Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Because by their nature the Dems are grossly incompetent. Democrats need to accept they will always be only place holders. They will only ever get power when the Republicans are so obviously evil and corrupt that the masses are left with no other choice.

The entire democratic party is based on the sloshing of public funds between their multitude of aligned organizations... now who exactly is corrupt?

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

What do Mary, Joseph, et al have to do with this?

???

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

???

Pun on nativity I would think.

I blame Dick Cheney for your inability to get the joke.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Pun on nativity I would think.

I blame Dick Cheney for your inability to get the joke.

Since we are all Bible-thumping, anti-Darwin, Fundamentalists, you would think I should have been able to get the attempted pun. The CheneyBushRove is just that powerful.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The entire democratic party is based on the sloshing of public funds between their multitude of aligned organizations... now who exactly is corrupt?

Bush Cheney and Rove, thats who

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The entire democratic party is based on the sloshing of public funds between their multitude of aligned organizations... now who exactly is corrupt?

We know, we know. Republicans: Goooood. Democrats: Baaaad. For someone as seeminly as intelligent as you are you seem to cling to an alarmingly sophomoric method of critical thinking about the world at large.

Since we are all Bible-thumping, anti-Darwin, Fundamentalists, you would think I should have been able to get the attempted pun. The CheneyBushRove is just that powerful.

Or I may have just jumped on your spelling error. The creationist/Bible-thumping inference however is a bonus.

 

[collegehcky2]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

True. But I think Motley fool nailed why CPI is a misleading/lagging indicator.
Sounds like we need CPI excluding (rent/housing).

40% of CPI is housing (rent and rent equivalents).

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm



http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/12/10/heres-why-the-cpi-is-broken.aspx

While this is true, there are 3 main reasons why CPI is a poor indicator of actual inflation/deflation/cost of living. First, the CPI does not take into account the substitution effect. As prices change, rational consumers shift consumption to maximize their wealth/utility. The cost of living therefore cannot be accurately calculated from month to month. Second, the entire index is measured across the nation where certain items are taxed, subisized and restricted. Certain consumers pay more (less) for a typical market basket of goods. Third, CPI often does not reflect real growth. Generally, the CPI rises 2.1 to 2.6% per year, however this does not reflect change in quality or longevity of consumer goods. As production processes grow more efficient and products become more durable, the production cost decreases because of economies of scale, however, companies mark up goods because of lower product turnover. This keeps economic profit at 0, and producer surplus increases (relative to consumer surplus) while social welfare improves.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I love how they whine about liberals saying they all follow Cheney/Rove whomever in lockstep or are "Bible-thumping Fundamentalists" when we in fact said no such thing; and at the same time throw around terms like "the entire democratic party" (with a small D, apparently) when proclaiming that liberals are bad. Does that warrant a "TF" from walrus?

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Or I may have just jumped on your spelling error. The creationist/Bible-thumping inference however is a bonus.

Since I'm not a cunning linguist, I tend to avoid trying to point out faults with others spelling and or grammar. I would suggest you might want to consider the same tactic...or at least be sure that an error really actually does exist

I love how they whine about liberals saying they all follow Cheney/Rove whomever in lockstep or are "Bible-thumping Fundamentalists" when we in fact said no such thing; and at the same time throw around terms like "the entire democratic party" (with a small D, apparently) when proclaiming that liberals are bad. Does that warrant a "TF" from walrus?

Um, OK. Two can play this game. In fact, I never said you said any of those things. Never said anything about "the entire democratic party" (big D or little d). Never said that liberals are bad. Wasn't that fun? Juvenile but fun.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

We know, we know. Republicans: Goooood. Democrats: Baaaad. For someone as seeminly as intelligent as you are you seem to cling to an alarmingly sophomoric method of critical thinking about the world at large.

I am astonished by anyone who thinks that one party is somehow innocent of the corruption, hypocrisy and evil doings that defines the other.

Both parties simply choose very different ways to put themselves above the interests of America at large. At least when they were both a little more centered, and less extreme, we could count on them not going too far overboard.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

We know, we know. Republicans: Goooood. Democrats: Baaaad. For someone as seeminly as intelligent as you are you seem to cling to an alarmingly sophomoric method of critical thinking about the world at large.

Why are you holding me to a higher standard than sagard?

Why are you holding democrats to a lower standard than you would republicans?

Just because I don't have time to go down every little sin performed by Democrats doesn't mean I can't think critically... i think bromides are as effective as anything else... remember, ridicule is man's most potent weapon. Most comedians understand it... that's why we have Colbert.

edit: and I've never believed that the Republicans are free from sin... David Vitter for example, Abrahmov(?) for example, Ted Stevens for example.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Because by their nature the Dems are grossly incompetent. Democrats need to accept they will always be only place holders. They will only ever get power when the Republicans are so obviously evil and corrupt that the masses are left with no other choice.

By what measure?

No match for the destruction of net wealth endured by families under the GOP monopoly. Only the great depression matched that.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I think the Fed had at least as much if not more to do with fueling the destructive bubbles that wiped out vast sums of money (both dot-com and real estate) than anything either party did / did not do in the past 15 years. There was ample time to spot the speculative inflation in real estate and clamp down on lending standards / raise interest rates. Neither party - nor the Fed - bothered to do anything to stop it. The same can be said of the dot-com bubble in the late '90s. When prices are climbing and the vast majority are making money, nobody is going to complain or bother to raise an alarm that something isn't right. Instead, they'll point to whoever is in charge and say "see, their policies are working". Then some loans go bad, a few companies start missing low on their profit projections, and everybody starts heading for the exits as prices collapse.

But go right ahead and blame it all on "a Republican monopoly".

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Since I'm not a cunning linguist, I tend to avoid trying to point out faults with others spelling and or grammar. I would suggest you might want to consider the same tactic...or at least be sure that an error really actually does exist

1. Lighten up, Francis. It was an obvious attempt at levity rather than a call to judgement.
2. However since you decided to get snippy, naivety clearly is not naivete

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Why are you holding democrats to a lower standard than you would republicans?.

I don't hold regard for the average politician of any persuasion, but you don't qualify for that title.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

At least one guy on the right thinks the GOP got its collective *** handed to it on the tax deal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121604846.html

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

At least one guy on the right thinks the GOP got its collective *** handed to it on the tax deal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121604846.html

I've read a few analyses to that effect. I don't see it, personally. GOP Senators and Representatives are employed by their donors for one reason: the lowest possible top tax rate. They delivered. Mission Accomplished.

He definitely wins with DADT repeal. That's a promise kept to the base and along with passing at least some (albeit a bad) version of HCR, he shoud be able to keep the taps open. Homophobia has no long game for the GOP and, like the racism they peddled in the 80's, its shelf life as a national issue is about over. As with racism, every day brings the death by old age of the bigots and the birth of people who will grow up knowing their ancestors were a-holes about it. Ohnoesthebuttsex will persist as a Jesusland regional issue for decades, but in places that are lost to the Dems anyway.

The Forever War is a problem, though. A Republican government will never leave Iraq-Afghanistan. It gives them the exact climate of fear slash dick-thumping they want politically, it is linked forever with the false arguments they ginned up about geopolitics, and worst of all they don't see any moral or practical problem with it. That means if the Republicans retake the White House the occupation will continue through 2016 -- 13 years and counting. The only hope of extricating us from that cluster**** is Obama being re-elected and possibly recapturing the House once the country sees the GOP has no governing philosophy other than personally destroying the president.

But Obama is a problem in that regard. He folded on the tax structure -- the most obvious, glaring error of the Bush years other than their Neocon bltizkrieg-for-dummies. He folded on privacy. So who says he won't fold on the wars, too?

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

At least one guy on the right thinks the GOP got its collective *** handed to it on the tax deal:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121604846.html

I guess it is in the eye of the beholder...couldn't he have written the same article saying the reds really won the middle because now they can say they supported extending benefits for the unemployed and retained the tax decreases? As I read that I started to wonder if it wasn't written by Lou Holtz.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

This is the paragraph I agree with 100% in Krauthammer's column:

Despite this, some on the right are gloating that Obama had been maneuvered into forfeiting his liberal base. Nonsense. He will never lose his base. Where do they go? Liberals will never have a president as ideologically kindred - and they know it. For the left, Obama is as good as it gets in a country that is barely 20 percent liberal. Despite this, some on the right are gloating that Obama had been maneuvered into forfeiting his liberal base. Nonsense. He will never lose his base. Where do they go? Liberals will never have a president as ideologically kindred - and they know it. For the left, Obama is as good as it gets in a country that is barely 20 percent liberal.

However, I question his assertion that one tax deal has successfully moved Obama "back to the center".

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

However, I question his assertion that one tax deal has successfully moved Obama "back to the center".

I think he meant that as far as the political middle of the country perceives him, this deal moves him toward the center, similar to how signing welfare reform moved Clinton in that direction.

Kepler - while the old guard GOP voters certainly want tax cuts and only tax cuts, we are now dealing with a situation involving the TP voters who were carping on fiscal responsibility. If it turns out those voters were serious about it, GOP lawmakers voting for this nearly $1T tax cut extension + wasteful spending bill will have a lot to answer for in their primaries/re-election bids (provided they don't start aggressively trying to cut federal spending next year when the new Congress convenes).