How out of touch and crass can one party and their media be?

[lil mike]

because the GOP held the middle-class tax cut hostage in order to get the total Bush cut for the wealthy..

and you think that's funny? and how your  leaders should act? (  )

figures.. funny how you have no problem with a deficit as long as the wealthy benefit, but O'lordy jesus, if a nigrah got a food stamp, you'd be raising all hell wouldn't you....

You love that N word huh?

It's only been a year ago when this vote happened.  How quickly they forget.

Remember, it was a Democratic Senate and and Democratic House.  Not a Republican one.  In fact, House Minority leader Boehner had already conceded on the the tax cut for the wealthiest.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/boehner-hints-compromise-bush-tax-cuts.html

Sorry, but it was the Dems who blinked.  And they did for the same reason that they didn't eliminate the Bush tax cuts when they had the power to do so; they were afraid of voter reaction, not the minority Congressional Republican reaction.  The only tax increase they passed was the 500 or so billion tax included in Obamacare. 

Now?  They're all about tax hikes, but that's only because they can't do it without Republicans, which would remove it as a political issue for 2012.

[ekg]

too bad the agreement was made and signed after the mid-terms when the Dems no longer had control and all the GOP could talk about was a 'mandate' and all..

For weeks after Republicans took control of the House and increased their numbers in the Senate in the November midterm elections, Obama and congressional Democrats insisted that the Bush tax-cut extension be applied only for low and middle-income taxpayers. But Republicans insisted that the extension be applied to all taxpayers, including the nation's millionaires and billionaires.

Senate Republicans all but shut down the upper chamber, refusing to allow votes on any bills unless and until the Bush tax cuts were extended across the board.

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/26-26/4717-while-super-rich-get-tax-cut-extension-middle-class-get-rude-surprise-a-tax-increase

but nice try blaming the Dems..

Obama said he made the compromise to break the stalemate over taxes to ensure rates don’t rise for middle-income Americans when the current ones, enacted in 2001 and 2003, expire on Dec. 31. He said that while he still believes the nation can’t afford to permanently extend the reduced top tax rates, raising taxes for the rest of taxpayers would damage the fragile economic recovery.

Without the deal, middle-income families would become “collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington,” Obama said in televised remarks yesterday. He criticized Republicans for insisting on permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans “regardless of the cost of impact on the deficit.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-06/payroll-tax-holiday-on-the-table-as-negotiators-debate-bush-rate-extension.html

the GOP drug their feet,blocked votes,whined and threw every obstruction they had to fuck up the system. just like always, and there was no choice butto give them their way, which was an extension on the wealthiest along with the middle class..or they would fuck  the rest of the country by letting all cuts expire, not to mention other issues as well  that were up for grabs at that time...and really, who cares if they can't pay for that extension  (haha-sure they care about deficits)..as long as the Koch Bros get their tax-cut the GOP will spend us into oblivion..

and I'm really tired of this fake idea you have and promote that just because the Dems had the house and senate they were able to do everything they wanted.. you have a very distorted memory and idea of how Congress actually works, since the GOP proved that being the minority doesn't stop them from obstructing every single item they wanted to obstruct....add that with this idea that the Dems are like the Borg-ish GOP, who all vote as one regardless of any personal conflicts...and you really do live in that bubble..

There are all kinds and styles of Dems.. conservative,middle,liberal.. some like the death-penalty and hate 'choice'.. some hate guns and love socialism.. now you can paint them all as Borg like you own party, who all vote as one single mind if you wish, but you'd be misinformed to do so..

not that that really matters with you any longer..

[Howey]

For weeks after Republicans took control of the House and increased their numbers in the Senate in the November midterm elections, Obama and congressional Democrats insisted that the Bush tax-cut extension be applied only for low and middle-income taxpayers. But Republicans insisted that the extension be applied to all taxpayers, including the nation's millionaires and billionaires.

Senate Republicans all but shut down the upper chamber, refusing to allow votes on any bills unless and until the Bush tax cuts were extended across the board.

That's the way you, me, and the remainder of the civilized world remember it.

too bad the agreement was made and signed after the mid-terms when the Dems no longer had control and all the GOP could talk about was a 'mandate' and all..

but nice try blaming the Dems..

the GOP drug their feet,blocked votes,whined and threw every obstruction they had to fuck up the system. just like always, and there was no choice butto give them their way, which was an extension on the wealthiest along with the middle class..or they would fuck  the rest of the country by letting all cuts expire, not to mention other issues as well  that were up for grabs at that time...and really, who cares if they can't pay for that extension  (haha-sure they care about deficits)..as long as the Koch Bros get their tax-cut the GOP will spend us into oblivion..

This too...

and I'm really tired of this fake idea you have and promote that just because the Dems had the house and senate they were able to do everything they wanted..

Yet lilMike and his comrades fail to remember the damage filibustering has done to the reputation of their party and Congress. We are just now beginning to see it come back around and bite them in their lilAsses.

[ekg]

That's the way you, me, and the remainder of the civilized world remember it.

This too...

Yet lilMike and his comrades fail to remember the damage filibustering has done to the reputation of their party and Congress. We are just now beginning to see it come back around and bite them in their lilAsses.

seriously, did he/they just totally bog out on 'party of no' and just not remember it? has it already been distorted a filed away as 'never really happened' the same way he still thinks there were WMD's in iraq and Val Plame wasn't outed by Cheney and Rove..


Jon Stewart brought  up a saying one night when it was getting really bad.. he attributed it to the Murdoch/wire tap stuff and he said "They seem to act like they don't know that we can see them"... he's since used that line on other things.. and add this with Mitt's flip.. and I'll steal from Stewart and ask....do they just not get that we can see them?

[lil mike]

too bad the agreement was made and signed after the mid-terms when the Dems no longer had control and all the GOP could talk about was a 'mandate' and all..

but nice try blaming the Dems..

You must be joking to try to use that blog from "Skeeter" as a reference as to what happened.  I don't know how you can have a Democratic Majority in the House, Senate, and the Presidency, and still say, "but nice try blaming the Dems.. "  With that standard, the Democrats can't be held responsible for anything that's happened the past 3 years.  Oh right... I can see why you would want to take that angle...   

the GOP drug their feet,blocked votes,whined and threw every obstruction they had to fuck up the system. just like always, and there was no choice butto give them their way, which was an extension on the wealthiest along with the middle class..or they would fuck  the rest of the country by letting all cuts expire, not to mention other issues as well  that were up for grabs at that time...and really, who cares if they can't pay for that extension  (haha-sure they care about deficits)..as long as the Koch Bros get their tax-cut the GOP will spend us into oblivion..

and I'm really tired of this fake idea you have and promote that just because the Dems had the house and senate they were able to do everything they wanted.. you have a very distorted memory and idea of how Congress actually works, since the GOP proved that being the minority doesn't stop them from obstructing every single item they wanted to obstruct....add that with this idea that the Dems are like the Borg-ish GOP, who all vote as one regardless of any personal conflicts...and you really do live in that bubble..

There are all kinds and styles of Dems.. conservative,middle,liberal.. some like the death-penalty and hate 'choice'.. some hate guns and love socialism.. now you can paint them all as Borg like you own party, who all vote as one single mind if you wish, but you'd be misinformed to do so..

not that that really matters with you any longer..

They did have a choice.  They could have put it up a bill that only expanded the Bush tax cuts for just the middle class and put it up for a vote.  There were no Tea Party in the House then, it would have passed easily.  Boehner admitted as much in the article I linked.  Don't blame the fact that Obama can't make a deal for shit on the Republican minority.  I wish I could believe like you do that the Republican minority outmaneuvered the majorities in two houses of Congress and the smartest President in forever.  Fact is, they are not that good.  Obama blinked.

At the very least, the dems could have done nothing at all and the tax cuts would have just expired.  That has been the real Democratic goal since 2002 anyway.

And ultimately you end up blaming other Democrats, those conservative blue dogs because that aren't "Borg-ish."  Well you don't have to worry about them anymore.  They are almost gone now.  The Democratic Party is becoming much more hard left.  You should be happy about that.  Celebrate good times!  Come on!

[ekg]

You must be joking to try to use that blog from "Skeeter" as a reference as to what happened. 

where is it wrong?

  Obama blinked.

duh!

why did he 'blink'?... because the GOP held the middle class hostage..

finally!! you're admitting the GOP minority did stand in the way of any progress.. so that's a start..

At the very least, the dems could have done nothing at all and the tax cuts would have just expired.  That has been the real Democratic goal since 2002 anyway.

yeah, and then you would be here holding the raising of taxes and the broken campaign pledge against Obama... not to mention using it as a reason as to why the economy is like it is.. I can see it now

LilMike in the reality where the tax cut expired

Well the Dems had the house, senate and white house..  they should have extended the those tax cuts to everyone, or at least the middle class like Obama promised, and wouldn't be in the shape we are in now.

 

And ultimately you end up blaming other Democrats, those conservative blue dogs  

I have..  but I also blame the party the NO as well..

Well you don't have to worry about them anymore.  They are almost gone now.  The Democratic Party is becoming much more hard left.  You should be happy about that.  Celebrate good times!  Come on!

why? are you celebrating the GOP's extreme right turn?  oh wait, yes you are, because you are them.. But I'm not an extreme lefty and never have been so no, it won't make me happy. But getting rid of some of the whacko-nut, crazy right-extremes, or the shifty/shady ones like Cantor will...that's fo damn sure..

[ekg]

.  I don't know how you can have a Democratic Majority in the House, Senate, and the Presidency, and still say, "but nice try blaming the Dems.. " 

as i said, the bill and vote was after the midterms when the Dems didn't have the (house) majority any longer and barely had the senate..add that in with the false "we've been given a mandate" and the whining that the Dems seats that were now GOP better not be used a majority because they were in essence 'lame ducks'..and hostage taking and ticking clock and you get a GOP play, with blame on the GOP..

which you've already admitted to since you said "Obama blinked" ...he couldn't have blinked if the GOP was with him and the Dem majority now could he, since there would be nothing to 'blink' over because they would have all be singing bennie and the jets together..

With that standard, the Democrats can't be held responsible for anything that's happened the past 3 years. 

 
I can blame the Dems for fucking up the health care bill.. so no, I can and do hold them responsible when it's their fault... too bad you can't when it's the GOP.. but being 'borg' I wouldn't expect any less..

Oh right... I can see why you would want to take that angle...

as I've stated before.. Obama got massive shit done.. killed OBL, Al Awlaki and dozens of others, passed a healthcare bill, ended DADT.. etc etc etc.. so I don't know what 'angle' you're thinking I'm taking. You certainly can't be saying I would be embarrassed...  because if we were going by a score card here, Obama has really proven to better than Bush ever was.. and we both know that if Obama had an (R) after his name, the hard-on you would have had for him these last 3 years would be chaffing by now.. He's been more (R) than (D) and we both know it, only you can't admit it or you'd lose your (R) card and be jettisoned from the Borg.

[lil mike]

as i said, the bill and vote was after the midterms when the Dems didn't have the (house) majority any longer and barely had the senate..add that in with the false "we've been given a mandate" and the whining that the Dems seats that were now GOP better not be used a majority because they were in essence 'lame ducks'..and hostage taking and ticking clock and you get a GOP play, with blame on the GOP..

which you've already admitted to since you said "Obama blinked" ...he couldn't have blinked if the GOP was with him and the Dem majority now could he, since there would be nothing to 'blink' over because they would have all be singing bennie and the jets together..
 

Like I said earlier, extremely short term memory.  Interestingly, on another site a few months ago I got in this same discussion about the renewal of the Bush tax cuts.  At that time, it had only been about 6 months, and they were blaming the wacky Tea Party in Congress...sheesh, I'll tell you the same thing I told them:  The Republicans that won those midterm elections were not seated until January.  The Dems DID have the House at the time of the vote.  Lame Duckery should have given the outgoing Dems more courage, not less.

I can blame the Dems for fucking up the health care bill.. so no, I can and do hold them responsible when it's their fault... too bad you can't when it's the GOP.. but being 'borg' I wouldn't expect any less..

as I've stated before.. Obama got massive shit done.. killed OBL, Al Awlaki and dozens of others, passed a healthcare bill, ended DADT.. etc etc etc.. so I don't know what 'angle' you're thinking I'm taking. You certainly can't be saying I would be embarrassed...  because if we were going by a score card here, Obama has really proven to better than Bush ever was.. and we both know that if Obama had an (R) after his name, the hard-on you would have had for him these last 3 years would be chaffing by now.. He's been more (R) than (D) and we both know it, only you can't admit it or you'd lose your (R) card and be jettisoned from the Borg.

I've mentioned many times that I've been mostly pleased about Obama's national security policies.  Of course, he's mostly copied Bush's so there is very much a continuity of policy.  Of course I do have my differences, such as the targeted assassination of Al Awlaki.  He was a terrorist or at least a terrorist enabler, and I'm glad he's dead,  but US citizens shouldn't be on targeted assassination lists.  Interesting that you list his assassination as a success of the Obama administration.  Once again, you've proved my point (and by no means for the first time) that your whining about civil liberties being crushed under the jackboots of Bush and Cheney was simply partisan bullshit.  It was never the policies; when a democrat does worse you're fine with it.  It was only about what whether a D or R was after the name. 

Obama winning that election has been a disaster for the economy, but such a boon for my posts.  I've been able to prove the lib hypocrisy soooo many times because he's been in office!  He may drive our economy into the ground, but I can count on you to prove me right again and again!

[ekg]

Interesting that you list his assassination as a success of the Obama administration.  Once again, you've proved my point (and by no means for the first time) that your whining about civil liberties being crushed under the jackboots of Bush and Cheney was simply partisan bullshit.  It was never the policies; when a democrat does worse you're fine with it.  It was only about what whether a D or R was after the name. 

this is where you're wrong and as always, lump me into a column that I do not belong in.. this idea that I am so extremely left, when I'm not.. I'm two steps to the left of center on many things and one step to the right on others.. just as I agree with the death penalty and guns, I do not think killing a terrorist (or enabler) the likes of Al Awlaki is a bad thing. IMO he gave up his right by becoming a high ranking AQ terrorist..Sure, many liberal and libertarians disagree and I understand that, I just don't agree with them or you... it has nothing to do with (R) or (D), it's an extreme case  that is judged on it's own merit.. whoever the president was, IMO, was well within his rights to do what he did..does that mean I'm for it 100% in all cases? nope. but in this one.. yep.

Bush and Cheney illegally spied on us citizens.. who knows why. what evidence did they have to give for the wire-tapping? oh yea, none... they took people they thought might, could be, maybe, possibly, know a terrorist because the neighbor who owed him a goat said he was.. and threw them into hell and left them there to rot.. not the same as killing a known terrorist who will kill you... Al Awlaki was the true ticking time bomb scenario and as I've said many times, I'm good with whatever needs to be done in that scenerio. Just do it and own it, don't lie and let your chief of staff take the fall for you..

I get that stuff like that blows your mind because you have never been able to venture into the 'grey' area.. but not being married to an ideology, and being able to look at things as they are and judge them, has it benefits and this one of them..

Obama winning that election has been a disaster for the economy, but such a boon for my posts.  I've been able to prove the lib hypocrisy soooo many times because he's been in office!  He may drive our economy into the ground, but I can count on you to prove me right again and again!

blah blah... McCain wouldn't have done it any differently and you know it... what happen was going to happen regardless. No president was going to let the American auto industry die.. not a single one...and no president was not going to try a stimulus.. the only difference  McCain would have done was he might have gotten more money since he was (R).. other than that, Obama did what any president would have done, and thats everything in their power to stop the fall.. and he did. why you can't give him credit for that and realize no one would have done any different proves your hypocrisy more than any 'libs' you think you've outed.

[lil mike]

this is where you're wrong and as always, lump me into a column that I do not belong in.. this idea that I am so extremely left, when I'm not.. I'm two steps to the left of center on many things and one step to the right on others.. just as I agree with the death penalty and guns, I do not think killing a terrorist (or enabler) the likes of Al Awlaki is a bad thing. IMO he gave up his right by becoming a high ranking AQ terrorist..Sure, many liberal and libertarians disagree and I understand that, I just don't agree with them or you... it has nothing to do with (R) or (D), it's an extreme case  that is judged on it's own merit.. whoever the president was, IMO, was well within his rights to do what he did..does that mean I'm for it 100% in all cases? nope. but in this one.. yep.

Bush and Cheney illegally spied on us citizens.. who knows why. what evidence did they have to give for the wire-tapping? oh yea, none... they took people they thought might, could be, maybe, possibly, know a terrorist because the neighbor who owed him a goat said he was.. and threw them into hell and left them there to rot.. not the same as killing a known terrorist who will kill you... Al Awlaki was the true ticking time bomb scenario and as I've said many times, I'm good with whatever needs to be done in that scenerio. Just do it and own it, don't lie and let your chief of staff take the fall for you..

I get that stuff like that blows your mind because you have never been able to venture into the 'grey' area.. but not being married to an ideology, and being able to look at things as they are and judge them, has it benefits and this one of them..

The hypocrisy from you (which I suppose I wasn't explicit on), is that you felt indefinitely detaining foreign enemy combatants was unconstitutional and against international law.  But you had no problem with Obama targeting American citizens for assassination.  Clearly something doesn't compute here.  This is a subject in which we wasted quite a lot of words over the course of years over at the Muche.  The two comparable issues from the Bush era were Hamdi and Padilla; both American citizens who both were in military detention and eventually shifted to US courts because they were US citizens.  That was an action I agreed with for that reason.  You however, wanted every captured terrorist shifted to US courts and given due process of a US criminal defendant.  Except of course for US citizens who can be assassinated.  So while agree that Al Awlaki was a bad guy, and I've shed no tears in his passing, I don't know the basis in law or the constitution that allows us to target him for death in that way.  There is certainly a legitimate case to be made that he was guilty of treason, or even that he had taken up arms against the US, which would have made his killing in a fire fight perfectly legal and legitimate.  But an assassination list of US citizens isn't.  Don't pretend that if Bush had been the one signing that death order you would still be supporting this action.  We both know better.

blah blah... McCain wouldn't have done it any differently and you know it... what happen was going to happen regardless. No president was going to let the American auto industry die.. not a single one...and no president was not going to try a stimulus.. the only difference  McCain would have done was he might have gotten more money since he was (R).. other than that, Obama did what any president would have done, and thats everything in their power to stop the fall.. and he did. why you can't give him credit for that and realize no one would have done any different proves your hypocrisy more than any 'libs' you think you've outed.

It's hard to know what McCain might actually have done in office, I can only go by his platform.  And on that, it was far superior.  His healthcare plan was fairly good.  I had some quibbles with it, but compared to what we actually got, McCain's plan was 100 times superior.  McCain's economic plan was a 300 billion plan to fix the housing market.  I thought then, and still think now, that getting the housing market fixed was key to economic recovery.  Unless you call this recovery, in which case, everything is fine, nothing to see here.  Obama has done a few on the edges programs on housing, but nothing big.  He threw all his eggs in the stimulus basket and promptly lost interest in the economy to play in the healthcare sandbox for over a year.

I guess I don't believe any President would have done the same stupid things that Obama did.  I mean, I knew Obama's plan wouldn't work and why, and I'm not even the only one.  As small as this board is, I'm not the only one who saw what was going to happen.  So why would I think any President would have come to the same conclusions as Obama?

[Howey]

I guess I don't believe any President would have done the same stupid things that Obama did.

Why would you be so worried that I might try to make Obama “look bad?”

[ekg]

The hypocrisy from you (which I suppose I wasn't explicit on), is that you felt indefinitely detaining foreign enemy combatants was unconstitutional and against international law.  But you had no problem with Obama targeting American citizens for assassination.  Clearly something doesn't compute here.  This is a subject in which we wasted quite a lot of words over the course of years over at the Muche.  The two comparable issues from the Bush era were Hamdi and Padilla; both American citizens who both were in military detention and eventually shifted to US courts because they were US citizens.  That was an action I agreed with for that reason.  You however, wanted every captured terrorist shifted to US courts and given due process of a US criminal defendant.  Except of course for US citizens who can be assassinated.  So while agree that Al Awlaki was a bad guy, and I've shed no tears in his passing, I don't know the basis in law or the constitution that allows us to target him for death in that way.  There is certainly a legitimate case to be made that he was guilty of treason, or even that he had taken up arms against the US, which would have made his killing in a fire fight perfectly legal and legitimate.  But an assassination list of US citizens isn't.  Don't pretend that if Bush had been the one signing that death order you would still be supporting this action.  We both know better.

again you are not listening to what I'm telling you and instead arguing with the person you think I am in your head.. Padilla and Hamdi? Sure, they are like Al Awlaki.. just like him in fact, there isn't a shred of difference in the 3 of them.. Oy Vey!  you are literally bringing apples into an orange fight..

Let me try this... I agree with the death penalty right?.. but, I don't know that I would agree that Bob Ward deserves to die for his crime.In fact, I would be completely against it.. I would probably even picket the jail.... but I damn sure  don't have a problem with Ted Bundy getting to ride the lightning...

see the difference... Padilla and Hamdi are Bob Ward... Al Awlaki is Bundy.  If you can't see why I'm good with one and not the other, then you're not trying hard enough or you just want to argue Bush-blah Obama-Blah, R/D blah..for arguements sake...

It's not like we, as a country, don't have 'hypocritical' views either.. Just look at Sammy the Bull.. he gets immunity from killing 7 people.. why? to get John Gotti....Why? Because Sammy the bulls are a dime a dozen, but Gotti? He's the mastermind behind them..

Padilla and Hamdi, they are criminals who did terrorist things..Al Awlaki is the mastermind who orchestrated,funded,rallied whatever you want to call it.. he was the head of the snake instead of it's body..There is no shame in killing him, there is very much shame in indefinitely detaining Padilla and Hamdi..

I can't be any more clear.. you will choose to stay inside your bubble by clinging to the flawed theory that if it was Bush.. blah blah blah.. you will cling to that because that is how you react to everything and anything.. it's how your party reacts.. even when given your own policy from a president with a D after his name, you go against yourself and oppose it.. I do not mind being called a hypocrite, not at all..never have since I don't see things as black and white, somethings are for the greater good even when they are bad. It's the same thing we've gone over in the past, I don't like torturing people, but if there is a missing child or tickeing bomb, torture that fucker until he bleeds information.. you, otoh, live so staunchly in the black and white that  you twist yourself into a pretzel for fear of being outed as a hypocrite.

well go on with your bad self..

It's hard to know what McCain might actually have done in office, I can only go by his platform.  And on that, it was far superior.  His healthcare plan was fairly good.  I had some quibbles with it, but compared to what we actually got, McCain's plan was 100 times superior. 

if you think McCain would have come up with comprehensive healthcare reform, then I finally understand why you voted for Palin and Rick Scott.. you'll believe anything an R tells you even when you know they would never, ever... EVER do it..

besides  that, I'll use your own reasoning against you.. the Dems controlled both houses, McCain's plan wouldn't have passed the way he wanted either..

McCain's economic plan was a 300 billion plan to fix the housing market.  I thought then, and still think now, that getting the housing market fixed was key to economic recovery. 

wouldn't have happened.. You would have been 1st in line with Gryff and Gordo on each butt-cheeks whining about people getting something for nothing. Rush and Hannity would have been crying afoul of all the brown/black people getting gov't assistance.. the chant would have been "Let them fail"... Just like it was with the auto baillout.. You would have been against helping people who got into the mess on their own.. you know it, I know it. Anything else would be hypocritical of you..

Then you would have been screaming 'free market' because the only way to fix the problem was to enforce regulation.. sure, a Republican regulating wall street HAhhaaaHA!

Unless you call this recovery, in which case, everything is fine, nothing to see here. 

it's sure not as bad as it was in 2009-10... that's all I know.

I guess I don't believe any President would have done the same stupid things that Obama did.  I mean, I knew Obama's plan wouldn't work and why, and I'm not even the only one.  As small as this board is, I'm not the only one who saw what was going to happen.  So why would I think any President would have come to the same conclusions as Obama?

You're not a president, neither is any pundit anyone puts up there..The ones you listened to were there to oppose Obama, which is why you listened, you wouldn't have heard them if they agreed.. You would have disagreed with Obama if he used your own ideas.. you would then be calling for the plan he did use...But You don't know the behind the scenes of what can/cant' and will not ever be done.. Your idea of a path could have worked out worse, of course we'll never know so you can claim to it would have worked because you know it would.. just like you to be on the 'safe' side of things..

There was only one path, altho he should have asked for more stim..he did what he could with what he had.. same as now, you can pretend your idea would have worked, but you would have put millions out of work and that would have destroyed the majority of us.

unfortunately we only have 3 sources of spending, gov't, private and consumers and when the latter two aren't spending, the gov't has to.. you can put up as many graphs as you want, the fact is I can 'tighten my belt' as tight as I want, but if there isn't any money coming in it doesn't matter what I cut I'm going to starve...

No one was spending.. gov't had to.

[lil mike]

again you are not listening to what I'm telling you and instead arguing with the person you think I am in your head.. Padilla and Hamdi? Sure, they are like Al Awlaki.. just like him in fact, there isn't a shred of difference in the 3 of them.. Oy Vey!  you are literally bringing apples into an orange fight..

Hey, you're stealing my complaint about you!

They are all 3 US citizens.  Apparently that isn't a similarity that means anything to you, however I think it's the most important distinction in this case.

Let me try this... I agree with the death penalty right?.. but, I don't know that I would agree that Bob Ward deserves to die for his crime.In fact, I would be completely against it.. I would probably even picket the jail.... but I damn sure  don't have a problem with Ted Bundy getting to ride the lightning...

see the difference... Padilla and Hamdi are Bob Ward... Al Awlaki is Bundy.  If you can't see why I'm good with one and not the other, then you're not trying hard enough or you just want to argue Bush-blah Obama-Blah, R/D blah..for arguements sake...

It's not like we, as a country, don't have 'hypocritical' views either.. Just look at Sammy the Bull.. he gets immunity from killing 7 people.. why? to get John Gotti....Why? Because Sammy the bulls are a dime a dozen, but Gotti? He's the mastermind behind them..

Padilla and Hamdi, they are criminals who did terrorist things..Al Awlaki is the mastermind who orchestrated,funded,rallied whatever you want to call it.. he was the head of the snake instead of it's body..There is no shame in killing him, there is very much shame in indefinitely detaining Padilla and Hamdi..

Ward and Bundy got trials.  It's never been about the severity of what they did, it's about their status of US citizens.  

I can't be any more clear.. you will choose to stay inside your bubble by clinging to the flawed theory that if it was Bush.. blah blah blah.. you will cling to that because that is how you react to everything and anything.. it's how your party reacts.. even when given your own policy from a president with a D after his name, you go against yourself and oppose it.. I do not mind being called a hypocrite, not at all..never have since I don't see things as black and white, somethings are for the greater good even when they are bad. It's the same thing we've gone over in the past, I don't like torturing people, but if there is a missing child or tickeing bomb, torture that fucker until he bleeds information.. you, otoh, live so staunchly in the black and white that  you twist yourself into a pretzel for fear of being outed as a hypocrite.

well go on with your bad self..

So to be clear, you still oppose indefinite detention of non citizen enemy combatants, but you support the execution of US citizens if they are bad enough guys as determined by the President?  I just want to make sure I understand your position as clearly as you will allow.

if you think McCain would have come up with comprehensive healthcare reform, then I finally understand why you voted for Palin and Rick Scott.. you'll believe anything an R tells you even when you know they would never, ever... EVER do it..

besides  that, I'll use your own reasoning against you.. the Dems controlled both houses, McCain's plan wouldn't have passed the way he wanted either..


wouldn't have happened.. You would have been 1st in line with Gryff and Gordo on each butt-cheeks whining about people getting something for nothing. Rush and Hannity would have been crying afoul of all the brown/black people getting gov't assistance.. the chant would have been "Let them fail"... Just like it was with the auto baillout.. You would have been against helping people who got into the mess on their own.. you know it, I know it. Anything else would be hypocritical of you..

Then you would have been screaming 'free market' because the only way to fix the problem was to enforce regulation.. sure, a Republican regulating wall street HAhhaaaHA!

it's sure not as bad as it was in 2009-10... that's all I know.

You're not a president, neither is any pundit anyone puts up there..The ones you listened to were there to oppose Obama, which is why you listened, you wouldn't have heard them if they agreed.. You would have disagreed with Obama if he used your own ideas.. you would then be calling for the plan he did use...But You don't know the behind the scenes of what can/cant' and will not ever be done.. Your idea of a path could have worked out worse, of course we'll never know so you can claim to it would have worked because you know it would.. just like you to be on the 'safe' side of things..

There was only one path, altho he should have asked for more stim..he did what he could with what he had.. same as now, you can pretend your idea would have worked, but you would have put millions out of work and that would have destroyed the majority of us.

unfortunately we only have 3 sources of spending, gov't, private and consumers and when the latter two aren't spending, the gov't has to.. you can put up as many graphs as you want, the fact is I can 'tighten my belt' as tight as I want, but if there isn't any money coming in it doesn't matter what I cut I'm going to starve...

No one was spending.. gov't had to.

I said that I was going by McCain's platform, not your imaginary dream of him throwing his platform overboard in favor of a defeated opponent's platform.  If the dems had rejected McCain's housing plan, then we would have had gridlock and nothing would have been done.  I prefer doing nothing and not making things worse than spending a whole lot of money to actually make things worse,

We both know I understand economics better than you, so although I appreciate your attempt to educate me, I'll decline the lesson that's already proven to fail in the real world.  Frankly, Obama misunderstood the nature of recession.  The financial crisis that we suffered was a symptom of the housing market collapse. We were already well into a recession when the financial crisis happened. And also well into a stimulus. We had already had a Bush stimulus in 2008, the rebate checks. By the time we were discussing Obama's stimulus in February 2009, we already had the data in on how that worked, which was; it didn't.  We already knew that when we were posting on the Muche about the stimulus bill. It failed because households were in so much debt that this time they really did use the stimulus to pay down debt rather than spend, spend, spend; which had been the intent. This was because the US household saving rate was actually in the negative right before the recession, so when the recession hit, people started out in a deep hole.

So the Obama response to those conditions? More stimulus! Naturally it didn't work. And for the same reason the Bush stimulus didn't work. We were already too deep in a hole. All it did was add the nation's indebtedness to the nation's household indebtedness, so it made things worse of course.

The other issue was the Bush/Obama response to the financial crisis. Since as a liberal you may not understand that in capitalism, crappy firms are supposed to go out of business. It kills me that for years the liberals had bitched about Wall Street and the finance industry, but when the free market was actually going to correct that and eliminate the worst firms and trim the industry down to a size that would fit our economy, the government came in and showered tons of money on these same bad actors. The more stupid your decisions, and more venal your finances, the more money you got from the government.

Lesson learned unfortunately.

Recessions are a lot like a hard freeze that kills the weakest plants, but as conditions improve, allow the the hardiest ones to thrive. Thats why job creation and economic growth is usually very strong after recovering from a recession.

Except this one of course.

We fertilized the weeds, and then are surprised that weeds took over the whole lawn.

Bush did a lot of damage before he left office with TARP and bailing out firms like AIG, but Obama, supposedly the smartest guy in the history of forever, came in and double downed on the Bush bailout policies, continuing the bailout of AIG, bailing out GM, and spending the rest of the TARP money.

Probably the only effective program was the FED backing up of the banks, QE1. But even then, they sabotaged it by paying the banks interest on the dollars sent to the banks. Considering the low interest rates and uncertain economy, it made more sense for the banks to sit on the money and not loan it out, which choked off new economic growth.

This is just a small piece of what I think we did wrong, but you get the idea.  We did exactly the wrong thing for this type of recession, just like the Japanese did, and we are paying the same sort of stupid price.  FYI, the Japanese economy is still weak, almost 20 years later.  

[lil mike]

  McCain's economic plan was a 300 billion plan to fix the housing market.  I thought then, and still think now, that getting the housing market fixed was key to economic recovery. 

Guess who agrees with me?

http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-housing-key-fixing-nations-economy-030222909.html

Clinton: Housing is key to fixing nation's economy

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Former President Bill Clinton says the key to fixing the nation's economy is to address the struggling housing market and foreclosures.
Clinton, in a speech Saturday night at the Las Vegas Anti-Defamation League's annual American Heritage Dinner, said "it's as simple" as fixing the mortgage business, cleaning up banks' books and letting "them start loaning again."

[Howey]

Guess who agrees with me?

http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-housing-key-fixing-nations-economy-030222909.html

Clinton: Housing is key to fixing nation's economy

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Former President Bill Clinton says the key to fixing the nation's economy is to address the struggling housing market and foreclosures.
Clinton, in a speech Saturday night at the Las Vegas Anti-Defamation League's annual American Heritage Dinner, said "it's as simple" as fixing the mortgage business, cleaning up banks' books and letting "them start loaning again."

I don't think anyone here disputes the fact that fixing the housing market would help the economy, although it seems to be doing quite well lately, doesn't it?

Private job growth over the past two decade. Note: I hear 2011 was the second best rate since 1999:



More:

The U.S. economy gained 200,000 jobs in December and the unemployment rate fell to 8.5%, the Labor Department said Friday. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had forecast the U.S. would add 150,000 jobs last month, with the jobless rate edging up to 8.7% from an initially reported 8.6% in November.

And let's hear it for GM, Ford, and Chrysler!

Americans bought more cars and trucks last year, inspired by easier credit, an improved economy and the desire to replace aging vehicles that got them through the Great Recession.
 
Sales rose sharply for Detroit's three carmakers and for Japan's Nissan in 2011, aided by a surge in November and December. Analysts expect that momentum to continue into 2012.
 
Low interest rates, looser credit standards and pent-up demand are driving demand. The average age of a car on U.S. roads is the oldest ever, closing in on 11 years. Americans want to trade in those older vehicles now that a tentative recovery has begun and they're feeling a little more secure about jobs and finances.

Chrysler will add 1,250 jobs at two Detroit factories next year — another sign that the once struggling automaker appears to be making a comeback.

The Jefferson North Assembly Plant will get 1,100 new workers and a third shift to help build a Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel model for North America. Another 150 workers will be added when Chrysler reopens the Conner Avenue factory to make a Street Racing Team version of the Dodge Viper muscle car.

Just think how much better the economy would be if the Republicans had actually worked with the President on housing fixes! Of course, Romney, like McCain before him, really really really doesn't care!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnL_2_-R78Y&feature=player_embedded