BS: Disaster for the Democrats?

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 04:33 PM

That was 200 and no-one claimed it!

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 05:01 PM

>>in my small town people who have worked their entire life are at risk of losing their homes.<<<

And the Republican want to go back to exactly the same policies that put your friends in that position.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: olddude
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 05:24 PM

I pray you are not right Jack, But I suspect you are correct. All the policies I have seen for so many years are stacked against the small guy. Whenever one tries to do something for the small guy, it gets squashed. But that has been going on forever sadly ... I don't have any answers just to hold everyone accountable that is what I would ask, forget parties, hold everyone accountable .. I guess that is all we can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 05:38 PM

They are seriously trying to reverse restrictions on risky investments and on consumer protection.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 10 - 09:47 PM

"...abohorant (sic) to the majority of voters."

Doug, don't you ever take off your ideological blinders?

President Obama pointed out that if the unemployment rate had been, say 5%, instead of 9.6%, voters would have been much more receptive to his other programs.

Exactly why do you think this is not true?

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: DougR
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 01:13 AM

Ron: do you ever take yours off?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: DougR
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 01:14 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: DougR
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 01:19 AM

Sorry, Ron, I didn't address your statement: "President Obama pointed out that if (key word) the unemployment rate had been, say 5%, instead of 8.6%, voters would have been much more receptive to his other programs."

But the unemployment rate WAS NOT, say, 5%, it WAS 9.6% so that's a meaningless statement.

Old Texas saying: The dog would have caught the rabbit if he hadn't stopped to pee. If, is a mighty, mighty word.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 08:48 AM

Well, Dougie... Seems that you and the Repubs are into fake-economic theories... I mean, it's one rthing to start a PR BIGASS LIE campaign sayin' that the stimulus didn't work and I'm sure that makes ya'll fell all warm and fuzzy all over but it doesn't change the fact that it is a BIGASS LIE...

The other BIGASS LIE is that giving more tax breaks to the rich will produce jobs... The rich are drowning in cash right now and have no interest in creating jobs...

So here you are with not one BIGASS LIE but two BIGASS LIES that fly in the face of what non-flat-earth economists are telling US what we need to do to create jobs (or not create jobs) that you and yer buddies want to build job-creation around???

Might as well go back to using leeches as a medical treatment...

You guys are running on empty in terms of basic understanding how the economy works...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 09:27 AM

What planet is this guy from?

'There are no rich,' Senator-elect Rand Paul claims

By David Edwards
Friday, November 5th, 2010 -- 11:48 am

Following his big win in Tuesday's midterm elections, Senator-elect Rand Paul explained his economic philosophy in about 30 seconds during a CNN interview, claiming he wants to shield the wealthiest Americans from paying higher taxes -- in the name of protecting the working class.

"I would say that [Democrats] must be in favor of a second American depression, because if you raise taxes to that consequence, that's what will happen in this country," Paul told CNN host Wolf Blitzer.

"What if they just raised taxes on the richest, those making more than 250,000 dollars a year?" Blitzer asked.

"Well, the thing is, we're all interconnected. There are no rich. There are no middle class. There are no poor," Paul explained. "You remember a few years ago, when they tried to tax the yachts, that didn't work."

"You know who lost their jobs?" he continued. "The people making the boats, the guys making 50,000 and 60,000 dollars a year lost their jobs. We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people. So just punishing rich people is as bad for the economy as punishing anyone. Let's not punish anyone. Let's keep taxes low and let's cut spending."

Defense of rich Americans and wealthy corporations is a reoccurring theme with Paul. In the midst of the Gulf oil spill last may, Paul argued that criticism of BP was "un-American."

"Rand Paul's got a plan to fix the economy: we just need to stop punishing all the sad, pathetic yacht-owners," observed Julianne Escobedo Shepherd at Alternet. "In one short, circular statement made to CNN's Wolf Blitzer Wednesday night, the Kentucky Senator-elect has summed up the right wing's economic views as succinctly as a one-panel cartoon."

In Paul's view, working class Americans must make in the neighborhood of $50,000 or $60,000. He seems to be unaware that 17 percent of the population in his home state are living below the poverty level of only $22,050 for a family of four.

Jed Lewison at Daily Kos summed up Paul's logic in another way: "Rich people are the backbone of our economy because they are the only people who buy things and create jobs. Therefore we should cut their taxes and cut spending on everything else."

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 10:49 AM

Yeah, great, Rand Paul - yet another lunatic now in a place where he can cause havoc & considerqble real harm.

Sure is somethin' to be proud of, ain't it?

Amerika- greatest country in the world & all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 10:53 AM

Quoth Douggie-boy: But the unemployment rate WAS NOT, say, 5%, it WAS 9.6% so that's a meaningless statement.

Yup, genius, except the unemployment rate is down to Bush & the BuShites. Isn't Obama that's responsible for the mess created over 30 years of Republican mismamagement.

See the "astute take" thread. Douggie's proud that he's whacked himself in the balls.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 01:24 PM

Rand Paul is quite correct, the ultra rich can quite legally avoid tax....they dont need to worry about some small rise in the taxation rate.

Under this system, they are like the banks....they simply cannot be allowed to fail no matter how unfair that may be

Revenue and growth is garnered fron the poor and middle class who are imprisoned in the taxation system....they are the ones who's testicles have not only been whacked, but amputated into the bargain, as a sacrifice to Global Capitalism!

Isn't satire a sly and devious beast?....It always comes back to bite you on the balls.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 01:28 PM

`Isn't satire a sly and devious beast?....It always comes back to bite you on the balls.`

Geeze. Usually I have to pay for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 02:11 PM

>>>Rand Paul is quite correct, the ultra rich can quite legally avoid tax....they dont need to worry about some small rise in the taxation rate.<<<

Yes of course, that makes sense.

Then he should have no trouble passing their small rise in the taxation rate, right?

LOL

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 02:32 PM

Yes thats right Jack, but it doesn't really help our solvency problem......:0(


LOL! 999......and that doesn't happen very often....good to see you B!

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 02:39 PM

The only way for Obama to climb out of the hole he is in is to run as FDR.
What is needed now is a Ferdinand J. Pecora to take on the banksters many of whom should be in jail.

The disaster is mainly for the so-called "blue dogs". The Dems will need to shore up their true base. This could happen.

If Boehner and McConnell close down the government if they don't repeal health care,
then Obama has a good chance of being re-elected. Remember what happened when Newt tried that.

Gridlock is something that Americans seem to vote for in most elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 02:45 PM

It`s great seeing you, Ake. Trust things are well and that life is excellent for you. I will write soon and let you know what`s happening here.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 02:53 PM

Obama, will beat anyone the Republicans look likely to nominate today. Keep in mind that the nominee has to please the Tea Party and the Republican Money base.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 04:45 PM

Seems to me that the Tea Party are a bigger threat to Republican vote tallies than Democratic vote tallies, aren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 05:30 PM

The point is, Doug--and you continue your virtually 100% record of missing the point---congratulations on that---is that the disastrous economy swamped all other considerations in the elections this year.

Based on historical precedent--and that's all we have to go on--when the economy is not such a basket case, voters feel ready to deal with other issues.

Now, do you deny this?   Yes or no? No meaningless tome necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 05:35 PM

Well, the Tea Party is the reddest of the rednecks, LH... They run 100% on emotion so, yeah, gonna be kinda hard reeling them in since they are really not all that connected with reality... Ahhhh, not that the rest of the Repubs are...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 06:17 PM

I think it should be considered that the Tea Party--stupid as I think many of their candidates are--are a response to what some folks consider to be a disenfranchisement of themselves by what they see as corruption in government. I applaud them for having the cajones to `stand up and be counted`, but I hiss or boo because they seem to be shills for other interests.

I find threads about political or religious stuff to be very partisan. Much like threads about UK music. It`s like falling off the wall of a snake pit. They`re interesting to look at until you meet them up close and personal. It`s then you realize the person you`re meeting is just like you--except different.

Keep well, yàll.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: pdq
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 08:46 PM

Just for the recod, the Tea Party is not a political party in the same was that the Democratic and Republinac parties are.

The Tea Party is a grassroots movement and it has run no candidates.

One lady is considered the leader, but most Tea Party supportes have probably never heard of her...


"...Jenny Beth Martin found her voice, and has given it to a movement profoundly unhappy with Congress, the president and the general direction of life in the United States.

In the past year, her celebrity has taken her to Washington, New York, Philadelphia and other places where people want to see one of the few luminaries of a movement that prides itself on its lack of stars. So she books her flights, a surprised traveler.

"I never intended this," she said recently. "I guess I just raise my hand too often and volunteer constantly."

Martin may owe CNBC commentator Rick Santelli a big thank you. On Feb. 19, 2009, he stood on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade and blasted Obama's mortgage bailout plan. "The government," he yelled, "is promoting bad behavior!" Then, with a nod to U.S. history, Santelli said he should host a "Chicago tea party."

Tea party. In suburban Atlanta, Martin heard that phrase and felt something stir. She got busy the next day, organizing Atlanta's first tea party protest. On Feb. 27, Martin and others stood in the rain outside the Georgia Capitol with signs reading "Repeal or Retire," a message to Congress to drop the economic stimulus plan.

Martin stepped up her e-mails and phone calls, sharing her belief. She and others planned a protest for April 15, the national deadline for filing income taxes. Someone, Martin isn't sure who, coined the name "Tea Party Patriots." In June she incorporated the group as a nonprofit political action organization. She is its CEO.

Its principles, she said, are simple. It wants the government to embrace fiscal responsibility, calls for a constitutionally limited government and urges free-market economics. An umbrella organization, it now claims 1,800 chapters with 15 million members."

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 10 - 09:11 PM

Just for the record, the Tea Party is not a grassroots movement in that hundreds of millions of dollars from health insurance company (and others) were used in organizing it...

Throw in an entire so-called new network (FOX) and this is no more a grassroots organization than is the NRA or Halliburton...

So please quit with that mythology 'cause that dog don't hunt except in Republican circle-jerks...

Follow the money...

Google up Dick Armey or FreedomWorks...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:59 AM

The Tea Party "membership" is all the people who voted for George Bush and were taken in by his bullshit. The ones who were very pissed off and disheartened in 2006.

Some how someone (Dick Army, Sarah Palin and others) convinced them to take out their anger on the Republican Party by supporting wait for it.......the Republican party.

But wait, by calling themselves The Tea Party instead of their proper name the wing nut wing of the Republican Party, they get to say and do all kinds of mean and nasty and ugly things to attack Democrats one step removed from the Republicans to stir up the base so that the Republicans who may be called Republicans can act more sanely and try to appeal to the middle. Already nutjobs like Michelle Bachman are trying to act sane, though the strain of it shows in her facial expressions.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 08:20 AM

I keep trying to explain that "fiscal responsibility" will give the USA a recession that will make the 30s look like a picnic.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 08:27 AM

No, not really, Rich...

Right now there are piles and piles of unused, uninvested cash just sittin' in the vaults of rich people and the Fortune 500 companies... The entire concept behind "economic growth" and the GNP is to get cash into circulation but this cash sits idle... Tax increases would do two things: First, it would get that cash back into circulation where cash belongs and second, it would reduce the deficit... That is what fiscal responsibility look like... Of course, the flat-earth Repubs don't see it that way but then again, look who funded their campaigns...

Duhhhhhhhhhhh???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 09:37 AM

Bobert is right.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 10:01 AM

My assumption is that "fiscal responsibility" is dogwhistle for "spending cuts".

Tax yes, but spendspendspend. The US desperately needs Keynesian reflation NOW. Get those economic multipliers working!

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 10:21 AM

Yes, Keynesian "relation" is also desperately needed and now... Most leading economists said during the stimulus debate that the amount was too small to get the job done... I agree... They said that $1T was the amount it would take yet Obama had to compromise at $700B... That was irresponsible... Hey, putting another $300B into infrastructure and education will pay dividends down the road... Actually, these expenditures are way past due...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:10 AM

Richard, I actually think that Keynes has helped us as much as he can.

We are not going to get sustainable growth from short term high spending. I would keep spending about where it is now, claw back the money the rich people are hoarding and more importantly to give them tax incentives to spend it.

We also need to invest in infrastructure and education.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 11:25 AM

You need to end the wars and bring your soldiers home and cut military spending in half.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM

Yeah, LH, but knowing the military/industrialists they'll just spill a few million $$$ here and there on the right Congressmen and next thing ya' know there won't be one dime saved from ending the wars... Of course, the story will be that we now need to restock all the stuff that got blown up and every newly elected Tea Partier will vote for more DoD $$$...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:40 PM

Do you remember, Bobert, when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended? We were told by our governments and media that a "peace dividend" would result, and we'd all be more prosperous.

Ha!

No peace dividend came. What we got was wars in the former Yugoslavia, quickly followed by a world war against Muslim extremism that appears now to be a world war which has no forseeable end. That's what they wanted, just like in "1984"...a war with no geographical center and no forseeable end. That permits the military-industrial complex to go on doing what it loves to do and spending our children's inheritance.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:02 PM

>>Do you remember, Bobert, when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended? We were told by our governments and media that a "peace dividend" would result, and we'd all be more prosperous.<<

It was Cheney and Defense Secretary who first promised that Piece dividend then when running for VP he used Kerry's vote for his (Cheney's) plan to "prove" that Kerry was soft on defense.

How screwed up is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster for the Democrats?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:03 PM

To quote an economic theorist from Chile, growth is not necessarily development. In many ways the US risks being an underdeveloped country.

If Obama doesn't explain why the US is in Afghanistan, Iraq and sending missiles to
Pakistan, it will be all over for him at the next election.

There is kind of an axiom here. Politicians who know how to get elected, don't necessarily know how to govern. One is sales, the other is executive talents.

So far, the Dems have forsaken their original message. 1. Help for the working and middle class. 2. Public education (not private schools). 3. Strengthening the power of government regulations for environmental issues as well as financial. 4. Providing a safety net for those who are hurt by unemployment and crooked bank transactions (underwater mortgages). 5. Making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. 6. Keeping Separation of Church and State in tact. 7. Providing government jobs to ease unemployment (WPA, CCC etc.)

Notice I said "message". There has to be a clear vision for the Dems, not a watered down appeasement to the Repubs. The Dems message now is garbled.

The Repubs have no vision. They are pure reactionaries.