home

The Mythical "Long Term Deficit Deal With Teeth"

Kevin Drum writes:

Although we should be spending more now to get the economy back on track, this is why a long-term deficit deal with teeth is something that both liberals and conservatives ought to be willing to compromise to achieve.

A "long term deficit deal with teeth" can not exist. The reason is one Congress can not bind future Congresses.

Case in point - the US government ran fiscal surpluses of $236.2 billion from 1998 to 2000. Indeed, the CBO projected trillion dollar surpluses beyond that. Guess what happened next? The massive Bush Tax Cuts plus two trillion dollar wars. Goodbye surpluses.

Stupid statement from Drum.

Speaking for me only

< Obama, Dems Fumbling Away Debt Ceiling Win? | Thursday Evening Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If you would stop knowing (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:22:16 PM EST
    so much about how it all really works.  If you could just be less astute about quickly defining the parameters of deals in your head.  If you could just get dumb, I could finish my laundry today

    Josh! (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:06:15 PM EST
    Get busy, boy! Food and television aren't free, you know!

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:59:23 PM EST
    Josh sounds like a terrific kid- I'm sure he helps a lot.

    Parent
    Laundry (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:02:48 PM EST
    How old is Josh now?  My daughter started doing her own laundry when she was 8 years old, but that was by her own choice.  She's more than a bit OCD, and I wasn't doing her laundry, folding, and putting it away to her taste.  (How many kids that age want their socks rolled up just so, and put in the drawer in neat rows, by color???)  OTOH, the OCD stands her in good stead in her chosen field, I guess.  She's a scientist, like her dad, and she is very meticulous in the lab.

    Parent
    Friend of mine (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 01:01:27 AM EST
    with a bit of OCD-- meticulously organizes his closet by color, etc.-- is an architect, also a profession that requires nitpicky perfectionism and order.  Only problem is, it does take him a lot longer to do his plans.  But once he's done, they're utterly perfect.


    Parent
    If it's a day ending in (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:28:16 PM EST
    'Y' a stupid statement from Kevin Drum is to be expected. He really is terrible. I stopped reading him back in his washingtonmonthly period.

    I agree with you 100%. But even if long-term deficit deals were possible, they are still a bad idea because they make no economic sense. Just yesterday Ben Bernanke said no one knows where the economy is heading. The budget should be responsive to the economy, not the other way around. The current economy needs deficit spending. It's going to need it for a long time to come.

    Obama is on precisely the wrong path. Kevin Drum doesn't realize it because he doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual.

    You lasted longer than I did (none / 0) (#23)
    by sj on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:34:12 PM EST
    I stopped with Calpundit.  But to be fair, back then there were so few choices.  

    Gawd, I've been reading blogs for a long time.  A couple of years ago I found some old notes when I was watching Atrios' (Middle C on the Mighty Casio) sitemeter stats climb to 60K.  That seemed HUGE to me.  

    But anyway, back to Kevin Drum: it always seemed to me that his base assumptions were flawed so how could he come to meaningful conclusions?

    Parent

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:35:31 PM EST
    The most consequential and potentially long-lasting deficit/debt "deal" would apparently be if Congress did nothing. I think that says everything about how committed Congress actually is to lowering the deficit. Their action to lower the deficit/debt will, in fact, cause both to be higher than if they would have the decency to just stay home.

    In any case, unemployment is (at the lowest) 9.2% right now. So maybe some short-term economic stimulus is more needed than phantasms of national savings in 2046. But obviously that's off the table for some reason, so one just hopes Congress stays home.

    Kevin should take a look at (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    some numbers that also ought to be given a look-see by the president and his Brain Trust:

    The U.S. budget deficit for the first nine months of fiscal 2011 was $970.52 billion, a figure that is smaller than the $1.29 trillion deficit for the same period in the prior fiscal year.

    The U.S. Treasury Department, in a monthly budget statement released Wednesday, said the budget deficit for June 2011 came in at $43.08 billion, less than June 2010, which was $68.42 billion.

    David Dayen:

    But as we head into the rest of the year, a smaller budget deficit is a function of fiscal policy contracting. All of the cuts in 2011 appropriations and the fading out of the stimulus package leads to less spending and a smaller budget deficit, but also less spending to counteract cutbacks in state and local government, and less spending that finds its way into job creation. At the present time, the country needs a larger budget deficit, not a smaller one. The economy is too weak to generate enough demand to create jobs, and only government has the ability to provide that demand at this point. Businesses aren't investing, exports aren't outstripping imports, and consumers aren't spending.

    But Kevin, who isn't very good on his best days, woudl probably respond to this with, "hey!  it's working - let's cut some more!"

    Or maybe that will be Booman's response.  Or ABG's.

    Ridiculous.

    Seriously, Kevin saying "what we should be doing is spending more now," and then going on to extol the positives of long-term deficit reduction, is a little like the doctor saying that, "what we should be doing is treating your cancer, but we're going to focus on getting your cholesterol down."

    And, "compromise" is another word that, like "pragmatic" and "progressive," has lost most of its intended meaning, at least in the hands of the current crop of Democrats.

    Some of the delta between (none / 0) (#6)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    2010 and 2011 would be the result of the stimulus spending ending in 2010 for example.  Would need to go back and research what other events where happening in 2010 that would have increased spending that are not in effect this year.

    On the surface the appearance is there but the details probably will show something slightly different.

    Parent

    First the DCCC and now the DSCC (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    Many of you have told me your desire that we go after the Republicans on this as strongly as possible. So I've created an Emergency Media Campaign, designed to defend the defenders of Medicare and Social Security and end the political careers of as many Republicans as possible.

    We are holding strong. But we need your backing. Can you chip in $5 for this Emergency Media Campaign and help us raise $200,000 by next Friday? link

    I think I will just send my $$$ directly to Bernie Sanders, a defender of Medicare and Social Security. Not sure who else would qualify for the cash.

    Time to add them to the spam folder, (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:08:48 PM EST
    if not already unsubscribed; or maybe we should set up a scam folder, because if this doesn't fit the definition, I don't know what does.

    Parent
    Getting this info second hand (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:56:39 PM EST
    I unsubscribed from all Democratic organizations a while back. Think a scam folder is a fitting place for emails such as this.

    Parent
    I will be writing in Bernie Sanders' name (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by shoephone on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:36:43 PM EST
    for president on my November 2012 ballot.

    Parent
    Vote in Florida (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:02:05 PM EST
    So Obama gets my vote.

    If I was in a safe state, I would write in FDR.


    Parent

    I'm going with Joe Hill (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:04:31 PM EST
    in Alabama. This state is extremely predictable. Sigh.

    Parent
    FDR... You just gave me a great idea... (none / 0) (#16)
    by shoephone on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:07:19 PM EST
    I think Washington's a pretty safe Dem stronghold, for national politics anyway. Can't predict what will happen in the governor's race.

    Parent
    What if the Republican candidate (none / 0) (#17)
    by itscookin on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:41:01 PM EST
    is to the left of Obama? It's not out of the realm of possibility.

    Parent
    Of course it is out of the realm of possibility (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 09:48:58 PM EST
    on the planet and with the Repub bunch today. (I'm sure if there were such a creature, we would hear of him/her...at least before the Repubs purge him/her.)

    Another possibility: Maybe you're smoking something, itscookin!

    Parent

    If you look at the way (none / 0) (#93)
    by itscookin on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 09:54:43 AM EST
    Romney governed Massachusetts, he was no more conservative than Obama has been. He may be taking a more conservative position now to try to secure the GOP nomination, but he was pretty tepid on social issues - just like Obama- when he was governor. And we all know that campaign rhetoric means nothing.  There's really not a "dime's worth of difference".

    Parent
    Not a dime's worth...but lots of $$$ worth (none / 0) (#99)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:52:07 PM EST
    If only for the generational differences Supreme Court appointments make.

    But, back on the Repubs: Romney has to chase further & further right...and, these days, the flips & flops are captured by all our new technology...to try to catch the rightward wind of his party. And, when he doesn't--as in the marriage pledge fiasco--he gets lambasted by those now apparently at the helm of his "party."

    Columnist Brooks correctly stated, in his recent famous evaluation: The Republican Party are becoming a small "band of fanatics"...and maybe not a party at all. Others from your party have chimed in that the Repubs seem to be left only with a fealty to no-taxes under any circumstances...even on the wealthiest. It doesn't take a crystal ball to foresee that won't play well with most Americans when we are all called to help.

    When I see wild-eyed Eric Cantor, I almost feel a touch of sympathy for Romney.  But, then I remember his dog on the top of the car roof...ya know?

    Parent

    Of course, it also often has been said (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 03:38:23 PM EST
    that "Obama has to chase further & further right...and, these days, the flips & flops are captured by all our new technology...to try to catch the rightward wind of his party. . . ."

    Parent
    Ohhhh... (none / 0) (#31)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:23:12 PM EST
    I like that.  I may do just that.

    Parent
    I'm in, too. FDR, it is (none / 0) (#62)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:46:29 PM EST
    although I'm tempted to write in ER.  Maybe for another spot on the ballot.

    Parent
    Well that means he will definitely get (4.50 / 2) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 03:52:34 PM EST
    2 votes. Yours and mine. Wish all left leaning voters who have decided not to vote for either Obama or the Republican candidate, would do the same.

    Parent
    As I recall... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by sj on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:31:12 PM EST
    ...there were four of us. Can't remember who the others were, though.

    Parent
    Add me, too (n/t) (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:09:29 PM EST
    I'm in as well N/T (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:48:55 PM EST
    Only need four more (none / 0) (#66)
    by shoephone on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:54:07 PM EST
    for a minyan.

    Parent
    We would have been closer if (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 09:31:26 PM EST
    you hadn't deserted us for FDR. ;o)

    Parent
    Oh, I'm in (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 01:02:06 AM EST
    He's my senator!

    Parent
    I'll trade you my sweet Claire (none / 0) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 01:14:54 AM EST
    for Bernie.

    Parent
    No. (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:04:25 PM EST
    Any more questions?

    Parent
    Somehow I didn't think you would (none / 0) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:21:56 PM EST
    go along with that trade.

    Parent
    One of the more delirious (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 04:02:44 PM EST
    moments of my personal political life was getting to vote for a socialist for senator.


    Parent
    Please someone explain who would benefit from (none / 0) (#12)
    by mogal on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    the debt default? Who would make money from higher interest rates?

    Well, if the dollar lost a tremendous amount of (none / 0) (#14)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:05:27 PM EST
    its value, we could sell our industrial products overseas.

    Oh, wait...

    Parent

    Eric Cantor would (none / 0) (#18)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 04:51:13 PM EST
    Besides Cantor who has invested in the default?  Other market owners of politicians will take that bet.  It's a little like betting against the housing market when you are the person that packaged the bad deal and then sold it and then bet against it and a very few people make off with trillions while everyone else gets effed.  Oh wait, it seems the same.

    Parent
    Since congresscritters can legally... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:18:23 PM EST
    ...make insider trades, I would guess a lot of them, on both sides, are laying some bets as we speak.

    Parent
    China? (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 09:51:38 PM EST
    Pat Buchanan (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:05:17 PM EST
    says the deal is dead.
    it was never alive.

    there will be no deal.  not even one with gums.

    What's Pat Buchanan's seat again? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:16:02 PM EST
    Oh yeah....nuthin, just lookin for a way to get into the news during a crisis IMO :)

    Parent
    he was supposedly quoting someone (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:17:02 PM EST
    but dont quote me.

    do you not suspect that if there was a deal we could know about it?  the meeting is over

    Parent

    I don't think Pat Buchanan... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:19:17 PM EST
    ...would know if his own a$$ was on fire.

    Parent
    Beg to differ (none / 0) (#177)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 12:55:20 PM EST
    let's remember that Pat Buchanan came out against Bush invasion of Iraq early - and stuck to his position.  I often do not agree with him, but I do pay attention.

    Parent
    Which deal? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:51:18 PM EST
    It seems like we have about two or three circulating right now.

    Parent
    clarification (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 05:55:22 PM EST
    no deal without revenue.

    if he cant squeeze one loophole out of them he might do it just to give the baggers two things to scream about.  raising the debt limit AND taxes

    but I really doubt it

    Parent

    Apparently (none / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:10:50 PM EST
    Obama will have a press conference tomorrow.  DUN DUN DUN.  

    I hope the President wins on this with a clean debt bill (though I'm not sure that's the win he is looking for), not only because that's the best policy, but because he has used the bully pulpit very effectively in this debate.  I hope this technique will be used more often going forward.  For things I like of course.

    Parent

    This is sort of an odd comment. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by masslib on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:25:17 PM EST
    If he "wins" at this point, I think it is safe to assume it will be on his terms, which means cutting social security and Medicare.  What would possibly make you think next time it will be "things you like"?

    Parent
    The President wins (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:39:43 PM EST
    through a number of outcomes.  A clean debt ceiling bill is still a political victory even if that's not his preferred policy.  Your comment ignores the fact that when the Grand Bargain fails, he will still look like a winner.

    Parent
    Obama and the narrative. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:44:39 PM EST
    The GOP got themselves into a bit of a political mess here. By stating (ridiculously and falsely) that raising the debt ceiling at ALL was a compromise on their part they did two things. The first is that if the debt ceiling isn't raised whatever happens will appear to be what the GOP WANTED to happen, and that Obama was trying to negotiate away from. The second is that if the debt ceiling is raised it's a victory for Obama because he got the GOP to do it.

    Now, that's just in the mainstream media where all these narratives can float along unencumbered by fact, but at this point Obama wins almost no matter what in those narratives.

    Parent

    How about the narrative (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by mjames on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:58:56 PM EST
    that it is Obama who is insisting on cuts to Social Security and Medicare?

    Who is that a win for?

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:11:59 PM EST
    The GOP, thanks to Paul Ryan and others amongst Cantor's brood, has done their bit to make sure that the Social Security and Medicare-cutting mantle stays with them for the time being. Obama may get some flack for it in the media's narrative, but overall those three days of a floated "grand bargain" will drift off into the ether as far as the media's concerned. There was never an actual plan presented to the media, only rumors and grapevine chatter. Obviously it would've been better for everyone to (a) not had the cuts floated at all and (b) for Obama to not view those readjustments as necessary or desirable.

    Parent
    Until September, that is, (none / 0) (#37)
    by mjames on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:56:45 PM EST
    when he tackles Social Security and Medicare again.

    Parent
    Who cares? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:22:04 PM EST
    The country has already lost.  We are phucked, this is all a big congressional circle jerk.  Whoever spills his see all over the stack of pennies first gets to deliver that eight dollars in change to the average folk in their district.

    Parent
    Perhaps, a combo? (none / 0) (#76)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 10:04:57 PM EST
    The McConnell gimme plus: Add a dose of seemingly deficit reduction now via things-that-were already-there/moving numbers/noncontroversial matters so that Dems can appear to show that "we've always been fiscally responsible and good budgeterrs and all that" (Boehner can also use the much smaller "reductions" to claim to the rightists that they did, in fact, make strides in the deficit reduction area.) BUT, in exchange for the small blankey cover for Boehner with whom they have a continuing institutional relationship, the WH may well get a gimme of less potentially negative exposure (read: Repub carping) via reducing the report-back to Congress provision in the original McConnell proposal from 3 times to 1.

    If that is what is going on: WH gets the authority to raise the debt thru the 2012 election with minimum report-back, and both sides hype their $$ reductions (thereby showing how attentive they are to the peoples' concern about out-of-control debt...and all that.)

    BTW, if that is the case: The WH has a good result; a much better result than anyone would have dreamed when the Repubs were strutting in the spring.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 11:22:48 PM EST
    you may've missed this comment earlier christine, but I am impressed with the fact that you saw some of the maneuvering (even though I ardently wish the Medicare eligibility age showiness and other social program cut threats had not happened) as maneuvering:

    I guess we will see what happens, but if things work out for the best your comments from the last few days about this being a negotiation/game have been very on the mark.

    All I've basically learned in the past few days is that it's hard to discern exactly how much the WH is willing to give up.  I think the winning message, if not policy, all things (cuts) considered, from Obama was "we must have revenue increases if we're going to cut 4 trillion."

    Basically I think the WH is willing to accept a spending/revenue ratio that does not make most progressives happy.  But I think they are willing to argue for revenue.  I mean, we are talking about private jets here, for heaven's sake.  So I think they should've pressed the original McConnell bill and all three times the ceiling had to be raised said, "wow, this could all be easier if those @ssholes with the jets would just let us tax them..."  three times.  That's a winner.  That's what set the GOP running anyway.

    "Responsibility" now means revenue, of some sort.   "Responsibility" if they go through with a no-revenue trillion plus cuts agreement, means...?  I think they lose positioning on the fall budget fight if they do that.

    If Obama is going to pseudo-put Medicare on the table, then I hope they get a big win.  What Reid is offering is not a big win, to me.

    Parent

    I understand the sentiments (none / 0) (#83)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 11:30:19 PM EST
    in the last four paras.

    Meanings, treaties, contracts, these have consequences.

    Parent

    I've been meaning to respond (none / 0) (#100)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 01:20:38 PM EST
    to an earlier comment about negotiation theatre & ebbs & flows. My response: Thank you for your observations. I appreciate it.

    About today's press conference: A study in mastery of communicating about negotiations...capsulating background about where things stand, what he would like to see & why, and some expectations about the next few days (noting with gentle expression & cute acceptance that the Repub do have some motions to go through with a "series of votes" next week before they can get there.)

    Since you seem open to my impression on this, here is my unvarnished take on this morning: Obama knows he has it; he is positioning--as he did with 2 morning pressers this week, pressers when those at home maybe in the sought-after suburbia or those on staycation might have the TV on with their morning coffee--as the reasonable adult who wants to do good by them and get the big deal so that he can do right by them in getting this done and working fully for them on jobs, education, and all those things that concern ordinary Americans who have been through so much. Really. He is getting air time where he is showing his best, trustworthy, honest self...and, as he indicates (strike up the band!), he wishes the Repubs could take the big steps of a 10 yr plan since they have been talking about it for so long, etc. etc. Another audience: He adds specifically for progressives that it is far better to take charge of deficit reduction (or--and this is key--appear to) so as to get it off the table IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC to focus on what needs to be done to help everyone in our society.

    Continuing. Obama then softly acknowledges that he might not be able to get the biggest deal...but, there is the fallback plan of just raising the deficit. (He deliberately understates that, IMO, to make it easier for the House Repub crazies to accept it. They probably know that he knows they are more likely to like what he doesn't & vice-versa. Yep, it really is almost funny...if it weren't so serious.)

    Bottome line: These big time negotiations are like roller coasters. And, for us oldies: This is similar to Coney Island. Where I tend to differ with those who see negotiations (and the twists, turns, etc.) via only legal posturing & practice is that the ART OF GOVERNING involves many more levels of people & interest. And, the real message to the public is something you do not really need to address in legal negotiations until near the end. Here, Obama's style allowed for a strategy of wait, talk, report back, entice, etc.--and let the public see all the tantrums & strutting of the Repubs (see esp our new bad boy Cantor.) The public was afforded time to see, to hear, and to witness the REASONABLE ADULT LEADER pull it all together in the past two weeks for the greater good.  (Curtain call?) IMO, of course.

    Now, we wait as the old pros, Reid and McConnell, dress up the "fallback" with additives that guarantee the numbers.

    Parent

    the DLC "electable" crowd at work - (none / 0) (#30)
    by seabos84 on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:17:09 PM EST
    so 0-bummer is gonna look all strong and all moderate and all bipartisan-crappy by selling out the peee-ons, AGAIN

    and that will attract the moderately centerist swinging independently swingers ...

    remember how Dukakis was "electable" cuz he was a moderate and the thugs couldn't pull any kind of willie hortong b.s.?

    remember how gore was "electable" with a moderate V.P. choice like LIE-berman?

    remember how kerry was "electable" cuz how could the thugs swift boat a war hero ...?

    There are 3 valid reasons to go along with this 11-nty Dementia horse-poo

    1. you're too young to know what I'm talking about, or you have dementia and forgot everything -

    2. you're 1 of the DLC - Third Way sell outs living large on these lies, or, you're aspiring to that lofty goal,

    3. some mix of #1 and #2.

    4. huh?

    rmm.

    Ugh... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:36:16 PM EST
    This juvenile nonsense (0-bummer, bipartisanship-crappy, peee-ons, 11nty Dementia horse-poo, etc.) represents the worst of blogs. It's nonsense. It's just a word salad outburst that's more about some primal psychological need than anything intelligent or recognizable as a thought. The right does it with "fail whale" and all that. Now, I don't expect these sorts of self-therapy comments to get any less popular, but whenever I see it I just feel sad for the person embarrassing themselves and undermining their own position (such as it is).

    Parent
    Let's see: (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by mjames on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 06:54:33 PM EST
    The Republicans accidentally handed Obama a win.

    But Obama, well, he turned it down, yes he did, because the "win" did not include his long-sought-after cuts to Social Security and Medicare (even though Social Security has nothing whatsoever to do with the deficit - except, that is, for the money the crooks stole from the lock box and now have to pay back).

    Now, if I lived in Florida (or anyplace else for that matter), I could not vote for someone who is trying his best to cut Social Security and Medicare, even if that someone is running as a Democrat, especially at a time when oldsters (and the Baby Boomers right behind them) have lost their retirement savings and the value of their homes (if not the homes themselves) through no fault of their own and couldn't get a job even if there were one available, because no employer is going to pay for health insurance for someone over the age of 50.

    Social Security and Medicare, as is, are already woefully inadequate.

    IMO, if you are a Democrat, you cannot vote for Obama. He is in the process of finishing off the destruction of the Democratic Party - and he's bringing down the rest of our party's elected officials because, well, that's the Chicago way. Go along with him or you're off the gravy train.

    But someone got too emotional for you?

    Parent

    Okay. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:05:43 PM EST
    Well, that's quite a lot of tangents. I'm not going to address them all.

    If you wouldn't vote for Obama as a Floridian, that would be your right. And perhaps the GOP, which has as an expressed party-wide goal to privatize and voucherize Social Security and Medicare, respectively, would be more to your liking. What to do about President Obama, given his actions and the realities of our bipartisan system, is a complicated issue and people can decide for themselves.

    And it's not the "emotion" (if that's what you want to call it) in seabos84's comment that I had a problem with. I think I made that clear.

    Parent

    You're too funny (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Romberry on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:30:31 PM EST
    If the GOP was serious about privatizing and voucherizing Social Security and Medicare and taking the political consequences, they could have done so when they held both houses under Bush. But even the GOP blanched when faced with that reality and its consequences, partly because of the fact that with a Republican president driving to do it, Dems stood up and screamed bloody murder.

    We stand a much better chance of seeing Republican in congress go down this road with Obama in the White House than we do with a Romney in the White House, because with a Democratic president pushing for these cuts, it gives the Republican political cover. They can say it was the Democratic president who demanded it, and they'll be right.

    If anyone believes in the Democratic Party and what it is supposed to stand for, they can't vote for Obama. Even in Florida. To vote for Obama is to vote to destroy what is left of the Democratic Party. To vote for Obama is to be an Obamacrat, not a Democrat. For me, Obama is every bit the enemy that Bush was, and I'd no more vote for him than I would Bush.

    Parent

    Fine. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:40:26 PM EST
    Like I said, when you're imagining yourself as a Floridian in the booth on 6 November 2012, go ahead and don't vote for Obama. Write-in who you want. Or vote Republican to save Social Security and Medicare. Whatever you want to do in that situation it's your right to do, and I wasn't disputing your right to do it.

    But I disagree that the party which has active, well-known plans to privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare won't have some success doing both when presented with total control of all three branches the Federal government. We've all learned that the GOP does what they say, no matter how crazy it sounds, and to disbelieve their rhetoric is a mistake.

    Parent

    Did you miss the Bush years? (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Romberry on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 09:18:06 PM EST
    I disagree that the party which has active, well-known plans to privatize Social Security and voucherize Medicare won't have some success doing both when presented with total control of all three branches the Federal government.

    Following the 2004 election, can you tell me which party held control of all three branches of government until January of 2007? Do you know when the last time the Democrats controlled the House was prior to January of 2007?

    For the first six years of Bush's term, Republicans controlled the House. From 2002 until 2006, Republicans had the majority in the US Senate as well. How much success did they have privatizing or voucherizing?

    Republicans may want to cut these programs, but they'll only do it if a Democrat provides political cover. Obama is providing that cover. We stand a better chance of fighting cuts to these programs with solid Democratic opposition with a Republican in the White House than we do with Obama there pushing what amounts to a Republican agenda. With Obama pushing that agenda, at least some Dems will go along. Obama is the enemy, just as much as Bush was. Hell, Obama is in area after area essentially continuing or expanding Bush policies. His is effectively Bush's third term. He has to go. And it has to be the left that takes him down.

    Parent

    I'm wondering (none / 0) (#78)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 10:15:47 PM EST
    about the challenge one faces here. You are providing a thematic, logical response to an individual that appears to be an "anybody but O" person. Essentially, the commenter to whom you so thoughtfully respond seems to be making a peculiar argument called: The Cut Off One's Nose To Spite One's Face stance.

    Parent
    Well, Christine, it might behoove you to (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 10:32:38 PM EST
    read Romberry's comment with a little more care; that someone makes an argument why he or she cannot vote for Obama, and expresses an inability to understand how anyone who truly believes in the Democratic party can, is not, by extension, making an argument for voting for anyone else.

    Far from making what you see as a peculiar argument called cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face, what Romberry is making is the stop-selling-out-and-selling-your-soul-for-the-occasional-bone argument.

    One person's intolerable occasional bone is that thing you like to call "incrementalism," and while that may be satisfying for you, many of us do not see that as a path to real progress as much as it is a condescending means of placating the masses.

    Parent

    My response was meant to address (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 10:52:04 PM EST
    the remarks of an earlier commenter (not Romberry) who, as a Floridian (not a safe state for anyone by any means), claimed without more that Dems have to vote for someone other than the President if they are Dems. That comment did not seek to make any argument other than to vent or emote...and, to me, seemed circularly self-immolating.

    I should have mentioned the comment specifically to avoid confusion. My bad.  Note: While Romberry & I tend to start from different places, his writings support his positions. Apologies to Romberry for my non-specificity.

    Parent

    Here here (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:21:57 PM EST
    I am tired of the lack of manners.  It's important to always emulate Versailles...disagree politely.  Everyone, at all times, should pretend they run a blog and are trying to get a bit spot on MSNBC.  Even when they are stealing your social security to hand it over to the top 400 and collapsing wages and wiping out opportunities to educate your children and forcing you to support your parents, the most important thing is to watch your tone.

    Parent
    How does one say "let them eat cake" (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:29:44 PM EST
    in a polite tone?

    Parent
    "Let them eat peas" (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:50:17 PM EST
    was the version that I heard from on high this week.

    Parent
    Struck a nerve, I guess. (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:31:01 PM EST
    It has nothing to do with "politeness". No one said you or anyone else has to disagree politely. If you think that was said, go ahead and quote it. What I said was that I dislike the juvenile way this particular poster wrote, the lack of coherency and randomness of childish taunts, and that I found it sad and emblematic of issues more psychological than political.

    4th-grade level word salad as seen above does nothing to convince anyone, though it certainly lends false assurance to "Serious People" who claim that those against Obama's policies are raving lunatics. If you think that the above comment aids the users' purported policy aims, good for you. I think it undermines them

    In any case, there's a ton of deserved, well-stated disagreement with the President and those in Congress on this site, polite and impolite, and you'll note that I don't say anything about that at all. Because I agree with it, and because it's meaningful and pushes all of our thought processes forward. Discussions of 0-bummer and horse poo and dementia, not so much...

    Parent

    i have noticed (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:40:43 PM EST
    that a couple of people over the past few days seem to have gone off their meds . . . or maybe it's the weather . . .

    Parent
    So you can make fun of the mentally ill? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:51:37 PM EST
    Of course my tongue is in my cheek, but truth is some people ARE on meds and would take great offense to you using that phrase in a flip manner.   Using profanity in profane situations is bad to you, I suppose, but you really don't see how sh*t and phuck and c*cksucker are just the same as saying "off their meds?"  

    We're all full of feces, I think that's pretty clear.  

    Parent

    actually (none / 0) (#72)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 09:48:25 PM EST
    i was not being flip

    i meant it

    Parent

    Speaking of VSP n/t (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:05:09 PM EST
    Heh... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:14:46 PM EST
    Well, at least I'm having a little laugh to myself here. It's kind of funny that if someone states their opinion that saturating a comment with disjointed scatalogical juvenalia is totally counter-productive to the comment itself, this somehow means that person is trying to shut down debate, or defend Barack Obama's safety net cuts, or is a Very Serious Person trying to get on MSNBC, or whatever. The way I was raised, you didn't necessarily have to work in TV or get paid big bucks by The Man to shy away from filling your thoughts with puns about urination, homophonic kindergarten-level distortions of names (0-bummer), and mentions of equine poop. But apparently the Twitter culture has left me behind, and I'm David Brooks without the cash. Oh well, it takes all kinds. Cheers!

    Parent
    scatological juvenalia (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:44:05 PM EST
    very nice.  again, you believe in limiting a discussion to approved of discourse.  

    manners are for dinner tables, politics are dirty and ugly,

    Parent

    I read the first line (none / 0) (#50)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:23:26 PM EST
    and stopped. Not a good way to get a message/point/comment across . . .  imo, of course!

    Parent
    Touche (none / 0) (#51)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:25:29 PM EST
    Cheers in return.

    Parent
    The purpose of etiquette in a class war (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:30:50 PM EST
    You just think very little of satire.  Because ALL effective satire is profane in great measure,  Did you think Steven Colbert was too mean to Dubya at that correspondent's dinner?   He was not polite and humiliated the guy, and WE ALL KNEW THEY WEREN"T JOKES, that Colbert meant every word.

    Would you rather he have said sh*t than poo?

    And THIS is what makes you feel sad for a person.  I feel SAD for you that THIS is what makes you said.

    The class war is on, my friend, whether you know it or not.  And war is profane.  Especially rhetorical wars waged in a nation that exists in a state of pathological and delusional absurdity.

    Parent

    asdf (none / 0) (#55)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:34:38 PM EST
    You're comparing the above to Colbert? That speaks for itself. And all sorts of things make me sad, not just this.

    Parent
    No, I asked you a question (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:38:50 PM EST
    And you didn't answer it.  It seems a few words make you uncomfortable, which is fine, but THE INTENT is the same, to destroy someone rhetorically.  You're fine with rhetorical destruction as long as it's polite?  Is that your gripe?


    Parent
    George Carlin's seven dirty words (none / 0) (#58)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:40:36 PM EST
    You must really hate that.  Or at least think it's power should remain in the stand-up realm and never come into the political arena where it could make a different kind of difference.

    Parent
    Politics is ALWAYS theatre, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:42:11 PM EST
    And sometimes you must be coarse to answer coarseness,  You disagree, I assume.  

    Viva America.

    Parent

    asdf (none / 0) (#61)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:45:23 PM EST
    I have answered the question, you're just asking it again. So I'll answer one more time in a slightly different way.

    The phrase "rhetorical destruction" is ridiculously self-important, but we'll just go ahead and use it for simplicity's sake. I'm fine with "rhetorical destruction". But a "rhetorical destruction" that is so bizarre and childish that it actually benefits the person we're trying to "destroy" is not valuable. And also seeing an adult talk that way (and get encouraged) is depressing to me, but as I noted that's just a personal issue.

    Parent

    Although I understand your reaction to (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 09:08:54 PM EST
    the way the commenter expressed himself, I also think about the fact that I don't think any revolution has ever been conducted...politely.

    There's a lot of anger out here, and justifiably so; after we've all expressed ourselves in the most rational ways and made our cases and presented our arguments to make it more likely the content of them will actually be considered, there comes a point - and we all reach it at different times and for different reasons - when the walls come down, the gloves come off, and we yell and we scream and we swear - and we no longer care too much what anyone thinks about our delivery.

    The best thing the overlords could ask for is a nation of Stepford-ized citizens, medicated or etiquetted into compliance, calm and blissfully ignorant of what is being done to us.

    Speaking for myself, I'm hoping to see a lot less "polite" and a lot more in-your-face.  Pearls go with everything, but it's time to stop clutching them.

    Parent

    A little intrusion from me (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 10:39:12 PM EST
    "Words" discussions are always interesting...esp on the internet. Proponents of each side argue up one side & down the other.

    "Polite" is an interesting word. When reading the above interchange, I did not take Addison's comments to indicate that he wanted more "politeness" necessarily. There is a big, big difference between tea room gentility/restaurant or church politeness, etc. and, as Addison mentions, scataological terms or (more bluntly, less politely) outhouse talk.

    Some may find themselves offended by gentile or polite or even civil discourse when the subject matter is important and carries emotional weight. Some may think that passion/concern/caring and human empathy means one has to rage or raise the voice level or the harsh language level. Some may want to scream and urge taking to the streets.  Marchon! Marchon!  Then, there are a lot of people who believe quite strongly that stressful, hard, hurting times are exactly the times for taking extra care to move the issue forward. (And, that gutter language produces the opposite result than intended.)

    The conversation is interesting. So much depends on what our intent is, doesn't it? One thing I know: If I'm trying to convince someone of a particular position, yelling/verbal sputum/denigration of those who don't agree with me are not techniques that are likely to succeed.

    Parent

    When you deal with idiots (none / 0) (#67)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:58:12 PM EST
    You treat them like idiots, or you end up justifying their idiocy.  

    The phrase rhetorical destruction is a phrase.  Now you have a problem with the word destruction next to rhetorical?  It's self important.  You make absolutely no sense.  

    I realize you have a personal problem with certain words.  So be it.  But you better start calling a lot of brilliant contributors to society childish because they are very profane and nasty and impolite.  They are called artists, and THEY are the ones who really shape societies views and morals, not pols.  And they are very messy, disturbed and twisted people.

    Sorry, but if ever the words destruction and rhetoric should be linked, it's in the context of the absurdity we hear every day from those supposedly leading us.

    Parent

    Here's how I roll (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 09:04:58 PM EST
    If you want more of my history being unpolite (none / 0) (#75)
    by seabos84 on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 09:59:08 PM EST
    look me up on dailykos, too!

    ++++
    THU APR 21, 2011 AT 04:47 PM PDT
    Solidarity & Civility - The Myth, Trap and Lie
    by seabos84
    ++++

    Providing you're NOT a deliberate paid censor from the DLC branch of sell outs, I actually feel bad for you. Guess what, mr./ms. happy happy upbeat positive political discourse - Raygun, BushI and BushII won on lies, fear and hatred! Ever hear of them? Did you notice how well the happy happy crowd did against the lies?

    About your psycho-babble-iz-a-tion ...what is next, I didn't sleep with my mummy so I'm repressed? Where do you people come from, other than leafy neighborhood upper middle cla$$ enclave$ where all have the re$ource$ to deal with the right wing thieving and the DLC losing?

    Here is enough info to find a scathing comment on dailykos giving some of my history of being fed up with salon dilettantes defining what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable.

    +++
    I've stopped blaming the fascists for following (41+ / 0-)
    their nature...by seabos84 on Sun Jun 19, 2011 at 03:46:15 AM PDT
    +++

    here is another writer's perspective on pretty talk - I wish I could write like this guy!

    ++++
    Because I cannot flatter and speak fair,
    Smile in men's faces, smooth, deceive and cog,
    Duck with French nods and apish courtesy,
    I must be held a rancorous enemy.
    Cannot a plain man live and think no harm,
    But thus his simple truth must be abused
    By silken, sly, insinuating Jacks?
    ++++

    By The Way
    My Name is Robert Murphy,
    and I live in Seattle.

    Parent

    Again... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Addison on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 10:10:55 PM EST
    Again, it's not about being polite or impolite, and I never said it was. And it's not about being "upbeat", and I never said it was.

    Parent
    alright - I interpreted "juvenile" (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by seabos84 on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 11:30:54 PM EST
     and "childish"  to imply a lack of positive politeness.

    Quite frequently, when someone disses my arguments for the language inappropriate to the Kennedy School Of Government, College of Big Wordy Losers, they like to tell me that I need to be positive and polite to get people persuaded to my side.

    You didn't say that, you just said I undermine my goals.

    I DO undermine my goals with those residing in and aspiring to the lofty Kennedy School Of Government, College of Big Wordy Losers!

    Since I have spent decades getting ripped off by fascists, and decades sold out by right wing Democrats, and decades working crap jobs, and 3 decades having been told by all kinds of fancy degreed, fancy titled, fancy credentialed Democrats in Seattle and Boston that I need to sound more like Kennedy School Of Government, College of Big Wordy Losers to persuade those people, maybe Kennedy School Of Government, College of Big Wordy Losers aspirants should consider sharpening their pitchforks - unless, they're doing too well to really rock the boat?

    Thanks for the concern for my mental state - if you have a spare $5 million, instead of me wasting it on psycho-babble-ists, I'll devote myself to finding and promoting "I welcome their hatred" Democrats who will fight for all of us, EXCEPT the top 5%, and, by the way, Democrats who you'll be forced to vote for - just like I've been forced to vote for mealy mouthed upper middle class pathetic sell outs for 30 years!

    rmm.

    Parent

    See... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Addison on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:13:35 AM EST
    ...in this comment you seem like you have something to say, and you say it. Good! I don't have any issue with that, even though perhaps it wasn't polite or upbeat or beltway-approved. In the other comment it just seemed like someone needed to scream incoherently at someone else for a while (which is what I meant about "psychological need", not really a comment on a mental state), which makes me sad because who wants to wade through that just for the benefit of talking about politics?

    Parent
    maybe part of the problem is that unless (none / 0) (#86)
    by seabos84 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:55:52 AM EST
    the writing is in safe and quiet English teacher paragraphs, unless we have the politics of Star Trek's Federation, you don't like it?

    For example, the following HOPEFully stirs your soul:

    "I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

    I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice."

    BUT -
    this is HOW it should be written -
    the way it was spoken ---

    "I have a dream
    that one day
    this nation will rise up
    and live out the true
    meaning of its creed:
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident:
    that all men
    are created equal."

    I have a dream

    that one day on the red hills of Georgia

    the sons of former slaves

    and the sons of former slave owners

    will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."

    rmm.

    Parent

    Nope. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Addison on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 10:57:01 AM EST
    Nope. Typographical layout isn't the issue I had, and I never said it was.

    Parent
    well golly, I'm as off base (none / 0) (#108)
    by seabos84 on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 04:45:06 PM EST
    with my pscho-babble-izing via keyboard as you are!

    (well, except I'll admit I'm off base, and ...)

    rmm.

    Parent

    Uh, no. (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 08:28:47 PM EST
    Guess what happened next? The massive Bush Tax Cuts plus two trillion dollar wars. Goodbye surpluses
    .

    What happened in 2000 was that starting in March the NASDAQ started a 12 month run off that wiped out 50% of its previous gains. This was a reflection of the Internet bubble bursting.

    So the economy was heading south when Bush arrived 1/2001.

    Then 9/11 came and the economy tanked.

    Bush had no choice except to cut the tax rates.

    And by 2/2007, when the Demos took over both houses of Congress, unemployment was around 4.5%, gasoline was around $2.00 (Remember that the Demos had run on a platform that said gasoline was too high.)and the DJIA was around 12,500 going up.

    Federal revenues were setting records.

    But by 7/2008 gasoline was $4.00/gallon, unemployment was around 6% and going up and the DJIA was in free fall.

    I see a connection. You?

    Um...Bush cut taxes before 9/11. (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 06:06:26 AM EST
    (Pub.L. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38, June 7, 2001) (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 06:08:47 AM EST
    Of course, there WAS ample evidence (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 06:11:00 AM EST
    that a major attack was coming, so perhaps it was his only action in response to the warnings. That would make sense,

    Parent
    Actually Bush did quite a bit. (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 03:24:35 PM EST
    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115170,00.html">Link

    Now that was 31 days prior to the infamous PDB that some people like to refer to and claim that Bush paid no attention. He had already been briefed and taken action.

    Now how did Bush get the information???

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    Link


    Parent

    You mean the July 5th meeting ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 05:47:39 PM EST
    ... where:

    1.  the focus was on overseas terror threats

    2.  the domestic agencies were never given any instructions on what to do with the information, including a game plan like they had at DOS and overseas agencies

    3.  the participants were specifically prohibited from sharing the information from the briefing.

    Wow.

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    Interesting - a "five-fold" increase in CIA funding sounds like he was doing something, but it doesn't mean much when "covert action" is just one example of what the money was used for.  How much was the "covert action" budget increased?  How much was directed toward anti-terrorism/AQ activities?  Any idea?

    Funny Clarke didn't get very specific in that interview ... guess there's a reason for that.

    Parent

    Let me understand (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 07:51:13 PM EST
    The National Security Adviser calls in the heads of all the agencies, gives them a heads up that the CIA says to expect an attack.....

    And the only excuse you can think of is that Rice didn't give them "instructions on what to do with the instruction?"

    Come on. That's so weak it is unworthy of you.

    Tell me. What did we have these people for???? Why do we need a head of the FBI? FAA? Why we'll just let the NSA run them all.

    And they weren't prohibited from taking action.

    Again. Weak. Very weak.

    And 5 fold, whatever it was, was a 5 fold increase over what the Clinton Administration had budgeted.

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 07:21:49 AM EST
    Read it again, slooooooowly, Jim.  They were given a heads up about a possible terrorist attack, but the focus was on overseas threats.  Then, they were told they couldn't disseminate the little, vague information they were given.  

    On July 5, representatives from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the FAA, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, Customs, the CIA, and the FBI met with Clarke to discuss the current threat. Attendees report that they were told not to disseminate the threat information they received at the meeting.

    Tell ya what, Jim - you're now the head of the FBI - there's a terrorist threat (nothing specific), but you're not allowed to tell anyone about it.  What do you do?

    BTW - "Five-fold" increase in what, Jim? - that's my point.  You have no idea, because that was a one-liner thrown out there by Clark with no specifics and no backup.  Did they need to buy more copiers?

    Parent

    The attendees were (none / 0) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:03:18 AM EST
    running government agencies. They were expected to take action within their domains, not to go on TV and issue press releases.

    disseminate: to scatter or spread widely, as though sowing seed; promulgate extensively; broadcast; disperse

    No, I haven't the specifics, but we know that an increase of 500% over what the Clinton admin had funded was still a HUGE increase. And that's the point.

    Question. "Slooooowy, Jim"

    Why is impossible for you to respond without including a personal insult?

    Answer: You know your point is very weak and you are trying to get the reader to focus on the nasty tone of your comment rather than the content.

    Parent

    A "huge increase" ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    ... in what, Jim?

    BTW - I told you to read it slowly because: (1) you ignored the facts I pointed out, and (2) you misstated my statement (i.e. I said they were prohibited from disseminating the information, not that they were "prohibited from taking action").

    BTW - You never answered the question.  What would you have done with this vague threat information - focused on an overseas threat - if you weren't allowed to tell people about it?  It's like giving a police chief a "warning" about a possible crime, but telling them they can't tell their officers.

    Good job, Condi.

    Parent

    I ignored nothing and you couldn't resist (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 10:17:39 AM EST
    taking a shot. It's just you.

    You are using the "prohibited from disseminating" as a way to claim that the Bush admin did nothing.

    So quit parsing. It doesn't work.

    What would I have done???

    I would followed directions and not disseminated the information. I would have gathered my managers and told them to expect an attack either overseas or in the US and to immediately prepare a plan of action for my review.

    BTW - disseminate means:

    to scatter or spread widely, as though sowing seed; promulgate extensively; broadcast; disperse:


    Parent

    Read the link (none / 0) (#144)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    The attendees interpreted the non-dissemination instruction to mean they could only brief their superiors, not tell anyone in the actual field offices, where any measures would have to be implemented.  An INS representative actually made a request to for clarification to identify the information she could share.

    She never even got a response.

    BTW - Great plan - tell your "managers" to expect an attack and prepare a plan for it - without actually telling anyone who's not a superior in headquarters.

    No wonder you liked Bush's plan.

    Parent

    I read the link (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:48:01 PM EST
    On July 2, the FBI Counterterrorism Division sent a message to federal agencies and state and local law enforcement agencies summarizing information regarding threats from Bin Ladin. It warned that there was an increased volume of threat reporting, indicating a potential for attacks against U.S. targets abroad from groups "aligned with or sympathetic to Usama Bin Ladin."

    snip

    At home, the CSG arranged for the CIA to brief intelligence and security officials from several domestic agencies. On July 5, representatives from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the FAA, the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, Customs, the CIA, and the FBI met with Clarke to discuss the current threat. Attendees report that they were told not to disseminate the threat information they received at the meeting. They interpreted this direction to mean that although they could brief their superiors, they could not send out advisories to the field.

    <Comment: Again. They were told to tell their superiors. The superiors would be the people to direct a plan/response.>

    An NSC official recalls a somewhat different emphasis, saying that attendees were asked to take the information back to their home agencies and "do what you can" with it, subject to classification and distribution restrictions. A representative from the INS asked for a summary of the information that she could share with field offices. She never received one.22

    snip

    Apparently as a result of the July 5 meeting with Clarke, the interagency committee on federal building security was tasked to examine security measures. This committee met on July 9, when 37 officials from 27 agencies and organizations were briefed on the "current threat level" in the United States. They were told that not only the threat reports from abroad but also the recent convictions in the East Africa bombings trial, the conviction of Ahmed Ressam, and the just-returned Khobar Towers indictments reinforced the need to "exercise extreme vigilance." Attendees were expected to determine whether their respective agencies needed enhanced security measures.25

    It appears to me that everyone knew something might happen but did nothing.

    Your parsing still doesn't work.

    Parent

    Not "parsing", Jim - facts (none / 0) (#155)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 08:50:43 AM EST
    ... which is probably why you find it so difficult to understand.  From your own emphasized passages:

    "July 2, the FBI Counterterrorism Division sent a message to federal agencies and state and local law enforcement agencies summarizing information regarding threats from Bin Ladin. It warned that there was an increased volume of threat reporting, indicating a potential for attacks against U.S. targets abroad from groups "aligned with or sympathetic to Usama Bin Ladin."

    (comment - once again - the meetings you cite were focused on threats overseas)

    snip

    Attendees report that they were told not to disseminate the threat information they received at the meeting. They interpreted this direction to mean that although they could brief their superiors, they could not send out advisories to the field.

    <Comment: Again. They were told to tell their superiors. The superiors would be the people to direct a plan/response.<p> No, Jim - their superiors were prohibited from disseminating the information to their people in the field, too.  Great plan - like telling the military about a perceived threat, then allowing them to only tell the generals in the Pentagon.

    Classic)>

    An NSC official recalls a somewhat different emphasis, saying that attendees were asked to take the information back to their home agencies and "do what you can" with it, subject to classification and distribution restrictions. A representative from the INS asked for a summary of the information that she could share with field offices. She never received one.

    <comment - Exactly)<p> snip

    Apparently as a result of the July 5 meeting with Clarke, the interagency committee on federal building security was tasked to examine security measures. This committee met on July 9, when 37 officials from 27 agencies and organizations were briefed on the "current threat level" in the United States. They were told that not only the threat reports from abroad but also the recent convictions in the East Africa bombings trial, the conviction of Ahmed Ressam, and the just-returned Khobar Towers indictments reinforced the need to "exercise extreme vigilance." Attendees were expected to determine whether their respective agencies needed enhanced security measures."

    <comment - Precisely - They were given vague warnings of a threat and told to look at their "security measures" and "do what they could with it", then told they could only give the information to their superiors and couldn't let the actual people in the field know about it>

    Parent

    They had the warning about overseas (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 09:56:54 AM EST
    They had the 7/5 warning that was not specific.

    And they should have remembered the '91 WTC attacks.

    You know, I find it risible that you want to excuse the screws of the people charged with our security just so you can blame Bush.

    Your BDS is shinning.

    Parent

    They didn't have the PDB ... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:31:37 AM EST
    ... titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US", warning about specific threats of hijacking.

    Bush did.

    Your Bush-worship is showing.

    Parent

    Everybody but the Left (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 02:33:42 PM EST
    and the media knew that.

    If I had been Bush I would have fired the whole group.

    Parent

    Everybody but the left and the media ... (none / 0) (#169)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 02:39:26 PM EST
    ... knew what, Jim?  That there was an imminent attack planned on the US and a specific threat of hijackings?

    Heh.

    If you were Bush, someone should have fired you ...

    Parent

    BTW - The "five-fold' increase quote (none / 0) (#146)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 01:20:00 PM EST
    You love to cite this as an example that Bush was taking strong action against terrorism, but you consistently ignore two critical point;

    1.  You have no idea what the money was spent on, and Clarke himself has been clear that the Bush admin was preoccupied with trying to link Iraq to terrorism and AQ, and

    2.  Clarke himself, when questioned by the 9/11 Commission, acknowledged he was spinning on orders of the white House.  yet you take the spin seriously, even when the speaker himself tells you it's just spin, because you like the spin.

    Classic.

    Parent
    Yes, with the Internet bubble bursting (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 03:28:41 PM EST
    the economy needed a kick in the behind.

    Parent
    Nope - don't see the connection (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 10:17:11 AM EST
    Then 9/11 came and the economy tanked.

    Bush had no choice except to cut the tax rates.

    But then again, I would never make the silly claim that Bush had to cut the tax rates because of 9/11, when he actually campaigned on cutting them and cut them 3 months before 9/11.

    BTW - Any actual studies to support your claims, or is it all just more of your post hoc ergo procter hoc BS?

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 12:36:49 PM EST
    Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame.

    Link

    Parent

    could the fact that (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 02:01:54 PM EST
    Bush borrowed the money for his war on Iraq from the Chinese rather than pay for it thru taxes as every other war in our history had have anything to do with our debt today?

    Or maybe we didn't shop enough as he asked to do?

    Parent

    If you want to beat Bush (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 03:14:56 PM EST
    for not collecting taxes to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, be my guest.

    You can also include Obama for letting the Bush tax cuts be extended.

    But.... When Bush became Prez, the National Debt was around $5 trillion. When he left it was around $10 trillion. Obama came along and it is now near $14 trillion....

    So Bush looks like a slacker to me.

    And "his war?"  I suppose you are one of the people told me that Obama was "your President."

    ;-)

    Now. How do we fix it? Tell you what. I will trade you a 20% cut in military spend and no cap on Social Security wages for shutting down Energy, Education, the EPA, PBS, all foreign aid and bringing home all military not actively involved in a war.

    Parent

    George W. Bush's (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 04:13:48 PM EST
    legacy is going to haunt the GOP for literally decades. So you can keep apologizing him for all you want.

    What do you want to bet the smart money says that the GOP presidential nominee wants nothing to do with him?

    And the irony is, with all that spending the Tea Party just loves the guy to no end. Just says that the tea party is some sort of evangelical-political movement with Bush as their savior. Weird.

    Bush inherited a much better situation than Obama did and completely wasted it because he was a child with a boulder on his shoulder trying to prove to his father that he wasn't the eternal family screw up.

    Well, he certainly did put the Bush name in the sewer for quite a while.

    Republicans don't really care about the national debt. That has been obvious for quite a while. They had six years to prove that they cared and they refused. Iraq is going to haunt your party for quite a while.

    Parent

    Your conclusion (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by shoephone on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 06:53:47 PM EST
    is spot on:

    "What do you want to bet the smart money says that the GOP presidential nominee wants nothing to do with him?"

    The GOP nominee will never mention Bush's name -- and especially not Cheney's! -- but will wax poetic and sentimental all night long about Reagan.

    Of course, judging by past statements, it may be a spitting match between who gives more accolades to Reagan -- the GOP nominee or Obama.

    Parent

    Pointing out that Obama (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 08:04:36 PM EST
    has increased the National Debt in 30 months an amount equal to 80% of what Bush did in 8 years is not an apology.

    It is called a statement of fact.

    And no, the Tea Party, whatever that is, doesn't "love" Bush. He was a better choice than either Gore or Kerry. (Talk about damning with faint praise.)

    I do wish you would attend a few meetings before continuing to tell us what the "Tea Party" loves. Of course watching MSNBC and reading KOS is much easier than actually doing something.

    History will look at the information he had and judge Bush well for his preemptive strike. It was in his decision to "nation build" that he has erred.

    Parent

    History (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 08:10:59 AM EST
    is already being written and George W. Bush has been judged a disaster. I remember the same thing being said about Jimmy Carter 30 years ago--that history will change the impression of him. No, it hasn't. His mistakes still haunt him like they will Bush.

    I'm talking about Bush's current approval rating with the tea party.

    And you're talking dollar amounts not percentages. When you get to percentages Obama has increased the debt 9% and George W. Bush 27% over his term.

    You simply can't defend someone who inherited a surplus and squandered it.

    Parent

    I don't care about Bush's (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:17:42 AM EST
    approval ratings, now, past or future with the "Tea Party," the party down the street or my aunt's birthday party.

    And you should check out what was being written about Truman in 1954....

    Bush increased the national debt about $5 trillion in 8 years. Obama has increased it $4 trillion in 30 months.

    80% of $5 trillion is $4 trillion.

    That's just a fact. Obama in 30 months has increased the debt 80% as compared to what Bush did in 8 years.

    That is a point of some significance.

    Parent

    He did (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:28:35 AM EST
    it by continuing Bush's policies. Right?

    Parent
    No thanks (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 06:03:44 PM EST
    Now. How do we fix it? Tell you what. I will trade you a 20% cut in military spend and no cap on Social Security wages for shutting down Energy, Education, the EPA, PBS, all foreign aid and bringing home all military not actively involved in a war.

    But if you're proposing a complete shutdown of the agencies you don't like, then you should propose a similar 100% cut in the military budget.  Then we'd be talking about some serious $ ...

    BTW - Mighty generous of you on the SS cap, but I guess that doesn't affect you, soooooo ...

    Parent

    I'm very generous (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 08:08:23 PM EST
    So generous that when I look at the taxes I paid then and the taxes I pay now I breakdown and sob.

    And our enemies always find shutting down the military as a wonderful, and generous, idea.

    Parent

    Didn't say it was a good idea, Jim (none / 0) (#121)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 07:07:12 AM EST
    Just trying to keep a level playing field.

    "Generous" - heh.

    BTW - Our "enemies" always find shutting down the EPA as a wonderful, and generous, idea.

    Parent

    I never want a level playing field when (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 10:26:27 AM EST
    dealing with our enemies.

    I believe in bringing guns to a knife fight.

    Messy but effective.

    Parent

    It's not about "our enemies" (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 12:55:21 PM EST
    It's about your argument - eliminate several agencies you don't like, while making only a 20% cut in our military budget, which would still leave us with a larger military budget than all other countries in the world ...

    ... combined.

    But the wingers sure do love them some tough talk, especially when it's somebody else's @ss on the line ...

    Parent

    I served 10 years in Naval Aviation (none / 0) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:30:24 PM EST
    so I think that I know more about @asses on the line than you.

    Face it. Obama won't cut a dime from education, energy, EPA, etc., even though any thinking person knows they are doing nothing to improve education or increase cheap energy that is ecologically friendly.

    Parent

    "Any thinking person" (none / 0) (#156)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 09:03:25 AM EST
    Heh - That's one of O'Reilly's favorites, too, ...

    ... but it's funnier when you say it.

    BTW - Gotta love the wingers macho fantasies.  Had a friend who was a mall security guard, which is all well-and-good.  But when he was asked what he did, he would say he was "in law enforcement".

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:00:28 AM EST
    Well, what ever I did in service to my country it was more than you.

    ;-)

    You can run, but you can't hide.

    You never served but you can snark about it.

    Your security guard friend knows more about real life than you.

    lol.


    Parent

    You have no idea ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:27:34 AM EST
    ... of what I've done or haven't done, Jim.

    But I love when wingers whine about "personal insults", then proceed to throw them with " ;-)s and LOLs" thrown in.

    The hypocrisy is very telling.

    Parent

    Read post 156 (none / 0) (#166)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 02:31:55 PM EST
    if you want to see a snarky insult.

    Yman, you remind me of Ole Shep. If you remember the joke he could pass it out but he couldn't take it.

    But enough about you.

    I'm done with this train.

    Parent

    Yep, pretty snarky (none / 0) (#168)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    But you're mistaken once again, Jim.  I can take it all day, particularly from a winger.  You, on the other hand, engage in personal insults and then, when done to you, whine about it like a pre-schooler.

    That's one of the things that make your macho-BS comments (i.e. "bring a knife to a gun fight") so funny.

    Parent

    You wrote what you wrote (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 05:00:46 PM EST
    BTW - Gotta love the wingers macho fantasies.  Had a friend who was a mall security guard, which is all well-and-good.  But when he was asked what he did, he would say he was "in law enforcement".

    Now that's one worthy of Ole Shep.

    Have a nice day. I done with this train. It's going nowhere and I have made my points.

    Thanks for the help.

    Parent

    BTW - Isn't it funny ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 07:24:15 AM EST
    ... how the thing that makes wingers break down into tears is taxes?

    It's a great litmus test.

    Parent

    Yeah, seeing how all that money has been (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:27:32 AM EST
    wasted just makes me cry.

    Parent
    See? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:29:22 AM EST
    It works!

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#113)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 07:45:20 PM EST
     I do "want to beat Bush for not collecting taxes to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan"
    Yes, I do "include Obama for letting the Bush tax cuts be extended"
    Yes, it was "his war," and
    Viet Nam was "Johnson's & Nixon's war"
    And I respect all of "America's" President's, but my 2 tours of active battle duty in Nam gives me the right to place ownership any damn place I want to.

    I'll leave the "fixing" to those more qualified

    Parent

    Having spent ten years in Naval Aviation (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 08:12:29 PM EST
    I think I also have a small say in the blame game.


    Parent
    You have (none / 0) (#120)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 12:11:02 AM EST
    as much say as every other citizen.

    Naval aviation?

    What was that, part of the CIA? I think I read about it somewhere; something about developing stealth boats that fly.

    lol, go for it. A day without your informative, almost lucid comments is like a day without a Jimmie Dean sausage & egg croissant.

    Parent

    I don't mind you insulting me (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:26:29 AM EST
    I have never made a single claim regarding what I did, when or where. And I will not now.

    And you are not the first person who insulted people such as John McCain for his service.

    It was a well developed support during the election.

    Thanks for defining yourself.

    Parent

    Insulting you? (none / 0) (#148)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 02:13:52 PM EST
    Whatever you "did...where...when"....What are you talking about? Whatever you did I'm sure you did well & honorably, and I won't even acknowledge your comment about "insulting" you as that never happened, nor was it ever intended. Interpreting a little good natured ribbing as an insult displays an over-the-top paranoia, even for you.

    "insulted people like John McCain?" again, what are you talking about? Never mind, don't bother. I don't have time for this nonsense.

    Parent

    You wrote what you wrote (none / 0) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:23:40 PM EST
    If it was good nature ribbing I didn't see it that way.

    And I can hardly believe you are unaware of the insults and lies spun out over the Internet by far Left Obama supporters.

    Parent

    Uhhhhhmmmmm, yeah ... no kidding (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 05:37:38 PM EST
    Although the cuts were large and drove revenue down sharply, they are not the main cause of the sizable deficit that exists today. In 2007, well after the tax cuts took effect, the budget deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. By 2009, it had increased to 9.9 percent of the economy. The Bush tax cuts didn't change between 2007 and 2009, so clearly something else is to blame.

    The economy (and therefore tax revenue) tanked.

    But good job at ignoring the two, main points.

    Parent

    The economy did not tank (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 08:24:31 PM EST
    it took off and by 2/2007, when the Demos took over both the House and the Senate, unemployment was around 4.5% and revenues were soaring. Then in 2008 under the congressional leadership of the Demos the wheels came off.

    And if you missed the subprime mortgage bubble bursting starting in mid 2007 and continuing and the oil speculation bubble caused by the speculators assuming that a Demo Congress would do nothing (they didn't until after Bush belatedly acted).... well you put Rip Van Winkle to shame.

    But those two things tanked the economy and tax revenues fell along with the economy.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 08:14:42 AM EST
    okay according to you, the current rise in unemployment is due strictly to the GOP taking over the house back in November.

    The buck stops with the President whether his name is Bush or Obama. Bush apologists will literally contort themselves into pretzels to apologize for them.

    And the fact of the matter is, the economy started tanking BEFORE the '06 elections and that's one of the reasons why the GOP lost the house.

    Parent

    The reason the GOP lost the House (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 10:03:41 AM EST
    was Bush and the Repub leadership wanting to provide amnesty to illegal immigrants. The base stayed home.

    A point not lost on the current Repubs in Congress.

    In 2006 unemployment ranged from 4.7% (Jan) to 4.4% (Dec) with a high of 4.8% in Feb.

    The subprime mortgage bubble burst started to get attention in 2007 but the economy was still going strong. I think the DJIA hit around 12500 in 2/2007 with 14000 as a top in 11/2007.(??)Of course if you don't consider the DJIA as an important indicator of the economy, then we will ignore its current level.

    And you lose focus. Unemployment went from 4.5% in 2/2007 to around 9% in 2/2011 went the Demos won/lost control of BOTH houses. That's about a 100% increase.

    Two things.

    Let me know when unemployment increases 100%

    and the Repubs have control of BOTH houses of Congress.

     

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 10:30:19 AM EST
    again on immigration. That was not proposed until 2007 link.

    It was a factor in 2008 BUT not in 2006 so you are wrong there.

    You're trying to spin unemployment. Unemployment started skyrocketing in fall of 2008. Pelosi and company NEVER did anything that Bush didn't want. They went along with him just like the GOP did. If they had said no, then you might have a point but they continued to approve all his rotten policies.

    I know this is what conservatives do--they blame someone else for their own screw ups. Even 8 years into Bush being president he was STILL blaming Bill Clinton for everything. What a loser!

    Parent

    Actually Bush started (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:11:57 AM EST
    his amnesty kick in 2004.

    NBC, msnbc.com and news services
    updated 1/7/2004 8:28:44 PM ET  President Bush called for a major overhaul of America's immigration system Wednesday to grant legal status to millions of undocumented workers in the United States, saying the current program was not working.

    snip

    Critics of the plan said it amounted to an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    Link

    2005

    2006

    2008 Unemployment went from 5.0% (Jan) to 6.1% (Sep) and another 1.2% to 7.3% in Dec.

    I find a 46% increase steep.

    Bush finally acted on the oil pricing crisis in August, issuing an EO removing the Fed side of off shore drilling blocks. The Demos, who had rejected Repub congressional attempts to increase drilling in May reluctantly went along with him and the price of gasoline dropped to $1.81/gallon by the time Obama was inaugurated 1/2009.

    Link

    So what did Obama immediately do?

    Facing gas prices near $4 a gallon and a pivotal national election, congressional Democrats allowed a ban on offshore drilling to lapse in September

    But times change, and on Tuesday, the Obama administration - with gas prices roughly half what they were and many Democrats' having been swept into office - blocked offshore drilling plans put in place at the last minute by the Bush administration, including plans to open the national outer continental shelf for drilling.

    Link

    And gasoline has climbed slowly up to around $4.00 a gallon before dropping back to around $3.50. It is now climbing again and today is at $3.66.

    That's right at an 100% increase under Obama's energy plans.

    And the economy has remained depressed and unemployment is increasing.

    Am I the only one to see a connection?

    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    has no energy plan other than "drill baby drill". He's really showing the stupidness of conservative policy. Salazar has been handing out drilling permits left and right.

    I can't figure out why guys like you don't like him because he's a complete supply sider. He's a Reagan apostle and aficionado.

    There's no shortage of supply according to what I've read from people in the oil business.

    And if Bush's immigration policy was such a problem then why did all those people vote for him in '04? Obviously they didn't care much then because they showed up to vote for him or are you saying that Republican voters are idiots and don't know what they are voting for? You can't say it caused a loss in '06 but didn't someone cause him a problem in '04. And it wasn't actually put up for a vote until '07.

    Parent

    Obama is drill baby drill??? (none / 0) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:16:37 PM EST
    Please go back and read what Salazar said.

    It is the concept that politically the administration is willing to destroy the economy by letting the speculators charge what they want that is driving the price.

    Many Repubs/Reagan Democrats voted for Bush for the same reason many Demos and Left wingers will vote for Obama in 2011.

    In their minds he was better than Kerry.

    Parent

    So you're saying it DIDN'T tank (none / 0) (#134)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 09:31:03 AM EST
    ... until it did.

    Leaving aside your unsupported claims of causation, thanks for proving my point.

    Parent

    So the housing market collapse (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 10:05:22 AM EST
    and $4.00 gas had no impact.

    heh

    Parent

    So your winger fairy tales ... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 12:51:32 PM EST
    ... with zero evidence of causation, are supposed to mean something?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:26:07 PM EST
    Are you actually opining that the subprime mortgage housing market collapse and $4.00 gasoline didn't zap the economy?

    Wow.

    Parent

    I was responding to your original ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 09:07:52 AM EST
    ... specious claims.  Of course gas and the mortgage crisis (as opposed to the "subprime" mortgage crisis) can hurt economic growth.  My point is that you were drawing a line between 9/11 and Bush's "need" to cut taxes - before 9/11.

    Read slooooooowly, Jim.

    Parent

    This was my original claim. (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    Uh, no. (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 14, 2011 at 07:28:47 PM CST
    Guess what happened next? The massive Bush Tax Cuts plus two trillion dollar wars. Goodbye surpluses

    What happened in 2000 was that starting in March the NASDAQ started a 12 month run off that wiped out 50% of its previous gains. This was a reflection of the Internet bubble bursting.

    So the economy was heading south when Bush arrived 1/2001.

    Then 9/11 came and the economy tanked.

    Bush had no choice except to cut the tax rates.

    And by 2/2007, when the Demos took over both houses of Congress, unemployment was around 4.5%, gasoline was around $2.00 (Remember that the Demos had run on a platform that said gasoline was too high.)and the DJIA was around 12,500 going up.

    Federal revenues were setting records.

    But by 7/2008 gasoline was $4.00/gallon, unemployment was around 6% and going up and the DJIA was in free fall.

    I see a connection. You?

    Now. What don't you agree with?

    Parent

    Read my original response (none / 0) (#162)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 10:24:03 AM EST
    Then 9/11 came and the economy tanked.

    Bush had no choice except to cut the tax rates.


    Seriously funny.

    Parent
    And accurate. (none / 0) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 02:27:41 PM EST
    "No choice" - heh (none / 0) (#170)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 02:42:27 PM EST
    Bush campaigned on the need to cut taxes long before the economy tanked and 9-11, saying a surplus was proof too much tax revenue was being collected (despite the debt).

    But I do like how you assign responsibility for his decision to cut taxes to an event that happened months later.

    Heh.

    Parent

    The Internet bubble started (none / 0) (#171)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 04:56:43 PM EST
    bursting in late 1999. While the "build it and they will come" philosophy led to too much network capacity and too many start ups the Feds had a hand in it:

    Over 1999 and early 2000, the U.S. Federal Reserve increased interest rates six times,[8] and the economy began to lose speed. The dot-com bubble burst, numerically, on Friday, March 10, 2000, when the technology heavy NASDAQ Composite index, peaked at 5,048.62 (intra-day peak 5,132.52), more than double its value just a year before

    That was my industry and I remember those days well. Companies were pulling back and many were obviously on the edge of collapse.

    Whoever was advising Bush could see what was happening and rejected "9% as the new norm."

    Parent

    Link (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 04:57:44 PM EST
    Irrelevant (none / 0) (#174)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 05:04:44 PM EST
    What I was laughing at was your attempt to link 9-11 to "need" for Bush's tax cuts, several months before 9-11.

    It's classic Jim.

    Parent

    I don't mind the sniggers and snark (none / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 02:39:52 PM EST
    but making things up goes too far. I wrote:

    What happened in 2000 was that starting in March the NASDAQ started a 12 month run off that wiped out 50% of its previous gains. This was a reflection of the Internet bubble bursting.

    So the economy was heading south when Bush arrived 1/2001.

    To most people that means that the economy was starting to hurt.

    Then 9/11 came and the economy tanked.

    That means the slowing economy got hurt hurt badly.

    Bush had no choice except to cut the tax rates.

    That means that Bush had no choice to cut the first and then the second time.

    Now, I'm done with this because you will probably just make something up again.

    Parent

    Didn't "make something up" the first (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 18, 2011 at 07:17:26 PM EST
    ... time Just repeated your own words.  But I  do love when you wingers try to speak for "most people" ...

    ... it's funny.

    BTW - Ruffian also pointed out your false 9-11/Bush tax cuts connection.  I guess "most people" can see the plain meaning of your words.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Uh, you don't remember the NASDAQ (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 08:30:24 PM EST
    collapse 3/2000 to 3/20001?

    You don't remember what happened to the economy after 9/11?

    You want a study?

    That's risible. Truly, truly, really, really risible.

    Parent

    Yeah - ou were talking about the NASDAQ ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 07:11:32 AM EST
    Then 9/11 came and the economy tanked.

    Bush had no choice except to cut the tax rates.

    ... downturn in 2000.

    Caught in another one, Jim changes the subject once again ...

    Heh.

    Parent

    Here's what I wrote: (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 10:21:43 AM EST
    What happened in 2000 was that starting in March the NASDAQ started a 12 month run off that wiped out 50% of its previous gains. This was a reflection of the Internet bubble bursting.

    So the economy was heading south when Bush arrived 1/2001.

    Then 9/11 came and the economy tanked.

    Bush had no choice except to cut the tax rates.

    I stand behind that.

    Parent

    No doubt (none / 0) (#145)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 01:06:46 PM EST
    It's what you do every time you're caught in a whopper.

    It's funny.

    Parent

    The only thing you've ever caught (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 16, 2011 at 11:18:19 PM EST
    is a cold.

    ;-)

    Go back and read what I wrote.

    lol

    Parent

    Wingers attempting humor (none / 0) (#158)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 17, 2011 at 09:10:18 AM EST
    If only they were a fraction as funny as they think they are ...

    ... or tough ...

    ... or factual ...

    ... or logical ...

    ... or honest ...

    Parent