PDA

View Full Version : Political debate in America is dead.



Stretch
07-06-2010, 02:56 AM
The turning point in American politics which has led to the gridlock and obstruction we see today can be traced back to May31st 1989 when house speeker Jim Wright relenquished his office rather than bankrubt himself fighting off thin ethics charges brought by back bencher Newt Gingrich.

The full story here....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennet-kelley/build-baby-build-how-dems_b_357656.html

I see the same tactics used here over and over again by the RW political terrorists and rejects from AZ. SCUM! St.

LWW
07-06-2010, 04:41 AM
That is just precious.

Wright was so corrupt that he is the last demokook forced from power while the demokooks held congress.

"THIN CHARGES" ... such as publishing a book, many pages containing only a single word, which was sold in bulk to contributors (Nearly 100% of the printing run.) in order to circumvent the congressional rules about maximum speaking engagement fees PLUS his wife accepting a do nothing job to circumvent the rules on maximum allowable gifts.

LWW

llotter
07-06-2010, 07:50 AM
I guess I agree that political debate has died, at least as between liberals and conservatives, but it didn't hinge on a single event but the grounds of the divide have been tilled probably going back at least to Marx and Freud and maybe further to the age of Rationalism. What kind of debate can happen between those who believe in the absolute truth of revelation and those lost soles who think they can derive the truth through rational thought. The latter has grown from intellectual pursuit to the point that it now controls most of modern liberalism. It is plain to see the catastrophic consequence of the leftward movement in the current administration's efforts to deal with the real world. Can the guillotine be far behind?

Gayle in MD
07-06-2010, 08:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The turning point in American politics which has led to the gridlock and obstruction we see today can be traced back to May31st 1989 when house speeker Jim Wright relenquished his office rather than bankrubt himself fighting off thin ethics charges brought by back bencher Newt Gingrich.

The full story here....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennet-kelley/build-baby-build-how-dems_b_357656.html

I see the same tactics used here over and over again by the RW political terrorists and rejects from AZ. SCUM! St. </div></div>

So do I, Stretch. It's much like the Middle East's, irrational fundamentalism. Angle is a good example, as is Bachmann, Palin, and the rest of the so called "Christians" using God as their cover for fraud, divisive exclusionary pratices against poor blacks, killing doctors, disrespecting our dead gay soldiers, bashing gays and women who have been raped, or aborted a fetus which would live a life of suffering, or been a result of rape, or a threat to a woman's very existence.

These is irrational zaelots, no question. Representaives waving the flag of revolution from the capital steps!!! Defending the very corporations which filled the Gulf with oil, and electrocuted our troops.

It started with Reagan, yapping about the Shining City the Hill, while he was lying through his teeth about arming the Contras, and dismantling the unions in this country. Blocking ideology that would hold the polluting pigs to account.

Just look at where most of our money has gone since then. The Militaary Industrial Complex, chock full of former Republican Generals, War mongers, who pass straight from the military, into cushy jobs with war profiiteers. War profiteers who were all connected to Rice, cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and The American Enteprise Institute!

Bush, Rice, Cheney Rumsfeld, all of them linked to oil, and linked to the bin Ladens and the Saudis'...

Just try to imagine if Obama's family had been linked with bin Ladens family, Hitler, the Saudi's, and their financial interests had been lined with money from the Carlyle Group, which along with Halliburton made multi billions in Iraq, while being so corrupt they were gang raping women, and electrocuting our troops, in a war that they lied the country into fighting in the first place. Followed by the RW Activist Judges on the Supreme Court, throwing out a woman's right to sue a Bush connected, Cheney connected corporation, who had been gang raped by their subsidy corporation. Throwing out a case of a woman having been underpaid for decades for doing the same job the men were doing.

Repulsive!

Just watch the coming multi millions going straight from the crooks in this country, into Republican hands in this coming election. Proof positive of the fascist Republican Party, which has blocked any strengthening of financial regulatory reform, along with blocking extending unemployment for all those whose jobs Republican's sent out the window, as they cut taxes for the wealthy, supported war profiteers, threw out the fiinding of a State Supreme Court to count the people's votes, and supplanted W. into the Oval Office. Just IMAGINE what Repiglicans would be screaming from the steps of the Capital if that had been a left leaning court!!!!

The ignorant in this country will go back and vote Repubican again, in spite of all of the documented proof of their collective thievery on the Middle Class. Subsidizing the very corporations who have been bilking our country for decades, at the pump, in the courts, and outsourcing our jobs!

The Founders warned us about an ignorant voting pubic. Here we are seeing in real time, exactly what they were talking about.

G.

pooltchr
07-06-2010, 09:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Founders warned us about an ignorant voting pubic. Here we are seeing in real time, exactly what they were talking about.

G.

</div></div>

One only need look at the resident of the White House these days to see the truth in that comment!

Steve

Gayle in MD
07-06-2010, 09:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The Founders warned us about an ignorant voting pubic. Here we are seeing in real time, exactly what they were talking about.

G.

</div></div>

One only need look at the resident of the White House these days to see the truth in that comment!

Steve </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF6666">LOL, right, when you're without an acceptable counter argument, just blame Obama....

[quote] Clearly, unemployment benefits help to stimulate the economy. Virtually every economist agrees to that much. Republicans are blocking that.

Virtually every economist stated back when Bush began to dismantle America, that we had NEVER cut taxes during war time, and that is was dangerous to do so.


Debts do matter, but not to you, if Republicans are running them up, we have your word for proof of that, but not if a Democratic is trying to invest in re-building this country after Bush destroyed it.

Your ignorance is stunning. quote] </span>

eg8r
07-06-2010, 09:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see the same tactics used here over and over again by the RW political terrorists and rejects from AZ. SCUM! St. </div></div>I see the same thing from gayle.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-06-2010, 09:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see the same tactics used here over and over again by the RW political terrorists and rejects from AZ. SCUM! St. </div></div>I see the same thing from gayle.

eg8r </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF6666">Clearly, unemployment benefits help to stimulate the economy. Virtually every economist agrees to that much. Republicans are blocking that.

Virtually every economist stated back when Bush began to dismantle America, that we had NEVER cut taxes during war time, and that is was dangerous to do so.


The Iraq war was the distraction from getting al Qaeda.

Bush left two unfinished and costly wars behind him.

Repyblicans are the deregulation gurus, hence the oil spill, and the Market crash.

You're the one who has had partisan blinders on for a decade, Ed, and the condition of this country wne Bush was done, is proof that we were right, and you were wrong.

Oh, and stop loying about Obama, he nevere promised to keep unemployment at 8%.

You are not relevant, because you cannot provide anny documentation, so you resort to insulting people, at leat you admit that it is a "perssonality flaw"

Back up by your own partisan slant, I might add. </span>

pooltchr
07-06-2010, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
<span style="color: #FF6666">Clearly, unemployment benefits help to stimulate the economy. Virtually every economist agrees to that much. Republicans are blocking that.

</span> </div></div>

So, if we want to use unemployment benefits to stimulate the economy, why are the Dems dead set against using some of that stimulus money to pay for it????????????

I agree the UE benefits need to be extended. I just think we shouldn't go farther in debt to do it, when there is already plenty of money allocated to stimulate the economy.

Steve

Gayle in MD
07-06-2010, 11:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
<span style="color: #FF6666">Clearly, unemployment benefits help to stimulate the economy. Virtually every economist agrees to that much. Republicans are blocking that.

</span> </div></div>

So, if we want to use unemployment benefits to stimulate the economy, why are the Dems dead set against using some of that stimulus money to pay for it????????????

<span style="color: #FF6666">The answer to that should be obvious. It makes more sense to use that money for job creation.

As most economists agree, this is no time for being penny wise. Japan learned that lesson, didn't they.... </span>

I agree the UE benefits need to be extended.

<span style="color: #FF6666">Then ask yourself why Republicans voted in a block to drop them. I can tell you why, they want things to say as bad as possible, for political purposes. They said that all along. </span>


I just think we shouldn't go farther in debt to do it, when there is already plenty of money allocated to stimulate the economy.

Steve </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dean Baker
Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

Posted: July 6, 2010 09:01 AM





Republicans: The Party of Unemployment
From now until Nov. 2, the Republican Party will be the party of unemployment. The logic is straightforward: The more people who are unemployed on Election Day, the better the prospects for Republicans in the fall election. They expect, with good cause, that voters will hold the Democrats responsible for the state of the economy. Therefore anything that the Republicans can do to make the economy worse between now and then will help their election prospects.

While it might be bad taste to accuse a major national political party of deliberately wanting to throw people out of jobs, there is no other plausible explanation for the Republicans' behavior. The Republicans have balked at supporting nearly every bill that had any serious hope of creating or keeping jobs, most recently filibustering on bills that provided aid to state and local governments and extending unemployment benefits. The result of the Republicans' actions, unless they are reversed quickly, is that hundreds of thousands more workers will be thrown out of work by Election Day.

The story is straightforward. Nearly every state and local government across the country is looking at large budget shortfalls for their 2011 fiscal years, most of which begin July 1, 2010. Since they are generally required by state constitutions or local charters to balance their budgets, they will have no choice except to raise taxes and/or make large cutbacks and layoff workers to bring spending and revenue into line.

State and local governments have cut their workforce by an average of 65,000 a month over the last three months. Without substantial aid from the federal government, this pace is likely to accelerate. The Republican agenda, in blocking aid to the states, may add another 300,000 people to the unemployment roles by early November.

The blockage of extended unemployment benefits promises similar dividends. Unemployment benefits are not just about providing income support to those who are out of work, they also provide a boost to the economy. Since unemployed workers generally have little other than their benefits to support themselves, this is money that will almost immediately be spent. The benefits paid to workers are income to food stores and other retail outlets.

Unemployment insurance provides the sort of boost to demand that the economy desperately needs. That is why neutral parties like the Congressional Budget Office or economist Mark Zandi, a top adviser to John McCain's presidential bid, always list unemployment benefits as one of the best forms of stimulus.

Republicans give two reasons for opposing benefits. First, they claim that benefits discourage people from working. Second, they object that the Democrats' proposal will add to the national debt.

On the first point, there is a considerable amount of economic research. Most indicate that, in periods when the economy is operating near its capacity, more generous benefits may modestly increase the unemployment rate. However, they are less likely to have that effect now. The reason is simple: The economy does not have enough jobs. The latest data from the Labor Department show that there are five unemployed workers for every job opening.

In this context, unemployment benefits may give some workers the option to remain unemployed longer to find a job that better fits their skills, but they are unlikely to affect the total number of unemployed. In other words, a $300 weekly unemployment check may allow an experienced teacher the luxury of looking for another teaching job rather than being forced to grab a job at Wal-Mart.

However, if the teacher took the job at Wal-Mart, then this would simply displace a recent high school grad who has no other job opportunities. That might be a great turn of events in Republican-econ land, but it does not reduce the overall unemployment rate, nor does it benefit the overall economy in any obvious way.

From now until Nov. 2, the Republican Party will be the party of unemployment. The logic is straightforward: The more people who are unemployed on Election Day, the better the prospects for Republicans in the fall election. They expect, with good cause, that voters will hold the Democrats responsible for the state of the economy. Therefore anything that the Republicans can do to make the economy worse between now and then will help their election prospects.
While it might be bad taste to accuse a major national political party of deliberately wanting to throw people out of jobs, there is no other plausible explanation for the Republicans' behavior. The Republicans have balked at supporting nearly every bill that had any serious hope of creating or keeping jobs, most recently filibustering on bills that provided aid to state and local governments and extending unemployment benefits. The result of the Republicans' actions, unless they are reversed quickly, is that hundreds of thousands more workers will be thrown out of work by Election Day.

The story is straightforward. Nearly every state and local government across the country is looking at large budget shortfalls for their 2011 fiscal years, most of which begin July 1, 2010. Since they are generally required by state constitutions or local charters to balance their budgets, they will have no choice except to raise taxes and/or make large cutbacks and layoff workers to bring spending and revenue into line.

State and local governments have cut their workforce by an average of 65,000 a month over the last three months. Without substantial aid from the federal government, this pace is likely to accelerate. The Republican agenda, in blocking aid to the states, may add another 300,000 people to the unemployment roles by early November.

The blockage of extended unemployment benefits promises similar dividends. Unemployment benefits are not just about providing income support to those who are out of work, they also provide a boost to the economy. Since unemployed workers generally have little other than their benefits to support themselves, this is money that will almost immediately be spent. The benefits paid to workers are income to food stores and other retail outlets.

Unemployment insurance provides the sort of boost to demand that the economy desperately needs. That is why neutral parties like the Congressional Budget Office or economist Mark Zandi, a top adviser to John McCain's presidential bid, always list unemployment benefits as one of the best forms of stimulus.

Republicans give two reasons for opposing benefits. First, they claim that benefits discourage people from working. Second, they object that the Democrats' proposal will add to the national debt.

On the first point, there is a considerable amount of economic research. Most indicate that, in periods when the economy is operating near its capacity, more generous benefits may modestly increase the unemployment rate. However, they are less likely to have that effect now. The reason is simple: The economy does not have enough jobs. The latest data from the Labor Department show that there are five unemployed workers for every job opening.

In this context, unemployment benefits may give some workers the option to remain unemployed longer to find a job that better fits their skills, but they are unlikely to affect the total number of unemployed. In other words, a $300 weekly unemployment check may allow an experienced teacher the luxury of looking for another teaching job rather than being forced to grab a job at Wal-Mart.

However, if the teacher took the job at Wal-Mart, then this would simply displace a recent high school grad who has no other job opportunities. That might be a great turn of events in Republican-econ land, but it does not reduce the overall unemployment rate, nor does it benefit the overall economy in any obvious way.



The other argument the Republicans give is that these bills would add to the national debt. For example, the latest extension of unemployment benefits would have added $22 billion to the debt by the end of 2011. This means that the debt would be $9,807,000,000 instead of $9,785,000,000 at the end of fiscal 2011, an increase of the debt to GDP ratio from 65.3 percent to 65.4 percent.

It is possible that congressional Republicans, who were willing to vote for hundreds of billions of dollars of war expenditures without paying for them, or trillions of dollars of tax cuts without paying for them, are actually concerned about this sort of increase in the national debt. It is possible that this is true, but not very plausible.

The more likely explanation is that the Republicans want to block anything that can boost the economy and create jobs. Throwing people out of work may not be pretty, but politics was never pretty, and it is getting less so by the day.

From the Guardian.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF6666">Make up your mind. do you want to use the stimulus for stimulting, or for paying unemployment benefits.

I would assume since the CBO, and several Nobel Winning economists agree that this is no time for worrying about debt, we should go forward, regardless of costs, and spend whata is needed to reuild the economy Bush smashed, and walked away leaving no reserves, only massive debts.

If the Republicans are re-elected, this country is done.

G.</span>

pooltchr
07-06-2010, 11:51 AM
No, we wouldn't want to be penny wise while the Dems are in office, would we?

The so called stimulus is almost 800 billion dollars. Given the circumstances we are looking at, it seems reasonable that less than 2% of that money used for UE would result is a quick injection of money into the economy, along with helping out some people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months.

And since our private sector job growth has been, shall we say, not all that great in the last year and a half, it would seem pretty obvious that passing the bill hasn't proven to be all that helpful in creating new jobs.

Even you should be able to figure that out!

Steve

Gayle in MD
07-06-2010, 12:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, we wouldn't want to be penny wise while the Dems are in office, would we?

<span style="color: #FF6666">Absurd statement. Our econmy was strong when Bush took office, he left is in a debt ditch. ALL economists agree thaat spending under these circumstances is required, and every time you try to make this ridiculous point, you show ignorance of economics. The conditions prevailing, are the basis for all rationnal decisions. </span>

The so called stimulus is almost 800 billion dollars. Given the circumstances we are looking at, it seems reasonable that less than 2% of that money used for UE would result is a quick injection of money into the economy, along with helping out some people who have been unemployed for more than 6 months.

And since our private sector job growth has been, shall we say, not all that great in the last year and a half, it would seem pretty obvious that passing the bill hasn't proven to be all that helpful in creating new jobs.

Even you should be able to figure that out!

Steve </div></div>

Even you should be able to figure out that loads of that money was spent on saving jobs, on the state level, and in the automobile industry, limiting the huge predicted loss of jobs in the private secter, if they failoed, and that the damages and posibilities of what would continue to happen to our already crashed economy was as bad as Bush told us before he left, and we were, in fact, on the brink of a decade long depression.

that kind of negative momentum does not turn around this soon, and jobs are always the last to recover.

It's obvious to me that you righties had plenty of patience for Bush's spending and borrownig to pay for all of it, and the Republican Earmark frenzy, including social programs, AND tax cuts, none of it paid for, but now, you don't think spending to avoid a depression is logical. You are worried about a smidgeon of added debt, in the whole scheme of things, for helping the unemployed, even though it is a fact that that money incfreases spending in the private secter. Republicans know this, and their biggest fear is that the economy will show good signs of job recovery before the election. hence, they block everry single thing that comes down the pike. As they have stated all along, they, and you righties on here, want President Obama to fail.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Op-Ed Columnist
Punishing the Jobless
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 4, 2010
There was a time when everyone took it for granted that unemployment insurance, which normally terminates after 26 weeks, would be extended in times of persistent joblessness. It was, most people agreed, the decent thing to do.


Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman

Today, American workers face the worst job market since the Great Depression, with five job seekers for every job opening, with the average spell of unemployment now at 35 weeks. Yet the Senate went home for the holiday weekend without extending benefits. How was that possible?

The answer is that we’re facing a coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused. Nothing can be done about the first group, and probably not much about the second. But maybe it’s possible to clear up some of the confusion.

By the heartless, I mean Republicans who have made the cynical calculation that blocking anything President Obama tries to do — including, or perhaps especially, anything that might alleviate the nation’s economic pain — improves their chances in the midterm elections. Don’t pretend to be shocked: you know they’re out there, and make up a large share of the G.O.P. caucus.

By the clueless I mean people like Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for senator from Nevada, who has repeatedly insisted that the unemployed are deliberately choosing to stay jobless, so that they can keep collecting benefits. A sample remark: “You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job but it doesn’t pay as much. We’ve put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry.”

Now, I don’t have the impression that unemployed Americans are spoiled; desperate seems more like it. One doubts, however, that any amount of evidence could change Ms. Angle’s view of the world — and there are, unfortunately, a lot of people in our political class just like her.

But there are also, one hopes, at least a few political players who are honestly misinformed about what unemployment benefits do — who believe, for example, that Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, was making sense when he declared that extending benefits would make unemployment worse, because “continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.” So let’s talk about why that belief is dead wrong.

Do unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to seek work? Yes: workers receiving unemployment benefits aren’t quite as desperate as workers without benefits, and are likely to be slightly more choosy about accepting new jobs. The operative word here is “slightly”: recent economic research suggests that the effect of unemployment benefits on worker behavior is much weaker than was previously believed. Still, it’s a real effect when the economy is doing well.

But it’s an effect that is completely irrelevant to our current situation. When the economy is booming, and lack of sufficient willing workers is limiting growth, generous unemployment benefits may keep employment lower than it would have been otherwise. But as you may have noticed, right now the economy isn’t booming — again, there are five unemployed workers for every job opening. Cutting off benefits to the unemployed will make them even more desperate for work — but they can’t take jobs that aren’t there.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Wait: there’s more. One main reason there aren’t enough jobs right now is weak consumer demand. Helping the unemployed, by putting money in the pockets of people who badly need it, helps support consumer spending. That’s why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic stimulus. And unlike, say, large infrastructure projects, aid to the unemployed creates jobs quickly — while allowing that aid to lapse, which is what is happening right now, is a recipe for even weaker job growth, not in the distant future but over the next few months. </span>
<span style='font-size: 26pt'>But won’t extending unemployment benefits worsen the budget deficit? Yes, slightly — but as I and others have been arguing at length, penny-pinching in the midst of a severely depressed economy is no way to deal with our long-run budget problems. And penny-pinching at the expense of the unemployed is cruel as well as misguided. </span>

Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize Winning economist....
</div></div>

eg8r
07-06-2010, 12:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly, unemployment benefits help to stimulate the economy. Virtually every economist agrees to that much. Republicans are blocking that.
</div></div>Jobs do an even better job than unemployment benefits and every economist agrees with that. The problem is the Dems are standing in the way of job creation. Actually the Dems have made our job economy even worse than Bush.

eg8r

eg8r
07-06-2010, 12:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The answer to that should be obvious. It makes more sense to use that money for job creation.</div></div>Then why aren't they doing that? No jobs are being saved or created.

eg8r

pooltchr
07-06-2010, 01:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
ALL economists agree thaat spending under these circumstances is required,
</div></div>

Where do you get this crap?????
"ALL economists" can't even agree that a quarter is round!

Your understanding of economics is laughable. You think spending money you don't have when times are bad is a good plan. That tells me everything I need to know about your so-called intelligence.

Do you really hate your children and grandchildren that much? Because they are the ones who are going to be paying for all of this.

Write this down, so you don't forget. After the elections, the Dems are going to push through every kind of tax they can to pay for the spending they have done in Obama's first two years.

The guy is an idiot, and if you believe him...well....you can figure out where that's going.

Steve

hondo
07-06-2010, 08:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What kind of debate can happen between those who believe in the absolute truth of revelation and those lost soles who think they can derive the truth through rational thought. </div></div>

I lost my sole. Very difficult to walk.

cushioncrawler
07-06-2010, 10:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize Winning economist....</div></div>Gayle -- No krappynomicyst haz ever won a Nobel Prize for Ekonomix, koz there aint no such Nobel Prize. But perhaps Klugman won one for writing poetry or something, but certainly not for Ekonomix.
madMac.

LWW
07-07-2010, 02:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly, unemployment benefits help to stimulate the economy. Virtually every economist agrees to that much. Republicans are blocking that.
</div></div>Jobs do an even better job than unemployment benefits and every economist agrees with that. The problem is the Dems are standing in the way of job creation. Actually the Dems have made our job economy even worse than Bush.

eg8r </div></div>

She is merely regurgitating the pap placed on the spoon by Komrade Pelosi.

LWW

Gayle in MD
07-07-2010, 02:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
ALL economists agree thaat spending under these circumstances is required,
</div></div>

Where do you get this crap?????
"ALL economists" can't even agree that a quarter is round!

Your understanding of economics is laughable. You think spending money you don't have when times are bad is a good plan. That tells me everything I need to know about your so-called intelligence.

Do you really hate your children and grandchildren that much? Because they are the ones who are going to be paying for all of this.

Write this down, so you don't forget. After the elections, the Dems are going to push through every kind of tax they can to pay for the spending they have done in Obama's first two years.

The guy is an idiot, and if you believe him...well....you can figure out where that's going.

Steve </div></div>
LOL, noothing on this forum is funnier than your own BS, Steve. We from the left laugh all the time about your own gross ignorance, on everything, not just economics.

How did you move away from the "debts don't matterr" philosophy, to being outraged over required spending to divert a depression?

You think you know what you're talking about, but every post shows your complete ignorance of the facts. Yes, all of the most respected economists were writing about the need for the stimulus. I'm not at all surprised you don't know a damn thing about that, one has to read the major news sources, and economic reports, to have a handle on what is going on. Just throwing up your uneducated stinking opinions, over and over, doesn't cut it.

Most respected economists in this country were saying that the stimulus wasn't big enough, in fact. That we needed to spend more, and spend faster.

Just as many warned Japan, that they cut their stimulus spending too soon. And they were right, and Japan paid a price for that.

I doubt that you have heard or read anything of substance on Economics, EVER. You certainly changed your position on spending, and debts, as soon as your beoved Repiglicans were not the ones with the checkbook.

Jobs HAVE been created, no matter how much you, or the right, or Ed, lies about it.

Jobs have also been saved with the stimulus money.

Republicans are about one thing and one thing only, holding down economic recovery in order to win the mid terms. That has been their reaction to their electorial losses from the start. Block recovery, and block the president's success. MAKE HIM FAIL.

Blocking unemployment payments slows down the recovery, period. That's why the Republicans are doing that, just as they have blocked everything else.

They destroyed our economy, and now they're stomping their feet and refusing to take part in anything we need to address. Obstructionists to recovery.

I don't know where you get YOUR crap, I just know it's always CRAP, and it's always rightwing BS.

Your thimble full of brain power is irrelevant compared to economists who have studied economics, and the Depression, ours and other country's, for decades, yet you think you know more than they do, and since you don't read anyone else's links, and only listen to limpballs and Beck, and the zany republikooks, I'm sure you pay little attention to the economic experts. You can't begin to even grasp their knowledge or President Obama's intellect. Your statements here prove your ignorance, and that's all they prove, ever.

In fact, you make about as much sense now, as you did while you were on here saying debts didn't matter, while Bush, Cheney and the blank check republican spendoholics were running them up, and digging the econoomic ditch they put this country in, and left it in.

Now go ride around your town, like you did before, and look around real good, so you can come back and report on your next expert outline for what our econmic situation is, like you did to find out the statistics on what kind of people were defaulting on their loans, LMAO!

You're just a chock full of RW one liners, none of them correct.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is possible that congressional Republicans, who were willing to vote for hundreds of billions of dollars of war expenditures without paying for them, or trillions of dollars of tax cuts without paying for them, are actually concerned about this sort of increase in the national debt. It is possible that this is true, but not very plausible.
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The more likely explanation is that the Republicans want to block anything that can boost the economy and create jobs. </span>Throwing people out of work may not be pretty, but politics was never pretty, and it is getting less so by the day.From the Guardian.


</div></div> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif
G.

Stretch
07-07-2010, 02:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is just precious.

Wright was so corrupt that he is the last demokook forced from power while the demokooks held congress.

"THIN CHARGES" ... such as publishing a book, many pages containing only a single word, which was sold in bulk to contributors (Nearly 100% of the printing run.) in order to circumvent the congressional rules about maximum speaking engagement fees PLUS his wife accepting a do nothing job to circumvent the rules on maximum allowable gifts.

LWW

</div></div>

I see you only made it to the second paragraph totaly missing the jist of both the message, it's content as well as the threads title. Well done, your 3 for 3!

Like a Vampire recoiling at the light, you noticed that it was a Hoff post article. I should have warned you lest you get burned by the truth. Now scurry back to your dark dank cave where you feel safe. St.

LWW
07-07-2010, 04:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is just precious.

Wright was so corrupt that he is the last demokook forced from power while the demokooks held congress.

"THIN CHARGES" ... such as publishing a book, many pages containing only a single word, which was sold in bulk to contributors (Nearly 100% of the printing run.) in order to circumvent the congressional rules about maximum speaking engagement fees PLUS his wife accepting a do nothing job to circumvent the rules on maximum allowable gifts.

LWW

</div></div>

I see you only made it to the second paragraph totaly missing the jist of both the message, it's content as well as the threads title. Well done, your 3 for 3!

Like a Vampire recoiling at the light, you noticed that it was a Hoff post article. I should have warned you lest you get burned by the truth. Now scurry back to your dark dank cave where you feel safe. St. </div></div>

Actually I only commented on your inaccuracies in the OP.

If the article was what you based the inaccuracies on, then you were signaling to the world that it was merely another spoonful of disinformation.

Now, get off your high horse and realize that you swallowed the story whole and if you had a whit of historical knowledge on Wright ... or a scintilla of curiosity that would lead you to investigate beyond what the party spoon feeds you ... you would have already known what I posted in response.

LWW

Stretch
07-07-2010, 05:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is just precious.

Wright was so corrupt that he is the last demokook forced from power while the demokooks held congress.

"THIN CHARGES" ... such as publishing a book, many pages containing only a single word, which was sold in bulk to contributors (Nearly 100% of the printing run.) in order to circumvent the congressional rules about maximum speaking engagement fees PLUS his wife accepting a do nothing job to circumvent the rules on maximum allowable gifts.

LWW

</div></div>

I see you only made it to the second paragraph totaly missing the jist of both the message, it's content as well as the threads title. Well done, your 3 for 3!

Like a Vampire recoiling at the light, you noticed that it was a Hoff post article. I should have warned you lest you get burned by the truth. Now scurry back to your dark dank cave where you feel safe. St. </div></div>

Actually I only commented on your inaccuracies in the OP.

If the article was what you based the inaccuracies on, then you were signaling to the world that it was merely another spoonful of disinformation.

Now, get off your high horse and realize that you swallowed the story whole and if you had a whit of historical knowledge on Wright ... or a scintilla of curiosity that would lead you to investigate beyond what the party spoon feeds you ... you would have already known what I posted in response.

LWW </div></div>

Oh so you didn't bother opening the link, ok. The TOPIC (since you just woke up) is about the gridlock and obstruction we see in Washington now. Writes only relevence to THE STORY is the writers contention that this ploy, to effectively shut down government can be traced back to the emergence of Newt Gingrich on the Political landscape. You know, the guy that went after Bill Clinton while he was boneing an intern on the side?

Personaly i don't give a rats a$$ about Write or his aleged faux pas, Washington is awash with them. However since your the king of misdirection and misinformation perhaps now would be a good time to educate us all on his life and times. St.

P.S. Not that i care, but you might like to actually dig a little deeper yourself once in a while when someone introduces subject matter for viewing, you know, just to see where they are comeing from???

LWW
07-07-2010, 05:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Personaly i don't give a rats a$$ about Wri<s>te</s>ght or his aleged faux pas</div></div>

That is abundantly clear ... and, quite sad.

LWW

pooltchr
07-07-2010, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[ That we needed to spend more, and spend faster.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Typical liberal whack-o thinking. Spend more moeny we don's have, and spend it faster.
Let me ask you this. When your business drops off, and income decreases, do you go out and spend more money faster??? I'm sure your husband must love that!!!!!!!!!!</span>



Jobs HAVE been created, no matter how much you, or the right, or Ed, lies about it.

Jobs have also been saved with the stimulus money.

G. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Federal and state government jobs don't count. Private sector jobs add to the economy. Government jobs drain the economy.

I don't know why I bother. No amount of facts is going to convince you that your lefty leadership is lying to you.

P.T. Barnum was right, and you are living proof!

Steve</span>

Gayle in MD
07-07-2010, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly, unemployment benefits help to stimulate the economy. Virtually every economist agrees to that much. Republicans are blocking that.
</div></div>Jobs do an even better job than unemployment benefits and every economist agrees with that. The problem is the Dems are standing in the way of job creation. Actually the Dems have made our job economy even worse than Bush.

eg8r </div></div>

That is about as absurd a statement as I have ever read, almost as stupid as Steve's usual illogical assertions.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The job hemmorage had picked up huge momentum during Bush's last months in office, hundreds of thousands gone every month, I read over 700,000, or cllose to that in his last month.

Did you think that would turn around on a dime?</span>
Don't be ridiculous.

From the very beginning, predictions from the world of economic experts were for a very slow job recovery no matter which way we went.

Now if you can find a single economist from back then who was saying we'd have a quick turnaround in the job market, or that we should not spend money, and make investments in an economic recovery, then do provide the link. NONE of them were saying that at the time, from either side.

A diving economy does not make a sudden upswing, with immediate job recovery, it does not happen.

And none of you righties can prove what would have happened without the stimulus spending and investmeents that were made to speed the recovery, and prevent a depression, but the one thing wew do know is that none of you can come up with a single time, ever, anywhere in any country, throughout history, that a depressionary economy was prevented by penny pinching instead of spending.

Predictions were that things were dire, and they were. Predictions such as thirty percent unemployment, were swirling everywhere.

It's truly disgusting reading posts from the same ignorant flyover bubbas who pushed for Iraq, pushed for Bush, pushed for Republican big spenders, and attacked the deficit critics who were warninng all of you throughout, about the spending, about the lack of oversight, about the dangerously fast gorwing deficits, with interest, wars with tax cuts, blatant irresponsibililty from the Republicans, and now you're all suddenly deficit hawks, following the party which knows that spending is the only way to improve our current circumstances, so they're going to bash spending, which is the ONLY way out of a near depression, even though their philosophy is strictly formed around keeping everything going as badly as possible for politicl purposes.

And you call yourselves patriots? LMAO, then go out there and visit yur beloved corporate pigs who bilked all of us, and get them to get the hell off of all that money they're sitting on, after destroying the econoomy, and spend some of it to help their country et back on it's feet. They are still stealing from us in the true sense of the word.

The right is totally NUTS!

LMAO! Idiots!

pooltchr
07-07-2010, 06:56 AM
You are correct. The job loss began to slide while Gw was in office, but you are missing the real catalyst. Compare unemployment rates before and after Obama was nominated.

Businesses saw the writing on the wall, and began cutting back in preparation for the devistation they anticipated from an Obama presidency.

Steve

Gayle in MD
07-07-2010, 07:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are correct. The job loss began to slide while Gw was in office, but you are missing the real catalyst. Compare unemployment rates before and after Obama was nominated.

Businesses saw the writing on the wall, and began cutting back in preparation for the devistation they anticipated from an Obama presidency.

Steve </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000">BWA HA HA HA....what a crock of ****!

Do you even know that the job losses have been going DOWN, not UP, since we got rid of Bush????

Unbelievable! Your ignorance is increasingly stunning over time.</span>

pooltchr
07-07-2010, 07:46 AM
Actually, we had job GROWTH under Bush. And while I will grant you that the rate of job loss has slowed, it hasn't turned around, and we have to make up for more than 6 million jobs that have been lost in the last 20 months. That 14,000 last months hardly made a dent!

Steve

Gayle in MD
07-07-2010, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, we had job GROWTH under Bush. </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000">HA HA HA...Clinton created more jobs than both Bush's and Reagan all put together.

We had nothing but job losses throughout Bush's deep recession, the last months of his administration, and losses have been dropping throughout Obama's administration, so ACTUALLY, you don't have a clue, as usual. I suppose you deny the huge job loss momentum was already underway under Bush.

We're still fighting to rid ourselves of the Bush recession, but thankfully, President Obama has diverted the Bush Depression, so far.
Your slanted opinion on the subject is irrational.

G.


G. </span>

pooltchr
07-07-2010, 07:59 AM
There have been countless charts and graphs posted here that show that you are wrong, but you continue to prefer the daily feeding to the facts, so I'm not going to even bother.

You aren't worth it!

Steve

Gayle in MD
07-07-2010, 08:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There have been countless charts and graphs posted here that show that you are wrong, but you continue to prefer the daily feeding to the facts, so I'm not going to even bother.

You aren't worth it!

Steve </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Your slanted irrational opinions on the subject are obvious. You haven't posted a damned thing that was documented. I have. You lose, as usual.

G. </span>

eg8r
07-07-2010, 11:42 AM
After all that ranting, at your age, you probably needed a nap. No problem, you did not do anything to refute the fact that the Dems have stood in the way of job growth in this country and have been at the helm (for 3.5 years) as unemployment skyrocketed due to their inactivity.

eg8r

eg8r
07-07-2010, 11:43 AM
Yes, that increase from 5% to 10% unemployment is because Obama was doing such a great job creating jobs.

eg8r

eg8r
07-07-2010, 11:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">HA HA HA...Clinton created more jobs than both Bush's and Reagan all put together.

</div></div>Isn't it the lefty pissants that hate it when we mention the adulterer?

eg8r

llotter
07-07-2010, 05:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And none of you righties can prove what would have happened without the stimulus spending and investmeents that were made to speed the recovery, and prevent a depression, but the one thing wew do know is that none of you can come up with a single time, ever, anywhere in any country, throughout history, that a depressionary economy was prevented by penny pinching instead of spending.</div></div>

Well, there is, of course, the short but severe depression of 1920. Government spending was slashed nearly 50% and taxes were also cut, thus allowing the real engine of growth, the non-public sector to preform the miracle commonly referred to as the 'Roaring Twenties'.

I think the liberals in academia would rather forget that solution all together and have managed to largely write it out of our history.

Then there is also the big Reagan tax cuts of the early '80s that ushered in the huge growth over nearly three decades. While he wasn't successful in cutting spending, he did manage to hold it steady as a percent of GDP for the entire 8 years.

Gayle in MD
07-08-2010, 05:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After all that ranting, at your age, you probably needed a nap.

<span style="color: #FF0000">I notice you haven't shown up around here with your running shoes, Ed. Scared to run aginst ol' Granny?</span>



No problem, you did not do anything to refute the fact that the Dems have stood in the way of job growth in this country and have been at the helm (for 3.5 years) as unemployment skyrocketed due to their inactivity.

eg8r </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000">Well now, thanks for providing proof of your twisted, biased rightwing slant on the world.

G. </span>

Gayle in MD
07-08-2010, 05:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, that increase from 5% to 10% unemployment is because Obama was doing such a great job creating jobs.

eg8r </div></div>

The crash happened after over seven years of Bush's presidency, six with a Republican majority, during which he held the VETO pen, and the deficit soared, and the economy crashed, and jobs were going out the window by the hundreds of thousands every month. Are you so ignorant that you thought in less than two years, all those jobs were going to come back? did Bush tell the American public that we were on the verge of a Global Depresion, that could last as long as a decade?

Are you so thoroughly under informed, that you haven't seen the banks hold this economic recovery, back, after we bailed them out, they continue to squirrel the money away? You don't see them holding back loans to the private secter? You don't see Republicas blocking extending unemployment, even though the CBO, and most economists agree that unemployment benfits help to stimulate spending, and help the economy to recover? Was the last Republican majority in poer for most of the lasst sixteen years, and were they fiscally responsible?

It's very sinple, for most of the last decade, republicans have been running the show, and we can sufrfely see what that led to, so given they had most of the power, for the longest period of time, they get most of the blame.

G.