mewzilla knows who is behind this:
The ruling class will regret what it’s done tonight...chooseascreennamepat is pissed Boehner dealt with Dems at all:
Boehner came out looking like a whipped dog. He knows he screwed up and his ass SHOULD BE GRASS. Of course it could have been worse but I need for someone to explain just how!Sarah Barracuda is pissed Obama might get credit!
Now the empty suited idiot goes on TV and claims victory, Obama had NOTHING to do with it but he gets the credit..disgusting..F himYeah, those talks he had with Reid and Boehner were mostly Obama being lazy and black while the other two worked things out:
popdonnelly thinks this is a good time to note that Obama is pussy whipped:
rolling_stone wants more beatings on the Senate floor:He’s not looking forward to going to Williamsburg with Michelle and momma-in-law.
Obama is so PW’d, it’s not funny.
I suggest we drop the congeniality and the 10 months a year working and go back to 2 months with commensurate pay and regular beatings. Its either that or Civil War.jeltz25 takes the politics as war metaphor to it's logical conclusion
Ironic that Qadaffi has stood up to Obama for longer than Boehner was able to.screaminsunshine is cryptic:
Do not support Whigs.
The question is: why the Dems when they controlled both the House and the Senate didn't pass a budget then? (More than one answer may be correct)
ReplyDelete(A.) The stimulust bill wasn't big enough to buy all of the democrat votes. Sure Nelson got his kickback, Reid got his cut and they bought as many votes as they could but it just wasn't enough.
(B.) Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did not want to face the voters after passing a budget that increased spending. Especially after the worst election for the party in power since 1937. They did nothing during the lame duck session and they pushed off the budget again.
(C.) They were too busy trying to push Obamacare a 2300+ page bill into law which no one in O's administration apparently read because Pelosi herself stated that they "have to pass it to find out what's in it." Rumor has it that no one in the dem party could count that high anyway....
The Correct Answers are: A & B & C!!
@Ozy: Hey, I got to hand it to you. Your site can dish it out and take it on the chin without flinching. I like and respect that you have the "courage of your convictions" and post both sides. Without dissenting views, sites become boring intellectually stagnant echo-chambers.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I hear you, and thanks. The key is a good sense of humor, IMO.
ReplyDeleteThough I would consider it a favor if we kept comments on the issues and less on the hypothetical philosophies of the commenters. Still, it is the internet, and I've seen much worse.
As to the Dems not passing a budget, what with Republican unified opposition, by the time health care was passed there was no way Dems could have passed anything else of any size. Perhaps they should have had the balls to actually try, fail, and take a political hit, but they were already running scared of 2010.
Economically, the only plan that seems to have any statistical evidence to support it is Keynsianism. The stimulus was supposed to do that. Was there some pork? God, yes. On both sides, mind you. Mind you, earmarks make up like 2% of all federal expenditures, so they themselves are not a big deal, they just look bad.
The proposition that the purpose of the stimulus was to buy votes and then failed doesn't hold much water to me. If it's one thing politicians are good at, it is buying votes. The idea that they would fail at this seems rather a stretch.
I'm also amused that you think Reid and Pelosi's proposed budget would have raised spending in the atmosphere of 2010. Not that we'll ever know, but they were sure making noise about cuts for quite a while before even health care was passed. Even if those two are hacks, they are politicians and know where the wind is blowing.
Who, exactly, has this site "take[n] it on the chin" from? I must say your posts have been entertaining as most white supremacists are. Who knows? Maybe Ozy will make an exception and feature some of your posts in their very own article!
ReplyDelete@eupbeengreeked: Are you still pouting over your sore little butt hurt? Didn't mommy kiss it to make it better like she always does? I'm starting to run out of home remedies for you. Try doing a nice "sitz bath" using Obama's Kool Aid. It won't actually do anything but it will sure make you feel like you have at least tried.....
ReplyDelete@Barry,
ReplyDeleteI just love how you fantasize about your actually having bothered me at all because all I've been doing is laughing at every single post you've made so far. I do enjoy the free entertainment you've been giving me though, so keep it up!
(1) Kenyan... ooppss, I mean Keynesian economics doesn't work. How many years and years of continued failure of this economic concept does it take to prove that you cannot spend your way out of a recession?
ReplyDelete(2) The gov cannot create NEW purchasing power out of thin air (a concept that completely elduded Mao, Stalin and FDR). If Congress funds new spending with taxes, it is simply redistributing existing income (Progs just love using other people's money). If Congress instead borrows (or takes) the money from domestic investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy. If Congress borrows the money from foreigners ( i.e. Chinese ah la Obama way out-doing GWB something I thought not possible), the balance of payments will adjust by equally reducing NET exports, leaving the GDP unchanged. Once again, every dollar Congress spends must first come from somewhere else (i.e you and me assuming that you work)...... Gov spending often alters the consumption of total demand, typically increasing consumption at the expense of investment.
(3) The Stimulus was passed without any Republican votes. It of course was designed as a pay back to Obama supporters and did essentially nothing for the economy. The Keynesian approach actually needed that porkulus bill passed. Because with Kenyan ... (sorry).... I mean Keynesian economics essentially means that the government picks winners and losers. The winners that the progressive liberal dems picks are inevitably welfare recipients, special interest groups who pad Obama's pockets, companies who need to be “bailed out”, Big Labor unions (dem supporters again), and those who seek to benefit from increasing the government dole of entitlement spending. The losers are inevitably wealthy and high income individuals (because they have too much independence), small business owners who get classified as “rich”, firms who try to engage in fair trade, our children and grandchildren who get saddled with greater debts, and every consumer who must now pay higher prices for all goods and services.
(4) It was so funny and typically very prog hypocritical that during the Bush years Nancy Pelosi just went on and on about "Pay-Go" but the last 2 years of his presidency when the dems controlled both the House and the Senate, Pay-Go went right out the window.
(5) The days of blaming GWB are over. Obama voted for many of the finanical reforms during his short senate stint and then signed those into laws as president. He owns this economy lock, stock and barrell especially after the huge porkulus spending bill.
@euphgreeked: Of course your butt hurt bothers you or won't keep coming back with your sad little retorts trying desperately to get the last word.
ReplyDeleteYou see your problem is that you are not as ego protected as you would like to think you are, which is a good thing. My comments don't slide off a tefflon coated hide but instead really sting your tender ass. So you don't have an incurable personality disorder. But that must be a real detriment to your jobs with ACORN whether you're beating fetuses in a dumpster or trolling at AGW skeptic site, the truth really gets to you.
However your Narcissim is another thing all together...... You must either be (1) so glad that narcissistic personality disorder has been removed from the DSM so that you don’t have to blame yourself for not having any friends or (2) you are so sad that narcissistic personality disorder has been removed from the DSM because now you won’t be getting a disability check from the state anymore......
@Barry,
ReplyDeleteSince you've made a somewhat serious post (although I had to chuckle over the "Kenyan" part) I'll address a couple of your points somewhat seriously.
...Keynesian economics doesn't work...
And I suppose the 1990s was just a fluke then? As well as the spending we did to get us out of the Great Depression? You can say that Keynesian economics is a failure but unless you can come up with some real examples, I'm not buying it.
...you cannot spend your way out of a recession?
Actually, that's exactly how we've gotten out of every single recession. I posted this a few days ago. When fewer people are buying products from big businesses, the businesses have no reason to hire more people. And in an economy like this it just becomes a vicious circle. That's why government has to step in and buy the products so the businesses will have to hire more people to keep up with the demand. Once that happens, government can step back and let capitalism work.
The days of blaming GWB are over.
Are you kidding? The GOP is still blaming Carter! The Dems are still blaming Reagan! GWB never stopped blaming Clinton during his whole presidency. You even referenced FDR in this same post. I think the only president I haven't heard anyone blame is George Washington. The economic policies of a president extend long after he's out of office. Just because someone is no longer president doesn't mean his policies don't still affect us.
Of course your butt hurt bothers you...
And back down into the gutter you go. Did it ever occur to you that I'm only responding to these in order to get more entertainment out of you? Of course not, since everything you've said about me is completely wrong.
@ eupbeengreeked:
ReplyDeleteQuote: "As well as the spending we did to get us out of the Great Depression?" End-Quote.
This statement is extraordinarily helpful to me in understanding the scope of your education, the breadth of your understanding and your true political slant.
During the WWII, the GDP went up because the government set the price of everything and inflated the currency (apparently something you progs favor). Unemployment went down because several million men were drafted and sent overseas (Give Charles Rangel more time and he''l get his reinstitution of the draft up and running in no time). On the home front, there was NO such "boom" there were strict price controls, rationing, shortages and restrictions were all the citizens of the United States saw between 1941 and 1945.
ALL the Keynesian economists were convinced the economy would fall back into depression after the war ended. Although the United States had some pretty wicked inflation in the late 1940′s, due to inflationary policies during the war. Instead a return to normalcy (i.e. a dramatic drop in gov spending back to pre-war levels) was a return to prosperity, in fact, 1946 was the most productive year of the private sector in American history.
euphbeengreeked, seriously, there is no one big enough to bail us out. Sooner or later this spending insanity needs to stop.
@Barry,
ReplyDeleteNope, it was the government spending on WWII that got us out of the Great Depression. Companies became prosperous manufacturing for the war and were able to hire more people. Which is why after the war the government was able to step aside once again and allow capitalism to take over. And before the war, FDR's policies took unemployment down from 25% to 15%. The only thing that stopped it was the Republicans trying to stop all the government spending in 1937. It picked back up once we started spending money on the war.
@Eugreeked: I hope that your reference to the "1990s" was not going reitierate that well disproved prog diatribe about the "Clinton Surplus" in this little tete-a-tete. That liberal myth was something that Hillary herself was not about to openly repeat when she was actively campaigning. The reason that she didn't propigate that myth but rather left the MSM to keep repeating over and over so she could have great exposure (even if false) as well as plausible deniability when it all came out in the wash. She could then say: "I didn't say it." News stations were already reporting multiple things like this when she was campaigning.......
ReplyDeletehttp://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
@euphbeengreeked: I can see that progs have now changed their narrative to state that spending on WWII got us out of the great depression instead of the old narritive which was FDR's public works program. Partially true but apparently you missed the whole rationing, price control and shortages part.
ReplyDeleteBy the way unemployment reached 25 percent in 1933, fell only to 14 percent by 1937, and was back up to 19 percent in 1939. Nice try but it was the New Deal's suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors well above their normal levels, these antimarket policies choked off powerful recovery forces that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend by the mid-1930s
@Barry,
ReplyDelete...well disproved prog diatribe about the "Clinton Surplus"...
In no way has the surplus been disproved. The CBO even came out with a report that indicated it was the first budget surplus since 1969 (http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf). And that's a fact no matter what conspiracy theory you come up with as to what you imagine Hillary did or did not say.
I can see that progs have now changed their narrative to state that spending on WWII got us out of the great depression instead of the old narritive which was FDR's public works program.
Actually, it was both. FDR's programs got us partly out of debt but not completely. The reason for that was the Republicans decided they wanted to cut spending and FDR foolishly went along with them which is why unemployment rose between 1937 and 1939. When the US entered WWII spending increased once again and got us completely out of the Great Depression.
...it was the New Deal's suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors well above their normal levels, these antimarket policies choked off powerful recovery forces that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend by the mid-1930s
I love how you think you can know what would have happened. Again, businesses were not hiring because nobody was buying their products because nobody had a job. As I said before, it's a vicious circle. The idea that "antimarket policies choked off powerful recovery forces" is simply not true. What were these "forces" and where did they come from? Magic? Wishful thinking?
@euphbeengreeked: Now honey quit "Gobbling the Goo" I know that it is just more butt hurt for you but that's life...
ReplyDeleteThe claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000. In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B). While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.
The "ouchest" part of this butt hurt for you is that "The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year."
Sorry muffin it's not in the cards for you.
@Barry,
ReplyDeleteYour obsession with my butt aside (wingnuts always seem to be obsessed with other men's butts), I still haven't seen you say why the CBO's numbers were incorrect. The surplus did happen, no matter how much foaming and fuming you do. I provided my sources, what are yours other than some conservative website with an obvious agenda?