ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [249] -- Chides Of March

[ Posted Friday, March 15th, 2013 – 17:09 PDT ]

Welcome to the Ides of March, now known as the day after "Pi Day." If you need to look up either of those references, may I humbly suggest that your pop-cultural education may not be quite wide enough. The Wides of March? Maybe I'm just being too snarky -- yet another of the Snides of March, perhaps.

OK, I'll stop. We'll get on instead with the normal chiding we do here on a weekly basis (must... not... repeat... subtitle phrase...). Speaking of chiding, New York City Mayor Bloomberg is fit to be... well... tied. No, really, I'll stop now -- I promise. Ginormous soda drinkers across the city are assumably rejoicing in the streets, now that a judge has struck down Bloomberg's "nanny-statist" law. Bloomberg vows to appeal. Will Gotham streets be held in the grip of the Sodameister? Will Batman and Robin save the day? Stay tuned, kiddies....

Moving on from the Soda Wars to our neverending War On (Some) Drugs, sooner or later the math is going to become compelling to budget cutters, one hopes. Want to cut something like $850 billion from the next 10 years of budgeting? End the War. There's a novel budget-cutting idea, eh, folks? The Drug War has now cost us roughly the same amount as the Iraq War, to put it in context -- two trillion dollars each. In other "white smoke" news this week, the United Nations came out and condemned the states of Colorado and Washington, and urged the Obama Justice Department to fight their marijuana legalization laws full-force -- on the same day the U.S. Ambassador came out and chided his colleagues for their serious drinking problems in the U.N. You just can't make this stuff up, folks -- a gaggle of drunkards getting on their high horses (and then, likely, falling off) about continuing harsh temperance laws.

In other ironic and/or hypocritical news, Republican Senator Rob Portman bravely switched his position on gay marriage... after his own son came out as gay to him. Well, two years after, but who's counting? Now if only other children of Republicans were to come out as unemployed, or perhaps marry a minority, maybe party thinking could further evolve. There's always hope.

Speaking of hope, President Obama continued his charm offensive this week, by meeting with all four partisan caucuses up on Capitol Hill (two parties times two houses equals four caucuses). Whether any of this reaching out will pay any sort of dividend is yet to be seen, but at least the atmosphere seemed to be a little less harsh in Washington this week, so perhaps hope is not entirely unjustified this time around. Then again, there's always next week. We'll see.

Donald Trump has offered to pay the price to reopen the public White House tours, meaning... um, I'm not sure. Meaning it's time for a reality show based around touring Washington landmarks? It'd certainly be more interesting and educational than watching Trump fire people. You could have a race up the steps of the Washington Monument, for the grand finale, even!

But let's return to the concept of hope to wind up this week. Because the Catholic world is certainly hopeful for the success of the new Pope Francis I, and we will certainly lift a glass and wish him well on one of the two upcoming "saints' days" that Americans celebrate across sectarian lines (Valentine's Day being the other, of course). Which is our way of working around to saying have a Happy Saint Patrick's Day, everyone! Or, to put it properly: Beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig!

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

There were a number of impressive things on the Democratic side to note this week. Maryland's governor is about to sign the abolition of the death penalty in his state, which is certainly noteworthy.

Senator Patty Murray, who chairs the Senate budget committee, put out a Democratic budget proposal this week. This is impressive only because it is the first time in five years that such a document has come forth. Now, this isn't Patty's fault, really, since the committee was chaired for the past four years by Kent Conrad, who retired in 2012. But, at best, it rates only a Honorable Mention for Murray, because we're really supposed to get one of these every year, like clockwork.

Our second Honorable Mention comes with no caveats, because the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Pat Leahy, successfully moved all four gun control bills through his committee this week. While their future is uncertain even in the full Senate, this is a necessary first step -- moving the bills out of committee. Leahy has done so with blinding speed (by Washingtonian standards, that is), only a few months after the tragedy in Newtown. While the country is still waiting on bills to reform immigration or the minimum wage or any of the other agenda items President Obama put forth in his State Of The Union speech, gun control is now moving forward as solid legislative proposals. For doing so, Leahy certainly has earned an Honorable Mention.

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week falls into the "credit where credit is due" category, from an event which happened almost a year ago. A bartender working a fundraiser casually put a video camera on the bar and taped what was going on at the event he was serving. That event was to raise money for Mitt Romney, and it is where Romney uttered his now-famous "47 percent" remarks. Thanks to not only the foresight in taping the event in the first place, but also to his determination to get the tape out to the political chattering classes, Scott Prouty changed the course of the presidential election.

Up until now, the journalist who first spotlighted the tape has gotten most of the credit for the tape's impact. We here have lavished praises (and two MIDOTW awards) on the man who connected the journalist with Prouty -- James Earl Carter IV, President Jimmy's grandson. But now that he's gone public and admitted his role as the originator of the video, we in all fairness have a long-overdue Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award for Scott Prouty. We're not even sure if he's a registered Democrat or anything, but he certainly deserves a lot of credit for the Democratic presidential campaign efforts last year. Romney never truly recovered from the damage the tape did to his campaign, and it will be remembered decades from now as a historical turning point. For making such history possible, Scott Prouty definitely deserves our weekly MIDOTW award.

[Scott Prouty is a private citizen, not an elected or party official, so it is our policy not to provide contact information, but you can always offer up your congratulations in the comment section.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

With so much lunacy on the right this week (what with the CPAC convention and Florida's Lieutenant Governor stepping down hastily), it was hard to find any examples of disappointing conduct by Democrats.

President Obama at least deserves a (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week, for his justification of being "no Dick Cheney" on drone warfare. Seriously, Mister President? This is the bar Democrats set for themselves now? Being slightly better than Dick Cheney? Wow, that's a pretty low mark to hit.

Obama needs to realize that what worries Democrats (and Rand Paul) is not that we really think Obama himself is guilty of far-fetched drone scenarios, it is instead the "just trust me" attitude -- because setting such a precedent is an incredibly bad idea. Having a secret drone policy in the first place means that while we may be justified in "just trusting" Obama, what will happen with the next president? And the one after that? Sooner or later, we will indeed have someone just as bad (or worse) as Dick Cheney in the White House, and that is the president we are worried about. Or you can spell that "precedent we're worried about" -- it works both ways.

But while Obama deserves at least a (Dis-)Honorable Mention for his off-the-cuff comment, we just dinged him last week, so we don't feel his remark rises to the level (or "sinks to the level") of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

In fact, no one does. For the first time since the 2012 election, no Democrat has seriously disappointed us this week, so there will be no MDDOTW award this week -- unless someone nominates a doozy in the comments whom I have missed or forgotten to mention.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 249 (3/15/13)

It's the week of the battling budget proposals! Woo hoo!

So far, we've had three competing budgets appear, from House Republicans, House Democrats, and Senate Democrats. None will pass as-is, which gives us pundits and wonks months and months of arguing about their relative merits, which is certainly more interesting than watching paint dry, right?

Well, let's get right to it, such as it is. As always, these talking points are offered up to Democrats everywhere, from those about to sit down on a Sunday morning chat show to those shooting the political breeze around the water coolers of the nation.

 

1
   So much for the "liberal" press

What's that? You weren't aware there were three budget proposals? I'm simply shocked. If you want a stellar rundown of what I'm talking about, check out Robert L. Borosage in the Huffington Post for the best article I've seen yet about the Progressives' House budget.

"You know, for all the griping on the right about the supposedly 'liberal' mainstream press, I have yet to hear a rundown of the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Back To Work Budget in any of the big media outlets. Oh, sure, Paul Ryan got lots of press by introducing essentially the same budget he's introduced for the past three years, and Patty Murray got somewhat-less attention for her budget proposal, but the real 'liberal' budget has yet to see the light of day in any mainstream press I've seen. The Back To Work budget is just as serious as Paul Ryan's budget, and it deserves equal attention because it is much more in tune with what the American people tell pollsters they want, in poll after poll. I mean, somebody should alert the soi-disant 'liberal' press, or something."

 

2
   Obama already cut the deficit

These next two are true talking points -- phrases that need repeating, over and over again, until the media realizes their inherent truth and stops parroting nonsense from Republicans.

"You know, I keep hearing Republicans saying we need to cut the deficit. But somehow I never hear from them that President Obama has indeed cut deficits by something like $2.5 trillion over ten years. It's not like Obama hasn't signed off on budget cuts and deficit reduction. Republicans are scared to admit it, but this president has cut yearly deficits by at least one-third already -- when the numbers for 2013 are in, they will be around one-third lower than the deficit Obama was handed when he walked onto the job. Deficits have come down from $1.3 trillion per year to what looks like less than $900 billion this year. How about a little credit for Obama already moving so far in the right direction?"

 

3
   Obama has offered entitlement reform, too

Once again, rinse and repeat.

"I hear Republicans call for entitlement reform, but the one person in Washington who has put more solid offers on the table to reform entitlements than any other is President Obama. Obama has, at various times, suggested means-testing Medicare, moving to the 'chained CPI,' raising retirement ages, and that doesn't even count the savings within Obamacare -- the $716 billion that Paul Ryan raked him over the coals for doing before Ryan added the savings to his own budget. Obama steps up to the plate again and again with serious suggestions for entitlement reform, and the only solid proposal from Republicans is to voucherize Medicare which is simply never going to make it through the Senate. Republicans just keep repeating 'Obama must lead on entitlement reform' over and over like a mantra, when Obama is actually the one out there with all the viable proposals to do just that. Obama is leading on entitlement reform, but Republicans refuse to take him up on any of these offers, and fail to come up with any realistic ideas of their own. Obama has offered entitlement reform, and Republicans should stop saying he hasn't, because it is simply not true."

 

4
   What year is it?

This is a common refrain for all sorts of people, upon seeing Paul Ryan's budget proposal.

"Well, we all got a good dose of 'meet the new Ryan budget, same as the old Ryan budget' this week, as the most substantive change I see was to do a global search-and-replace to add 'fiscal year 2013' to Ryan's budget blueprint. It's like the election never happened. Ryan said he thought his party 'won the argument' politically on budget matters in the last election. Really? The 2012 election was a big win for Republicans? Wow. Paul Ryan's budget is being seen as less and less serious the more the American public gets to know what's in there. Investor Business Daily pointed out that federal spending outside of Social Security and the interest on the debt would be at the lowest level of GDP since 1948 if Ryan's budget actually became law. Think about that for a minute -- the lowest since 1948, before Medicare and Medicaid even existed. The American public rejected such severe austerity in the election, but apparently Paul Ryan didn't get that memo."

 

5
   GOP for it before they were against it

The flip-floppiness of Republicans needs not just one but two talking points as well.

"Three months ago, Republicans from Mitt Romney to their congressional leadership were for cutting tax expenditures, otherwise known as loopholes. Romney actually ran on cutting loopholes. Now that President Obama is proposing doing so, Republicans are against it. It's like their position just a few months back went down the memory hole. Republicans don't really want a big budget deal, it seems. They are going to be against whatever Obama is for -- even when it's an idea they were pushing three months ago. The hypocrisy is just astounding."

 

6
   GOP against it before they were for it

Sadly, it works the other way, too.

"Six months ago, Paul Ryan was out on the campaign trail using 'Mediscare' tactics to win votes among seniors. Ryan and Romney made a ton of political hay over terrifying seniors that Obama was stealing $716 billion from their Medicare benefits. They swore up and down that the first thing they'd do in office would be to 'restore those Medicare cuts.' Funny how Paul Ryan now includes them in his budget, isn't it? In case there was any doubt, the 'biggest lie of campaign 2012' has now been crowned. Even three months ago, Republicans were warning the sky was going to fall and the American economy would collapse if we raised tax rates on something like two percent of all earners. That didn't happen, and now Ryan is including those deficit-cutting tax rates in his budget as well. What I thought was screamingly funny was Ryan's pathetic inability to square this circle in his budget proposal rollout press conference. He was asked why he included the tax hike, and he answered 'it is settled law,' and he was asked why he was still fighting Obamacare while retaining the $716 billion in savings he had loudly denounced, and he had no real answer for that. Paul Ryan: against the $716 billion Medicare cut before he was for it, and against the new tax rates before he was for them, too. The hypocrisy is getting deep, folks, and it looks like it'll get even deeper soon."

 

7
   You got that one right, Congressman Ryan

But, of course, I saved the best for last. Ryan had a slip of the tongue or perhaps a gaffe, or perhaps just a Freudian moment with his subconscious. When attempting to formulate some sort of answer on the Obamacare question, Ryan responded with a true gem of an answer:

This to us is something that we're not going to give up on, because we're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people.

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

63 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [249] -- Chides Of March”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    In fact, no one does. For the first time since the 2012 election, no Democrat has seriously disappointed us this week, so there will be no MDDOTW award this week -- unless someone nominates a doozy in the comments whom I have missed or forgotten to mention.

    Ahem....

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/15/newtown-parents-residents-blast-moore-crime-scene-photo-proposal/

    What kind of sick scumbag would suggest releasing CSPs of dead children to further a political agenda!?

    Personally, this makes Moore the MDDOTC winner in my book...

    ANYONE who is on board with this needs their head examined..

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald Trump has offered to pay the price to reopen the public White House tours, meaning... um, I'm not sure.

    How about giving him credit for being more of an American and a decent human being than the jerk in the White House who disappointed thousands of school children in order to score some political points by making his sequester hurt???

    I'm just sayin'....

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Obama's Sequester hurting...

    Howz the pain level these days???

    Did ocean's boil?? Did rivers flood?? Are The End Of Days amongst us??? :D

    Looks like Obama's and the Democrat's fear-mongering fell flat on it's face... :D

    To paraphrase...

    "{Obama}, I am laughing at the (fear-mongering)"
    -Admiral James T Kirk, STAR TREK II: The Wrath Of Kahn

    :D

    Michale.....

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'm not sure if she's a democrat, but at least to me it would be incredibly disappointing if penny pritzker became commerce secretary. her realty group was big in the subprime mortgage crisis and her school board presence has been pretty awful as well.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-14/business/chi-penny-pritzker-resigns-from-the-school-board-20130314_1_penny-pritzker-three-sentence-resignation-letter-school-board

    if true, it strikes me as a huge example of having the fox guard the hen-house.

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    in other news:

    Economic journalist Barry Ritholtz posted an outstanding critique of "Too Big To Fail" banks in the U.S. So, is he right? Have the United States been completely taken over by private financial institutions, for their own purposes?

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/03/bankistan-vanquishes-america/

    "Is there a single doubt left in your mind?

    Are you still a believer in Rufus T. Firefly Jamie Dimon as the world’s smartest banker?

    Is there a scintilla of wonder left in your mind that the giant banks are legitimate?

    Have you come around to understanding — finally — what some of us have long understood about banks?

    Are you willing to accept the truth about these corporate behemoths — that they are a horrific combination of economically dangerous, criminally inept, led by pathologically lying CEOs?

    Do you harbor any doubts that the giant banks are anything less than ruthlessly efficient criminal enterprises?

    Can you — finally — admit that our bank-created financial crisis of 2008-09 has led us to where we are today?"

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Don't have time to read the Moore story, but I think you summed it up enough to comment upon it.

    I actually found myself with a similar thought, after hearing the Newtown news.

    That thought was, in two words: Emmett Till.

    Look him up.

    That's what Moore was likely trying to suggest. Again, I haven't read the article, but that's what I bet it says...

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Look him up.

    That's what Moore was likely trying to suggest. Again, I haven't read the article, but that's what I bet it says...

    Oh joy.. ANOTHER homework assignment. :D

    OK, OK.. I'll look him up.

    But just let me say, pre-lookup, that I cannot fathom ANY justification to ask parents to relive the hell of losing their child just so that some partisan scumbag can put a '|' in the win column of some politically ideological crusade...

    I just can't see it, but I'll check out who Emmett Till is and report back..

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK Homework accomplished.

    With utmost respect, but it doesn't pass compartive muster...

    In the Till case, the parent herself made the decision to make the statement. And it wasn't for a partisan ideological platform, but rather for a human rights agenda.. If you DO want to put the mother's actions in the context of a political agenda (oh irony of ironies) Mrs Till's action was the Republican political agenda and it was pitted against the Democrats' political agenda.

    In Moore's case, he is advocating that OTHER people be made to suffer to further HIS political agenda...

    Which is, in another burst of irony, seems to be "the Democrat way".... so to speak..

    While the Till case does bear a resemblance to what Moore proposes, the fact that it is MOORE who is proposing it and NOT the parent(s) of the slain children still puts Moore in the "scumbag" category and earns him The Most Disappointing Human Being Of The Century award...

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CW-

    Thanks for highlighting Scott Prouty! There is so much irony in the fact that working-class bartender lifted the veil of secrecy on Romney's "by the rich, for the rich" agenda.

    If only those stupid lazy people didn't want to be paid better and have benefits! They should be happy we don't have them all tarred and feathered. Smithers, release the hounds!

    As far as Bloomberg ... I think he underestimated the moral backlash. And here's an issue which I can almost understand the Republican position (even though this is such a minor issue). It feels like "the government is mandating what we can and cannot do". In other words, if I want to kill myself by drinking 102 oz Super Ginormous Big Gulps, I have that right!

    And somehow it feels different from cigarettes and/or other dangerous substances regulated or outlawed by the government.

    This is a fight which I don't feel is the right fight for Democrats right now (and yeah, I know Bloomberg is an independent, but this fight will be blamed on Democrats).

    I'd rather see the efforts of Democrats going into better fights, like fighting the "too big to fail banks". Nice article, nypoet!

    -David

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    Can you — finally — admit that our bank-created financial crisis of 2008-09 has led us to where we are today?"

    It's a no-brainer to admit that..

    The REAL question is, WHY does the Obama Administration have so many people who were the architects of the 2008 Financial Crisis working???

    David,

    If only those stupid lazy people didn't want to be paid better and have benefits!

    The problem is they don't want to do the work that would allow them to get paid better and have benefits..

    It's much easier for them to just continue to vote Democrat and get paid to stay at home, NOT work and sit nekkid in front of the TV, eating bon bons and watching ALL MY CHILDREN or the latest Obama Inspirational Show...

    It feels like "the government is mandating what we can and cannot do". In other words, if I want to kill myself by drinking 102 oz Super Ginormous Big Gulps, I have that right!

    Damn skippy!!!

    NOW yer getting the hang of it..

    STICK IT TO THE MAN, David!!!! :D

    This is a fight which I don't feel is the right fight for Democrats right now (and yeah, I know Bloomberg is an independent, but this fight will be blamed on Democrats).

    So, you are saying that, on this issue, you agree with Republicans and disagree with Democrats..

    Really!!!!?????

    {{sniffle}} {{sniffle}}... I'm so proud... :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's much easier for them to just continue to vote Democrat and get paid to stay at home, NOT work and sit nekkid in front of the TV, eating bon bons and watching ALL MY CHILDREN or the latest Obama Inspirational Show.

    Wow ... you really believe all this Limbaugh-type hype, don't you?

    I think there's a hell of lot more people out here busting their ass and not getting anywhere because instead of trying to help the economy, corporate America is waging a war on wages and benefits.

    So, you are saying that, on this issue, you agree with Republicans and disagree with Democrats.

    Now that might be a stretch ... :). Nah, kidding. Here I'm with you. Maybe for different reasons, but I'm with you.

    STICK IT TO THE MAN, David!

    Just depends which "man" you're working for. Coca-Cola/Pepsi/etc are against. Insurance companies are for. This is a battle of two lobbyist groups which I really don't have any interest in.

    -David

  12. [12] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The REAL question is, WHY does the Obama Administration have so many people who were the architects of the 2008 Financial Crisis working?

    Yes! Are you saying that both sides serve the banking interests?

    Damn ... you might be a part of the 99% after all! :)

    -David

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow ... you really believe all this Limbaugh-type hype, don't you?

    Well, it really ain't "Limbaugh type hype".. Based on my experience and what I have seen the last couple elections ("Obama is going to pay my mortgage!!" and "I voted for Obama and got a free cell phone!!")PLUS the fact that there are MANY jobs that people could take, but it's "beneath" them, it's a fairly accurate representation..

    Sure, there are likely exceptions, but the exceptions only serve to reenforce the rule..

    I think there's a hell of lot more people out here busting their ass and not getting anywhere

    It's been my experience that the vast majority of people who are "not getting anywhere" there is usually a reason why...

    There are incredible and profitable opportunities out there for ANYONE...

    The problem is that most require hard work and dedication and that discourages those who enjoy living off the American taxpayer..

    Yes! Are you saying that both sides serve the banking interests?

    I have been saying that since 2008...

    The difference is that you still support the Democratic Party, even though it's bought and paid for by Corporate interests..

    I support no Party....

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Israel to ask Obama to use air strikes in case of Syrian missile transfer
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/17/obama-visit-israel-syrian-missiles-transfer

    This will be a good test of Obama's claim he supports Israel...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The difference is that you still support the Democratic Party, even though it's bought and paid for by Corporate interests.

    I support the Democratic party because they aren't nearly as bought and paid for as the Republican party.

    Democrats at least enacted legislation to regulate Wall Street. Republicans want to repeal it.

    In fact across the board, Republicans tow the corporate line while Democrats offer more balance.

    Sure, there are likely exceptions, but the exceptions only serve to reenforce the rule.

    I think you've got it the other way around. The exceptions are your couch sitters living off welfare.

    And these exceptions (Obama phone is a great example BTW!) are looped endlessly by conservative media to make it look like everyone is lazy.

    Do you really think 47% of our country is lazy?

    -David

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    I support the Democratic party because they aren't nearly as bought and paid for as the Republican party.

    So, it's a question of degree.. :D

    I think you've got it the other way around. The exceptions are your couch sitters living off welfare.

    Based on what??

    Granted, as a cop, I usually saw the worst example of humanity.. But there was plenty of it, enough to establish a pattern...

    And these exceptions (Obama phone is a great example BTW!) are looped endlessly by conservative media to make it look like everyone is lazy.

    The people who are making those claims (free mortgage and free phones) don't WATCH conservative media...

    Or is it your belief that FoxNews represents the totality of the MSM???

    Do you really think 47% of our country is lazy?

    I can say, categorically, unequivocally, undeniably AND speaking from personal experience that anyone who can't find a job in 6 months *IS* lazy...

    Let alone the two years that Democrats want to keep people slave and beholden to the government..

    Democrats are creating a slave class in order to ensure their continued election..

    It's the oldest trick in the book.. It's what dictators like Stalin, Hussein etc etc have done throughout history..

    Make subordinates beholden to the leader so that, if the leader falls, so do all beneath him. It's a great incentive to purchase loyalty..

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Based on what?

    Idunno. Silly things like math and statistics :)

    The people who are making those claims (free mortgage and free phones) don't WATCH conservative media.

    Nevertheless, it's one of the hottest topics of conservative media.

    Did you know that Reagan started the phone subsidy to lower income people?

    So, it's a question of degree.. :D

    I suppose that's about right.

    -David

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Idunno. Silly things like math and statistics :)

    Really!??

    You can statistize sloth and lazyness??

    How so??

    Because, I would think that personal experience trumps fantasy math and phantom statistics any day of the week.. :D

    Nevertheless, it's one of the hottest topics of conservative media.

    Why do you do that??

    Try to label the entire media "conservative" when, in reality, you are just talking about Fox News..

    I suppose that's about right.

    In other words, you support the Party that is more hypocritical, but just a little less corrupt than the other Party..

    Well, more power to ya.. :D

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You can statistize sloth and lazyness?

    Absolutely. 47% of roughly 300 million is roughly 141 million people.

    If there were 147 million lazy people in this country, we wouldn't be one of the most productive countries in the world. So this figure is clearly ridiculous.

    Also, productivity of U.S. workers is near record highs. Yet pay hasn't followed.

    So we're more productive than ever and not being paid for it.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QODuZX6eUD4/TxEuewMA4ZI/AAAAAAAABYs/qkIZOUH-3LQ/s400/Productivity+and+wages.png

    I'm sure you did see some bad situations when you were a cop. Crime tends to be heavily correlated with wealth (or lack thereof).

    Are there lazy people? Yes. Are lazy people the norm? No.

    -David

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are currently approx 12 million people unemployed..

    Out of those, over 40% are over 6 months unemployed..

    While 40% is not the majority, it is (BY FAR) not the exception either...

    So, 40% of the unemployed are lazy and enjoy living off the hard work of American taxpayers...

    That's what your stats say...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, 40% of the unemployed are lazy and enjoy living off the hard work of American taxpayers...

    That's what your stats say...

    My mistake..

    That's what THE stats say...

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

    I shouldn't blame you (much) for the government. :D

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    akadjian wrote:

    While 40% is not the majority, it is (BY FAR) not the exception either.

    4.8 million unemployed / 300 million Americans is 1.6 percent lazy. Assuming 100% laziness :)

    That's a pretty big difference from 47%. Like 140 million people difference.

    So to be accurate Romney should have said the 1.6%?

    Ok, now this statistic still sucks because we're still talking several million unemployed.

    But out of this 4.8 million long term unemployed, how many do you think are actually unemployed because they're lazy?

    One of the big problems is that the job openings are typically for much higher skilled positions. I literally am having trouble finding people with the skills we need. Part of any solution to me should include investments in T&D.

    No sarcasm though. Great source on unemployment. And yeah, I'm sure there are people taking advantage of the system. But most people want to work.

    -David

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    No sarcasm though. Great source on unemployment. And yeah, I'm sure there are people taking advantage of the system. But most people want to work.

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    Most people want to make money. LOTS of it..

    But, apparently, not many people want to actually WORK for it...

    :D

    If they did, they would take the route that you and I took...

    You look at ANY person unemployed for more than 6 months and you are bound to find SOMETHING that they could have done differently to make their situation better...

    But it's easier just to sit at home eating bon bons and watching Jerry Springer and collect the weekly dollop from the government, courtesy of the Democratic Party...

    Michale

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I'd rather see the efforts of Democrats going into better fights, like fighting the "too big to fail banks". Nice article, nypoet!

    glad you liked! here's another by the same author - this one is more of a laundry list of the banks' offenses, and there's a link to it on the first one, but it's kinda scary to see the scope of it all in bulleted list form:

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/03/jaw-dropping-crimes-of-the-big-banks/

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    No offense, Joshua, but that link seems to be a little over-hyped..

    I am not doubting that Bankers hands are clean throughout history, but Nazi Collaboration?? American Coup???

    It reminds me of the 9/11 Truther or the Birther websites.. Take a few random facts and blow them completely out of proportion..

    Like I said, I have no doubt that most Bankers are scumbags who would sell their own mothers to satiate their greed..

    Which begs the question..

    Why do they make up a big part of the Obama Administration??

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But it's easier just to sit at home eating bon bons and watching Jerry Springer and collect the weekly dollop from the government, courtesy of the Democratic Party.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

    You have the same anecdotal evidence I do for your belief that "most people are lazy". We both see people who support our case. You see more as lazy. I see more as hard working in tough times.

    I can point to people working 2-3 jobs and still struggling to get by just as you can point to the lazy people who conservatives love to talk about endlessly on their shows.

    This is not the 1950s. There is not a well-paying job available for everyone who wants one.

    Please keep your view of people as lazy though. It's working really well for conservatives :)

    -David

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why do they make up a big part of the Obama Administration??

    That's what always cracks me up about the Left and their attacks on "the 1%"...

    The people they vote for and support are a big part of that same 1%... :D

    So when they slam and denigrate that 1%, they are slamming and denigrate the people they passionately support and campaign for..

    Go figger the logic, because it certainly escapes me..

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I am not doubting that Bankers hands are clean throughout history, but Nazi Collaboration?? American Coup???

    It reminds me of the 9/11 Truther or the Birther websites.. Take a few random facts and blow them completely out of proportion..

    the article does seem cartoonishly stacked toward a portrayal of our nation's big banks as a criminal enterprise. what's scary about it is that (a few colorful adjectives notwithstanding) the stories themselves are well-researched and verified. it's funny because it's true?

    jamie dimon and his ilk are not steve jobs. hell, they're not even donald trump. the 1% are not a monolith. but yes, the worst offenders do seem to find their way into both political parties' presidential cabinets.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, I have no doubt there is a grain (or even more) of truth in the accusations. But w/o allowances for context or other factors, it comes across as boogey-man stories...

    jamie dimon and his ilk are not steve jobs. hell, they're not even donald trump. the 1% are not a monolith. but yes, the worst offenders do seem to find their way into both political parties' presidential cabinets.

    And that's been a running theme with me. The Leftist blogosphere is replete with demonizing the Right... But the little fact that they seem to want to forget in their demonizations is that the Left's own leadership is hardly the paragon of virtue they Left would like everyone to believe it is..

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Oh, I have no doubt there is a grain (or even more) of truth in the accusations. But w/o allowances for context or other factors, it comes across as boogey-man stories...

    there IS no context for these shenanigans. you have to follow the chains of hyperlinks from one page to the next, direct quotes from reputable sources, to see just how well-researched these assertions are.

    this is just the second link in the page, which itself contains numerous links to supporting pages:

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/even-the-mainstream-media-finally-awakens-to-the-fact-that-big-banks-are-criminal-enterprises.html

    do me a favor and read all the way through the list of quotes from mainstream media sources, about how HSBC used laundered money from drug lords and terrorists, and got away with barely a slap on the wrist, and tell me how there's any way this bogeyman is anything but completely and utterly real.

    by the way, since you've asked me to point out those instances where certain republicans are completely right and the obama administration are completely wrong, also read the quotes from senators coburn and grassley. here's part:

    "As the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have an obligation to ensure that the executive branch is fully, fairly, and effectively enforcing the law. But what I have seen from the Department is an inexplicable unwillingness to prosecute and convict those responsible for aiding and abetting drug lords and terrorists. I cannot help but agree with an editorial in the New York Times that “the government has bought into the notion that too big to fail is too big to jail.”
    -sen. chuck grassley (R-Iowa)

    ~joshua

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    there IS no context for these shenanigans.

    Sure there is..

    Take the NAZI accusation for instance..

    It's only in hindsight that association with them was wrong and evil..

    At the time, Germany was the most efficient state Earth's history had ever seen..

    So, *at the time*, association with them seemed a very promising course of action..

    Don't get me wrong. I am not defending the Nazi regime whatsoever...

    But, we have the benefit of perfect 20/20 hindsight...

    If you require more explanation, check the TOS Trek episode PATTERNS OF FORCE...

    by the way, since you've asked me to point out those instances where certain republicans are completely right and the obama administration are completely wrong, also read the quotes from senators coburn and grassley. here's part:

    I completely agree with you AND with that quote...

    My only point is that the links you cite do themselves a grave disservice by trying to link bankers with the Nazis....

    It's a tenuous connection at best and is made with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight..

    IMNSHO, the weblinks would be better served by emphasizing the CURRENT cartel and terrorist connections...

    Because I COMPLETELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY agree that it is completely and utterly shameful that BOTH the BUSH and OBAMA Administrations would completely drop the ball and not only NOT pursue criminal charges against these scumbags but would ACTUALLY EMPLOY THEM in their respective Administrations..

    Given this information, how ANYONE can support Obama is simply beyond my understanding..

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, under the heading of HAVE YOU NO SHAME, HARRY REID....

    Harry Reid links Marine deaths to sequestration
    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/19/harry-reid-links-marine-deaths-to-sequestration/

    And ya'all wonder why I despise our Democrat (so-called) leaders so much....

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is not the 1950s. There is not a well-paying job available for everyone who wants one.

    Of course there isn't...

    So, do what I did..

    Go out and MAKE one! Make several!

    I now employ 4 people in addition to myself.. I can pay them $20 an hour...

    I am not a rocket scientist.. I am not a business wizard.. And the job(s) I created are not even in my chosen field, the field I was trained in for decades..

    And yet, I have done this not just once, but *TWICE*!!!

    So, you'll forgive me if I don't give a rat's ass for some hard-luck stories.

    I know them all. I have *LIVED* them all.

    And here I am...

    Ain't no excuse for ANYONE not to do what I have done..

    It's easy for someone to make excuses why the world owes them a living...

    But, for chreest's sake, man up and get to work...

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I now employ 4 people in addition to myself.. I can pay them $20 an hour...

    sounds like a pretty good gig! still, not everybody is wired for entrepreneurship. if they aren't, does that mean their abilities aren't worth as much as yours? in terms of earning power, the answer is yes. but one's ability to manage a business is not the only measure of value, and i'm not so certain it ought to be quite so dominant.

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    allow me to rephrase, because that last statement sounded like i'm saying entrepreneurship isn't that important, and it really is. my point is that a business ought to do something other than just make money, like provide a valuable good or service, do more good than harm, and THAT ought to be paramount.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    allow me to rephrase, because that last statement sounded like i'm saying entrepreneurship isn't that important, and it really is. my point is that a business ought to do something other than just make money, like provide a valuable good or service, do more good than harm, and THAT ought to be paramount.

    I completely agree.. And, in all modesty :D that is exactly what I do..

    My personal business philosophy is "If you take care of your customers, the bottom line will take care of itself."

    My point to David is that, in THIS country, there is a wealth of opportunities if one is willing to work hard and persevere..

    If a person can't find a job, then a person should MAKE a job. Every community in this country, large or small, is likely to have a Flea Market or Swap Meet... You don't have to be a high level entrepreneur to make money there. I sure as hell ain't and I do quite well..

    There is simply NO EXCUSE for people to be unemployed and living off the American taxpayer's hard work...

    You show me a unemployed person with a hard luck story and I'll show you a person who has made mistakes that lead directly to them being unemployed..

    Waiting for the job they want and turning down or not even considering jobs that are beneath them is probably very high up on the list of mistakes made.

    But people do the math and they figure they can make more money off the government then they can slinging fries at McDonalds..

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    If a person can't find a job, then a person should MAKE a job. Every community in this country, large or small, is likely to have a Flea Market or Swap Meet... You don't have to be a high level entrepreneur to make money there. I sure as hell ain't and I do quite well..

    Hell, drop me an email. I can do MFCC Franchises!!! :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    "As the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have an obligation to ensure that the executive branch is fully, fairly, and effectively enforcing the law. But what I have seen from the Department is an inexplicable unwillingness to prosecute and convict those responsible for aiding and abetting drug lords and terrorists. I cannot help but agree with an editorial in the New York Times that “the government has bought into the notion that too big to fail is too big to jail.”
    -sen. chuck grassley (R-Iowa)

    Here, here ... well said Chuck Grassley

    there is a wealth of opportunities if one is willing to work hard and persevere.

    You don't give yourself enough credit. You have the knowledge and skills to create a business and this is something not everyone has.

    The issue we're facing right now is that we can't find enough qualified people to hire. We have job openings and it's simply difficult to find people with the right level of skills.

    So much so that we're having to bring on people who probably aren't qualified and train them.

    There is simply NO EXCUSE for people to be unemployed and living off the American taxpayer's hard work.

    How much do you think unemployment benefits cost, Michale?

    By comparison, how much do you think the financial crisis cost? Keep in mind, additional unemployment benefits are a result of the financial crisis.

    You seem to be getting mad about the person who steals a penny from the spare change tray while the people looting the store don't seem to bother you.

    If we got rid of unemployment benefits, would this do anything for our economy? Would it stop the move of jobs overseas? Would it create better paying jobs? Would it stop the pyramid schemes of the big banks?

    -David

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I don't have a problem with Unemployment per se.. Everyone needs a hand up at some point in their life. I am no exception..

    MY problem is that Democrats have made it a way of life for many millions of people.

    What we need to do is make unemployment LESS attractive so as to put it where it belongs. The option of last resort..

    Once again, Trek provides wisdom in this. A TASTE OF ARMAGEDDON. Two planets at war. They have created a system where "battles" are fought with computers and casualties are tabulated and sent to disintegration chambers.

    They made war such a neat and painless operation that there was never any incentive to end the war, to make peace..

    "Death. Disease. Horror. Destruction. THAT is what war is all about! THAT is what makes it a thing to be avoided!"
    -Captain James T Kirk

    By making Unemployment so neat and painless and PROFITABLE, Democrats have made it a viable income for people. So viable and profitable that there is absolutely NO incentive for people to find a real job..

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    akadjian wrote:

    MY problem is that Democrats have made it a way of life for many millions of people.

    Democrats didn't crash the economy.

    What we need to do is make unemployment LESS attractive so as to put it where it belongs.

    What I'd say we need to do is fix the economy and create jobs.

    -David

  41. [41] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lolol you'd think there were trillions of jobs out there while all these unemployed people lie on a beach on Barbados.

    Like always this moronic right-wing argument isn't framed in reality.

  42. [42] 
    michty6 wrote:

    What I'd say we need to do is fix the economy and create jobs.

    Don't be so silly! Creating jobs as a way of getting people back into employment - that's ABSURD! You're a lunatic!

    What we should instead do is cut their unemployment benefits to zero then they won't have a job and also will die. Lots of dead unemployed people = drastic drop in the unemployment rate. Easy game.

  43. [43] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Like always this moronic right-wing argument isn't framed in reality.

    Hey michty- Though I agree with you on your arguments, I don't know as the derision helps.

    Why? Well ... Michale's the kind of guy I'd want to have on my side. We disagree a lot but damned if I don't like him. He's smart, he's hard working, he knows a lot about starting and running a business and he makes a lot of valid points. Hell, I don't like lazy people and could tell you personal stories of people I know who abuse the system (none friends but people my fiance works with). I'd like to fix that problem too I just don't think it's our biggest problem.

    Now I know it may never happen (Michale coming over to the dark side) ... but I'll try until there's no breath left in me because 1) I believe I have a good case, and 2) we's Internet 'bros.

    -David

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Democrats didn't crash the economy.

    They sure as hell facilitated it..

    And after it DID crash, Democrats made things tons worse by their orgasmic spending...

    What I'd say we need to do is fix the economy and create jobs.

    And how, exactly, is that accomplished by giving people MORE of an incentive to NOT work???

    1) I believe I have a good case, and 2) we's Internet 'bros.

    Ya can't see it, but I'se blushing.. :D

    "Egon, I'm gonna take back some of the bad things I've said about you."
    -Bill Murray, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David, I agree with you largely. But this is completely ignoring the scale and complexity of the issue.

    In terms of dollar value, the amount lost to the American economy by those abusing the system at the bottom (eg. for unemployment benefits) is but a tiny, minuscule fraction of those abusing the system at the top through ridiculous Corporate subsidies, tax dodging, back-handers etc. Basically one is a million dollar problem and the other is a trillion dollar problem - it's that big a difference.

    The problem is that right-wing media and pundits are focussed on the former instead of the latter because it's easy (poor people by definition don't have the funds/capacity/education/lobbying ability to fight back) and it makes good political rhetoric. This always comes at the detriment to people who are poor and working hard. It is incredibly stupid, irrational and for cheap political points and it goes in in every country in the world (Conservatives and right-wing media in the UK have been on binge of this for a long time since they came to power).

    As someone who comes from a poor family and has done a lot of work with charities who help the poor there is pretty much nothing in the world that makes me angrier than some snooty politician (whilst simultaneously literally receiving thousands of dollars in benefits to ignore the cheating going on at the top of the system) ranting about the 'moochers' and basically calling all poor people a bunch of lazy moochers (which could not be further from the truth) completely ignoring the socio-economic (etc) circumstances of the person. You can bet that if poor people were greasing his hands it isn't something that would be high on his agenda. But they aren't - by definition they are too poor too - and they are easy targets, especially for right-wing media.

    I could go on and on about this, like I said nothing in this world makes me angrier, but I'll leave it at that. So I don't mean anything personal when I deride someone who says this - Michale and I can argue till the cows come home but that doesn't mean I don't like him - just this is a particularly touchy subject that makes me angry...

    When you get to the situation where people abusing unemployment benefits is your number 1 budget problem then you will already be running trillion dollar surpluses from wiping out the other problems. There is literally no country just now in which this is even in their top 100 budgetary problems.

  46. [46] 
    michty6 wrote:

    To give an analogy to what I'm saying, going after the poor people at the bottom is like targeting your efforts at the guy who stole a penny from the take a penny plate whilst completely ignoring the guys in the building next door robbing a bank.

  47. [47] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The problem is that right-wing media and pundits are focussed on the former instead of the latter because it's easy (poor people by definition don't have the funds/capacity/education/lobbying ability to fight back) and it makes good political rhetoric.

    Yep. Yep. And yep to all your other points too, michty. Please keep hanging out here though. I steal from your arguments often. If Michale provides a good foil, that works. He doesn't seem to mind either.

    He's just not a right-wing pundit is all. He's the guy I'd want to fight next to (especially since he's probably got a much better arsenal than me :) ). Pundits I'll deride all day

    -David

    p.s. You stole my analogy! :) See comment #38

  48. [48] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Crap. Should read "Please keep hanging out here too."

    Too much multi-tasking. Sounds sarcastic (or idiotic) the other way and that totally was not what I meant. I do steal from your arguments all the time and I consider that the sincerest form of flattery.

  49. [49] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Haha didn't see post in 38 actually, very nice that we came to the same conclusion/analogy.

    Another favourite of the right-wing media is 'Bob who is falsely claiming disability benefits' without realising that you would LITERALLY need 100 MILLION Bobs just to pay for 1 oil company subsidy. And people don't realise that the oil company subsidy ends up in the hands of very few people anyway.

    It's like the journey goes:
    - $100 > Disability benefits program > Bob

    - $100 BILLION > Oil company subsidy > 100 oil company shareholders

    But naaaaah forget the shareholders who are grabbing the Government benefits - it's Bob we need to worry about! We need his $100 back! That way our debt will fall drastically from $14.6 trillion to $14.59999999999999999999999999999999999999 trillion. YEH! That'll teach him.

    More ironic: the cost of finding, investigating and recovering the $100 from Bob is PROBABLY MORE THAN THE $100 ANYWAY. People just don't think logically/rationally... Let's spend $200 to recover $100. That'll solve our deficit problems!

  50. [50] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW - thought you might appreciate Ted Rail's cartoon today (you have to look closely to see what it is): http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2013/03/20/roseanne-loves-rall

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    I could go on and on about this, like I said nothing in this world makes me angrier, but I'll leave it at that. So I don't mean anything personal when I deride someone who says this - Michale and I can argue till the cows come home but that doesn't mean I don't like him - just this is a particularly touchy subject that makes me angry...

    I will try to keep that in mind and be a little less arrogant and more considerate of your feelings.

    I mean that sincerely...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is no doubt that the bankers are crooks..

    So, why hasn't Obama arrested them??

    Why is he, instead, making them officials in his administration???

    Michale....

  53. [53] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Why is he, instead, making them officials in his administration???

    man, i wish i knew.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all are for ending the subsidies to oil and gas companies..

    Do ya'all HONESTLY believe that the industry is simply going to absorb those new costs with their profits??

    Of course not. Those companies will simply pass on those costs to the consumer..

    And it's going to be the middle class and the poor that are going to suffer most...

    Just like ObamaCare.. It was supposed to LOWER costs, but the businesses that are being squeezed by the higher costs are simply passing those costs on to their customers. Or shutting down their businesses all together..

    And who pays the price??

    The poor and the middle class...

    Whose side are ya'all on???

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Do ya'all HONESTLY believe that the industry is simply going to absorb those new costs with their profits?

    Do you honestly believe that the industry passes these savings on to consumers?

    After taxes last year, Exxon made $7.5 billion. Occidental, the top driller in Texas, made $7.1 billion.

    Why do they need subsidies?

    -David

  56. [56] 
    michty6 wrote:

    There is no doubt that the bankers are crooks..

    So, why hasn't Obama arrested them??

    Why is he, instead, making them officials in his administration???

    Because Obama preaches to the left and Governs from the centre-right. Corporations control the agenda.

    It is the reason why stricter gun laws aren't passed (gun lobby), money is continually thrown at Israel (Jewish lobby), banks aren't properly regulated (financial lobby), oil and gas subsidies that existed for the purpose of encouraging exploration in a NEW industry (LOL this is how old these subsidies are) are still passed out to companies today (oil and gas lobby), why making any legislation to tackle climate change is difficult (oil and gas lobby), why stupid laws that put people in jail for no reason still exist (private prisons lobby) etc etc etc etc.

    These are problems that will only be fixed when you have more left leaning or centrist politicians - ones willing to take on Corporations. With 2 parties which are both right of centre and unwilling to do this, you are going to be stuck with these problems for a long time.

    Do ya'all HONESTLY believe that the industry is simply going to absorb those new costs with their profits??

    I'm going to bring up a word that you won't like but it is a fix to your problem. R...rrrr....rrr.... ugh I can't say it. Ok one more time: REGULATION.

    When companies don't behave how they are supposed to and put the interests of shareholders above the interest of consumers (which for most is a large chunk of the time) then regulation is how you fix this.

    There is almost always a conflict of interest between the profit orientation of Corporations and the goals of society. So you regulate them and pass laws to stop them putting shareholders ahead of society.

    Example: in the UK we have an energy price watchdog that stops energy companies over-charging.

    Once again though, getting any regulation passed in America is like trying to pass tighter gun-control - with one party completely gone to the right (and large elements of the other there too) it is next to impossible.

    Oil and gas subsidies existed for exactly the reason renewable energy subsidies exist today: to encourage investment in a new form of energy that companies are (were) not willing to delve into because it wouldn't be profitable (due to the very high initial capital costs). Except that once the oil and gas companies started making billions they paid off politicians to make sure that these subsidies keep coming...

  57. [57] 
    michty6 wrote:

    It is the reason why...money is continually thrown at Israel (Jewish lobby)

    Speaking of which, the Onion was spot on today: http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-sarcastically-asks-how-israel-afforded-such,31750/?ref=auto

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you honestly believe that the industry passes these savings on to consumers?

    Maybe. Maybe not..

    But do you HONESTLY believe that consurmers won't get the shaft if the subsidies end??

    I mean, you are always going on and on about how evil the corporations are..

    Do you think they will say, "Oh wow.. We just got hit with a couple trillion dollars in new taxes by the government. We'll just absorb the costs and make sure the consumers aren't pinched"...

    I don't think what yer smokin is legal in Ohio... Yet :D

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    US plan calls for more scanning of private Web traffic, email
    http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/us-plan-calls-more-scanning-private-web-traffic-email-1C9001922

    No red lines???

    Amazing!!

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/20/obamas-middle-east-policy-in-tatters-column/2004343/

    Shall we discuss Obama's vaunted Foreign Policy "success"??

    US was more popular under Bush than under Obama..

    Go figger, eh? :D

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    michty6 wrote:

    US was more popular under Bush than under Obama..

    Go figger, eh? :D

    LOLOLOL your fact is an opinion piece. Perhaps you might consider looking at actual data? Like opinion polls. Generally when trying to work out the opinion of other people, opinion polls are a more independent way of measuring if than your own biased nonsensical opinion...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    LOLOLOL your fact is an opinion piece.

    Hardly...

    http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/

    I realize that facts that indicate Obama has screwed up America's image more than Bush are hard facts to swallow..

    But yet.. There they are..

    And since you are such a lover of polls... :D

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But do you HONESTLY believe that consurmers won't get the shaft if the subsidies end?

    Yeah. Not if there's actual real competition.

    Some of these subsidies date back to the early 1900s. The oil companies simply do not need now.

    Your corporate welfare idea is interesting, but there's no evidence, when it comes to the oil companies, that this benefits consumers.

    -David

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]