when the Right does the same thing....

    All I'm saying, Michale, is if you want competent government, maybe you should think about voting for people who believe in government.

    I would rather vote for people who believe that government has a place...

    I *WON'T* vote for people who believe in government the way religious fanatics believe in god or they way children believe in Santa Claus...

    Government is NOT the solution to every problem. In many MANY cases, government *IS* the problem...

    Unfortunately, those on the Left do not seem to understand this very simple, but oh so important point..

    Instead of people who believe government is the problem.

    In the here and now, government IS the problem.

    Or, to be more accurate, Obama's government is the problem....

    The point is, ya'all still think it's the solution...

    Michale.....

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    What I am trying to see in my overly verbose and long-winded manner is this.

    I don't see anything the Republicans doing now that Democrats didn't do when THEY had the majority...

    They only thing I DO see is that Republicans do the opposition thing a lot more effective than Democrats do it...

    But my overall guiding principle is this..

    Democrats had a virtual lock on government for two years..

    And they threw it all way by wasting all that time pushing CrapCare...

    This is the undeniable fact of the here and now...

    If the vote were held today, that's what I would remember when I enter the voting booth....

    Things could change between now and Nov 2012... Things might actually get better for Democrats..

    It's sure as hell that things can't get much worse...

    Michale.....

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh Wait!!!!!!

    NEWS FLASH!!!!!!

    Christie stated he will NOT be running for President!!

    Whew!!! I am glad we got that straightened out!!!

    :D

    Michale.....

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me ask one simple question..

    If Wall Street and the Bankers are evil and the root cause of ALL America's problems.....

    WHY did the Obama administration bail them out??

    Why not let them fail and build a better system from the ashes??

    Hmmmm I think someone around here proposed that at the time.... Hmmmmmm Who could that have been???

    :D

    Michale.....

  42. [42] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The Articles of Confederation ... that's a great point, CW.

    I wonder why more people don't bring that up. Probably because, like me, it happened a long time ago and they don't remember all the details and they have to go to their morning job rather than research :)

    NOTE TO SELF: If you have more time, look more into the Articles of Confederation

    -David

  43. [43] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, about Grover Norquist.

    If all Democrats signed a pledge to someone like Grover, we'd never hear the end of how they were subservient to an outside interest.

    But that's who Republicans are obeying. Not the people they represent. Grover Norquist.

    Why are they working for Grover?

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    But that's who Republicans are obeying. Not the people they represent. Grover Norquist.

    Actually, they ARE obeying the people they represent.

    It just so happened that the people who voted them into office (remember that shellacking??) and Norquist had the same goal in mind.

    STOP THE ORGASM OF SPENDING OF THE DEMOCRATS...

    Now, it can be argued that the people have changed their minds and there would be some validity to that argument.

    But it is undeniable that Republicans are doing EXACTLY what they have been voted into office to do...

    STOP THE DEMOCRATS...

    Since we are speaking so much of Republican obstructionism, isn't it fair to touch on Democrat obstructionism??

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-says-gop-blocking-jobs-bill-after-reid-blocks-jobs-bill_595022.html

    I mean, seriously...

    Seems like the biggest impediment to The ONE's rise to godhood are Democrats and not Republicans..

    Michale.....

  45. [45] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But it is undeniable that Republicans are doing EXACTLY what they have been voted into office to do... STOP THE DEMOCRATS.

    I seem to recall that most of the Republicans I know in 2010 ran on a platform of "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs"

    I don't believe their platform was "Stop the Democrats."

    I believe that they said one thing to get elected, then did another.

    Now to be fair, some Democrats have done similar things. The most notable in my mind being Obama's promise of change. The difference being we did get some change with Obama (though not the radical change we'd hoped for) while Republicans haven't done anything to help create jobs.

    They have, however, done exactly what you claim and have obstructed government at every turn.

    Maybe their campaign signs should have read: INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT!

    -David

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    I seem to recall that most of the Republicans I know in 2010 ran on a platform of "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs"

    You are confusing their platform with their mandate..

    They have, however, done exactly what you claim and have obstructed government at every turn.

    As had Democrats done under Bush....

    Your complaint is that Republicans are more effective at obstructing Democrats than Democrats are at obstructing Republicans...

    You want Republicans to "play nice" because Democrats can't handle it when Republicans are "mean"...

    It's like asking the New England Patriots to ease off their game when they play the Jacksonville Jaguars...

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Your complaint is that Republicans are more effective at obstructing Democrats than Democrats are at obstructing Republicans.

    My complaint is that their only goal is to be anti-Democrat. One which you yourself believe in.

    This means that government stops or is "incompetent" as you would say because no compromise can ever be reached.

    Not even one that is weighted 90% in favor of Republicans such as the Obama/Boehner compromise.

    In fact, I'm not even sure they'd agree to a 100% compromise in their favor if Obama proposed it.

    This means they don't care about issues or running government competently or how people are affected or our country.

    All they are focused on is anti-Obama. It's kind of like a cult.

    No one person can be as evil as conservatives make out Obama to be.

    I'm sorry, Michale. But I can't think of a single Democrat who has ever been like that. Even in the GWB years. Not all Republicans are this bad, but the numbers that are seem to be increasing.

    -David

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    My complaint is that their only goal is to be anti-Democrat. One which you yourself believe in.

    And, during the Bush years, the Left's only goal was to be Anti-Bush..

    That's what politics are... I didn't hear much complaining about being obstructionist when it was Democrats being obstructionist...

    I'm sorry, Michale. But I can't think of a single Democrat who has ever been like that. Even in the GWB years. Not all Republicans are this bad, but the numbers that are seem to be increasing.

    Really??

    Tell me..

    How many ten thousand plus Anti War demonstrations have you seen recently???

    How many assassination movies about President Obama have you seen recently??

    How many accusations of war criminals and comparisons to Hitler have you seen of late??

    The entire Left was so Anti-Bush, it wasn't even funny...

    But now that THEIR guy is in the White House and doing the exact same things they screamed hysterically at Bush for, all of the sudden, those things are not commented on at all...

    Do you want a list?? Because I can sure provide you with a list of actions to date from the Obama Adminsitration that would have had the Left howling if it had been done by a GOP Administration..

    FAST AND FURIOUS

    Extravagant vacations for the first family

    Funding to Solyndra to the tune of over a billion (fortunately, Solyndra didn't get the second loan)

    And so on and so on and so on...

    Democrats were all about being obstructionist during the Bush years. That was ALL they were about...

    Wanna peruse the CW Archives with me over the Bush years?? :D It will be an eye-opener for you, to be sure.. :D

    You don't like obstructionist tactics when it comes from Republicans..

    But you DEMAND obstructionist tactics for your Democrats...

    Why hasn't Obama's jobs bill gone up for a vote from the Senate?? Because of obstructionist tactics from Democrats...

    It's politics. Republicans do it. Democrats do it. You can't get pithy, just because Republicans do it better..

    Well, you can.. :D But it sure doesn't help anything.. :D

    Michale.....

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me ask ya something...

    What would you say if Republicans met with Democrats and said,

    "Look people. This terrorist problem is really out of control.. Our agenda is to allow the US government to listen in on every phone call in the world, read every email and postal mail in the world and generally just do away with the 4th Amendment..

    That's our agenda and we don't want all you yahoo Democrats to obstruct that in any way.

    Capiche???"

    Now, as a Democrat, what would your reaction to that be??

    My GUESS is it would be something about a cold day in hell or finding an orifice that gets little solar activity or some such response. Am I right??? :D

    So, why do you think that Republicans should just roll over and help further the Democratic Party agenda??

    "When people of good conscience have an honest dispute we sometimes must resort to this kind of adversarial system. If you refuse, then I'll rule summarily based upon my findings. Data's a toaster. Have him report to Commander Maddox immediately for experimental refit."
    -Captain Phillipa Louvois, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, The Measure Of A Man

    Blaming Republicans for obstructing Democrats is like blaming the sun for rising or blaming me for being an arrogant prick..

    It's what we do... :D

    Michale.....

  50. [50] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And, during the Bush years, the Left's only goal was to be Anti-Bush.

    First of all, we're talking about Congress and elected politicians here. So let's stick to that discussion for a minute.

    Second, Democrats disagreed with many of Bush's ideas but they didn't try to shut down the government every week or filibuster every bill.

    Can you provide me a list of when Democrats in government refused to work with Republicans?

    I don't seem to recall them ever holding budgets hostage or threatening to shut the government down or threatening to filibuster everything.

    The incompetence is coming from Republicans who don't care if government fails. They see that failure and incompetence as success.

    -David

    You can't get pithy, just because Republicans do it better.

    I'm not sure I can get "pithy" at all ;)

  51. [51] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- I wrote about this same topic in 2008 here:
    http://thereckoner.com/?p=61

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Good article..

    As I indicated previously, I am fairly certain that NO GOVERNMENT is as bad an idea as ALL GOVERNMENT...

    I might even go so far as to say that a BIG GOVERNMENT might be beneficial to Americans in general...

    But THIS government isn't the one to make that case.. THIS government isn't the one to be that BIG GOVERNMENT.

    Why??

    Because they have failed at practically everything they have tried..

    So, while I am not convinced you and Bashi and CW et al are completely wrong in what you propose, I am 1000% convinced that the Obama Administration is simply incapable of being a competent government.. I am equally convinced that the current crop of Democrat leaders are also not competent in the least...

    So, until the Democratic Party can field a real varsity team, I say it's time to give the Republicans a chance again...

    Like Obama said.. Americans were better off under Bush than they are under his leadership...

    Michale.....

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    First of all, we're talking about Congress and elected politicians here. So let's stick to that discussion for a minute.

    Funny.. So was I... :D

    Second, Democrats disagreed with many of Bush's ideas but they didn't try to shut down the government every week or filibuster every bill.

    Really??

    http://www.google.com/search?q=Democrats%20Obstruction%20Bush&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

    The incompetence is coming from Republicans who don't care if government fails. They see that failure and incompetence as success.

    Republicans are tying Democrats up in knots. So much so that it's Democrats who are obstructing Obama's signature Jobs Bill...

    Doesn't sound very incompetent to me.. Seems to me that Republicans are VERY competent as the minority Party in the Senate... :D

    Michale.....

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Second, Democrats disagreed with many of Bush's ideas but they didn't try to shut down the government every week or filibuster every bill.

    I am also constrained to point out that just last week, it was Democrats in the Senate threatening a government shut down because Republicans weren't going along with Democrats..

    Republicans aren't doing anything that Democrats haven't done before...

    This is the simple fact of the whole issue..

    Michale....

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/185693-senate-dems-quash-obamas-tax-plan

    Now, THERE is a plan I can get behind...

    Schumer said families and businesses that earn between $250,000 and $1 million are "firmly in the middle class."

    Gee whiz... Haven't I been saying this for the past year????

    Michale.....

  56. [56] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You can plug any 3 words into Google and links will appear.

    Still no specifics though of when Democrats refused to work with Republicans under Bush or shut down government or threatened to filibuster at every occasion.

    I'm sure though that you'll come up with something though :)

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    I already gave you an example of when the Democrats tried to shut down the government.

    Last week...

    The link I gave you showed a whole bunch of articles that explain and detailed Democrat obstructionism during the Bush years..

    Democrats obstruct Republicans majorities.

    Republicans obstruct Democrat majorities.

    It's called "politics"... Maybe you've heard of it. :D

    Perhaps if Democrats came up with something that was actually GOOD for the country, Republicans would be less inclined to obstruct it...

    No guarantee though. :D

    Michale.....

  58. [58] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hey Michale ...

    Here's some proof that the world is flat ...
    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q="world+is+flat"

    Here's some proof that the sky is green ...
    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22sky+is+green%22&fp=8a16d85d2ebfd8f1

    This is great fun. I don't have to be specific about anything. Just pick 3 words and then claim the search result as my "facts".

    Conservatives are religious ...
    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q="conservatives+are+religious"

    Nice try about last week with Democrats. I'd believe it if not for the fact that all along Democrats have been trying to come up with compromises.

    And who refused? Who holds the religious views? Any guesses?

    -David

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    OK... So, what you are saying is that Democrats have never been obstructionist, Democrats have never threatened a government shutdown and Democrats have always been ready and willing to work with Republicans for the good of the country..

    Well, I guess there just isn't any common ground possible because we're not even on the same planet...

    Michale.....

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hmmmmmm

    So, Democrats forget about obstructionism and just go with nuclear weapons..

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters

    Yea, Democrats are pure as the driven snow, eh?? :^/

    Michale.....

  61. [61] 
    tinsldr2 wrote:

    best Blog site for the OWS,

    http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2011/10/they-pretend-theyre-sane-and-rational_08.html

    Has multiple parts. Great protest pics!

Comments for this article are closed.