Confederate Yankee
February 13, 2009
Collins, Snowe, Specter, and Steele
With Judd Gregg back in the Senate and Ted Kennedy back in Florida, the only way the Multi-Generational Financial Rape Act can pass is on the vote of the three turncoat Republicans in the Senate: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter.
Michael Steele has just taken the reins of the Republican National Committee and must play a simple, direct role in attempting to stop this economy-crippling spending bill. Steele must tell Collins, Snowe, and Specter that if they vote for the stimulus bill, then they will not be supported by the Republican Party in their Senate reelection bids.
Let them provide their own stimulus.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:34 AM
| Comments (78)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It requires 60 votes to invoke cloture (end debate). I don't believe that there is any debate allowed on a conference report. In other words, only a majority of those present and voting (51 votes or fewer) is required now.
It's over.
Posted by: Yes We Did at February 13, 2009 02:13 AM (dxslh)
2
I suppose the only possible good news out of this is that most of the spending doesn't occur for a few years. Perhaps there will be a miracle in 2010 putting massive Republican majorities in both houses, and allowing them to push through repeals of the crap in this 'stimulus' bill.
I can dream, can't I?
Posted by: douglas at February 13, 2009 06:12 AM (20QoQ)
3
I'm having no trouble at all recalling "a President showing the level of unbridled arrogance and incompetence" to which you refer. Thankfully, he's now back to being a cowboy in the wild, wild west.
As for one of the most "incompetent administrations in history", Obama doesn't have a chance of earning that distinction. That last administration has won that, hands down.
Posted by: Dude at February 13, 2009 06:49 AM (byA+E)
4
Dude, for 8 years your side dumped on Bush in order to regain power. With the help of the elite media and the badly informed you won. It was a disgraceful mode of operation and beneath the dignity of normal relations. It reveals the Left's vapid points of subject matter.
Posted by: Rick at February 13, 2009 07:28 AM (FWmwx)
5
I agree. We need to find three highly qualified, conservatives and support them in the primaries.
Snow is up in 2010, Spectre in 2012 and Collins in 2014. Snow is very popular in Maine and may be hard to displace in a general election. If she loses in a Republican primary and can raise the funds, she might run an an independent as Leiberman did.
Arlen Specter is the worst of the lot. His position on the Judiciary Committee is an embarrassment.
Posted by: arch at February 13, 2009 07:52 AM (1cSwY)
6
Snowe isn't up for election until 2012. I also have to remind those hoping for a strong conservative, that Maine is a blue state. Maine went for Obama by about 16%. On top of all this the Maine GOP party isn't all that strong.
Posted by: Will at February 13, 2009 02:35 PM (tZjf+)
7
These three are great start.
Senators like Voinovich in Ohio, who is retiring, needs go too. Jell-O Republicans along with RHINOs need to be booted. The only way Conservatives will be able to wrestle away any the power Emperor Obama will amass in the next two years is with a majority dedicated to Conservative values and principles.
http://frankilinslocke.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Franklin's Locke at February 13, 2009 03:40 PM (Awurw)
8
How do we get Chairman Steele to take action against the 3 traitors? They should be stripped of their committee assignments, and kicked out of the Party. This would leave the Republican nominations for their seats open. I have written & written the RNC, and all I get back is the same form letter.
We have to start educating the people about our founding principles. I am a philosopher and lawyer and find that people are completely ignorant of these founding principles. Anybody can be beaten in an election. But our side doesn't know how to fight. When dealing with lying Democrats, one has to be ruthless and go for the jugular. But Republicans think that if they just "play nice", people will like them. I am telling you that it is possible to be ethical and moral, and, at the same time, fight so hard and smart that you grind the faces of the opposition into the dust.
Posted by: Huldah at February 13, 2009 04:57 PM (fMAEb)
9
Mr. Steele,
Tell the fine Senators - we don't support losers!
We helped Specter and it was one BIG mistake. Let them run as Democrats and spend some money for some good opposition.
How dumb can you be to vote on a trillion dollar bill that you have not read nor understand?
Posted by: Typical White Person at February 13, 2009 06:32 PM (bqDms)
10
This revenge taking talk reminds me of Kos when Lieberman went for Bush. The Senate was created to be a gathering of "little kings", who would vote without fear of anybody. So this is what you get from our constitution. New York has 10 million people in it and gets two senators and so does Montana with 400 thousand people. Sure, dump the three "traitors" then what do you get? A 100% bullet proof monarchy. The American people, morons that they mostly are, voted in these idiots because they wanted free cash coupons and could not understand Iraq.They now no longer care about Iraq and want the to cash in the coupons. If you want Republican conservatives running things you either have to come up with spectacular talent ( not) or hope Obama really screws up like Carter. In the one case you have a near impossiblity and in the other something hard to wish for.But, although the economy will be slow to recover, the pork bill has many embarassing things in it which can be exploited in sort of a reverse envy of the "more stimulated than me" groups. If the timing is just right, the house democratic majority could become weaker in 2010 and the monarchy could be derailed in the senate.
Posted by: mytralman at February 13, 2009 09:22 PM (26p91)
11
I know that Specter ihas voted for this because the pork dangled in front of him was funding for the type of cancer he has, but what bribe did the use on Collins and Snowe?
Posted by: Gary at February 14, 2009 11:31 AM (FKcii)
12
Hi, mytraulman and all others: The conservative talents are out there - but they have to connect. For example, Sarah Palin has enormous crowd appeal, but she would be better if, as Ann Coulter suggested, she spends some time studying The U.S. Constitution and The Federalist Papers. Without an ideological foundation, people flounder!
I have the requisite knowledge of The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, our founding principles, and political philosophy; BUT I could never WOW! a crowd, nor do I wish to try. So, the candidates with the WOW! factor need to team up with the studious behind-the-scenes people like me; and then, they can go out there and KICK ASS and restore the Republic for our posterity. I am in contact already with a Republican who is planning to challenge my liberal democrat congressman. That's how we take the House back - district by district.
We also need to set up a network so we can THANK Republicans who do a great job and give them moral support. I see them on Fox, and want to tell them they did a great job, etc.. so I go to their web sites, and because I am not in their district, I can't get through via email!
Posted by: Huldah at February 14, 2009 12:59 PM (fMAEb)
13
first things first: publicly boot these dirt bags from the Republican party. deny them any support at either the local, state or national level. every time one of them is mentioned as being a Republican, point out that they have been thrown out of the party, and therefore have no claim to the title.
if you don't defend your brand and your trademark, you have no recourse against counterfeiters when they sell knock offs.
Posted by: redc1c4 at February 14, 2009 02:20 PM (sT30R)
14
I think that what many of you who call yourselves "conservatives" fail to understand is that there are many shades of being a conservative, or a liberal, for that matter. What we're seeing throughout America today are many Republicans, everyday citizens, who are no longer going to allow the rabid right wing windbags to "define" what it means to be a conservative. Sure, folks such as Coulter and Rush will continue to have their hard core following. But, when you look at the numbers Obama is still enjoying a very high approval rating with the American public, including many republicans.
As for the three republican senators mentioned in this thread, I doubt that they have much to worry about should they decide to run again when their terms are up.
You can call me a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal. I don't care. For me and millions of other Americans the days are gone when we allow someone else to define OUR politics.
Posted by: Dude at February 14, 2009 03:05 PM (byA+E)
15
Did Steele get the reins, or the ruins.
And for thos "conservatives" that think left is on to a good thing, why not "come out" and register as a Dhimocrat, or P&F or whatever is an honest representative of what you really are, and leave the Republican Party to the Republicans?
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at February 14, 2009 03:38 PM (OmeRL)
16
Larry makes my point for me. Not everyone who is a republican is going to agree on all of the issues. Not everyone who calls their self a conservative is going to allow someone else to dictate to them what it means to be a conservative. Those days are history.
It's the same with democrats, too. I'm a registered democrat. I voted for Obama. I also voted for a republican as my senator. I'm against the very idea of same sex marriage. It's ludicrous. I use that as an example to make my point. Furthermore, I refuse to allow the far left wing of my party to tell me how I MUST feel and believe about every issue in order to call myself a democrat.
Personally, I hope to see and have good reason to believe, that the extremes of both political parties are going to become more and more marginalized and irrelevant. The far left and the far right are in the minority. The real America is somewhere in the middle. We see that in both parties.
Posted by: Dude at February 14, 2009 04:08 PM (byA+E)
17
I'm a Republican. The party leadership in Congress talked a good game on the stimulus, and did an admirable job of maintaining party discipline in the House. But where was the "traditional" Republican concern about balanced budgets, deficit spending, and the national debt during the period when the party finally controlled both houses of Congress after a forty-year hiatus (especially after 2001 with a Republican in the White House at the same time), and could have really done something about converting all that ideology and rhetoric to action? Just one record deficit after another. (When I asked my Republican congressman about it, he said that the absolute size of the deficit, or of the accumulated national debt, was not the issue. What indicated that progress was being made was that the deficit under the Republicans was a much lower percentage of the gross national product than it used to be under the Democrats!) (Oh, I guess that means we don't have to pay those dollars back, then!) It appears that politicians of either existing party are just in it for the pork, and that they all lack the will for the tough decisions and shared sacrifice that substantive progress in this area would require. It also seems as if there's nowhere that a voter who still cares about these issues can be heard anymore.
Posted by: Overlay at February 14, 2009 05:26 PM (hrIaQ)
18
Overlay,
You've nailed it, man! Neither party is being honest when they discuss the national debt nor the annual deficits. That's why I've said before that for the most part the republican versus democrat, us versus them, my team versus your team, however you wish to put it, is a dog and pony show.
What a crock to define the annual deficit as a percentage of either the GNP or the GDP! It's all a big lie. The ONLY honest way to define the annual deficit is to compare how much we spend to how much we take in during a fiscal year. Period. It's a no brainer.
Posted by: Dude at February 14, 2009 05:54 PM (byA+E)
19
Dude said: "But, when you look at the numbers Obama is still enjoying a very high approval rating with the American public, including many republicans"
Approval ratings this early are meaningless.
Dude said: "You can call me a liberal conservative or a conservative liberal"
Illogical
Posted by: Rick at February 14, 2009 08:14 PM (FWmwx)
20
First of all, to even dream that you're gonna replace RINO Republicans in Maine with hard right candidates is absolutely ludicrous. The Republican brand is lucky to have ANY representation in New England as it is. In fact, expect the Democrats to target Judd Gregg like a hunter going after a buck...they're going to throw multimillions at his competitor. Word is, he's quite vulnerable as it is. Collins and Snowe have NOTHING to fear from a hard right competitor in a primary challenge.
As for Spector, he's vulnerable, but not from a hard right primary challenger, but from a well funded Democratic one. Remember, Pennsylvanians tossed Santorum, who is pretty conservative, out of office in 2006.
In any case, i think Republicans can just about forget New England. They're done up there. They can be somewhat competitive in a state like Pennsylvania, but it's going to be a while before they'll elect another Santorum.
Posted by: Mr. Barkley at February 14, 2009 11:17 PM (TaLKz)
21
Rick,
Agreed, approval ratings this early are meaningless. Time will tell.
It's not illogical that I and millions of other Americans are no longer going to allow the extremists of the two parties to force us to buy into their ideology. For example:
I oppose same sex marriage and I support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. On those issues I'm a conservative.
I support nationalized health care for all citizens. Furthermore, I'm a free market capitalist who supports a strong Federal Government with meaningful regulatory oversight the excesses of unbridled free market capitalism. On those issues I'm a liberal.
It's not illogical for a person to be conservative on some issues and liberal on others. You just don't like it that a lot of folks are finished with letting other people tell them what they MUST support if they're going to be a Republican or a Democrat. You and people who think as you think are just going to have to get over it.
You can be sure that the leadership of the RNC understands this now. Windbags such as Rush and Coulter may be feeding their fans what they want to hear when they insist that to be a conservative you must believe as they do on every issue. However, they're certainly not going to improve the lot of the Republican Party on the national level.
Posted by: Dude at February 14, 2009 11:34 PM (byA+E)
22
The GoP isn't going to replace any leftleaners with rightthinking people.
They're more likely to do the opposite, float MORE lefties during any upcoming election.
It may not make much sense for logical thinkers, but for campaign managers it seems to be a good idea.
After all, if lefties win elections (and they are, just look at congress and the white house), putting lefties up for election increases your chances of winning.
Welcome to the United Soviet of Amerika.
All that of course assuming there will still be a GoP at the next election cycle (or indeed an election cycle) and that they won't have been banned by then for some trumped up "crimes committed by Bush" like the Obama regime are trying to affect.
Posted by: J.T. Wenting at February 15, 2009 03:09 AM (hrLyN)
23
Dude, When describing a conservative it's illogical to use the terms conservative liberal and liberal conservative. The correct terms are, right of center and left of center.
You are attempting to shift the conservative line more to the left. For example; Rush is conservative and there are some to his right and some to his left. Now for liberals, Lieberman is liberal with some to his left and right. Where is Obama's position? Well he is rated the most liberal Senator in Washington, therefore he is to the left of Lieberman. Previously you described Rush as " rabid right wing". Using your depiction the correct description for Obama then is "radical leftist" or "radical liberal".
You stated: "You just don't like it that a lot of folks are finished with letting other people tell them what they MUST support if they're going to be a Republican or a Democrat". Dude, no one ever has.
You said, "You can be sure that the leadership of the RNC understands this now". Who knows what they think.
Posted by: Rick at February 15, 2009 08:27 AM (FWmwx)
24
Rick,
Using your system of political taxonomy, after reading my positions on several issues in the above posts, how would you classify my politics? Am I a left of center conservative or a right of center liberal? I'm both. It's all semantics.
I read commentaries all the time where writers are saying that in order to be a REAL conservative you have to believe this or that. I hear it on this and other forums, as well as from pundits who do it for a living.
As for the thoughts of the RNC leadership, we can speculate and make judgments on their ability to grasp that the far right wing of the republican party no longer has the influence that it once enjoyed in American politics. Neither does the far left wing of the democrat party. Most Americans are somewhere in the "center".
Perhaps we need a new phrase to add to the stew pot. How 'bout we have conservatives, liberals and centrists?
The democrats didn't win this election by appealing only to the far left of their party. That would have been impossible. My hope is that the republicans will never again control the legislative and executive branches of the federal government by appealing primarily to the far right wing of their party. And that's not to say that I won't vote for a Republican presidential or senate candidate in the future.
Posted by: Dude at February 15, 2009 10:27 AM (byA+E)
25
Dude, the far right wing of the Republican Party would be the likes of General Walker and the John Birch Society. Gingrich, Reagan etc were the conservative center of the Party. The far right wing of the Republican Party has not controlled any branch of government in my lifetime, which by the way is rather long.
The conservative center and/or right, did not lose this past election as the head of the losing ticket was a left of center conservative, or moderate, similiar to the Rockefeller wing.
Posted by: Rick at February 15, 2009 11:57 AM (FWmwx)
26
Well the sad news is that Obama is really neglecting the production of domestic energy. Windmills and solar panels are wonderful, but just a small drop in the bucket of what this country needs.
As gas prices inch up again, I'm afraid that a lot of Obama's stimulus bucks will flow straight into OPEC as oil goes back up over $4-5 in the years ahead.
Posted by: Right on Demand at February 15, 2009 02:51 PM (16AKq)
27
Right wingers should give up on New England. Others above have stressed this point up above but it needs emphasizing again. I lived in Portland, Maine for years and it's as liberal as Boston and becoming more so with each year.
With Lindsay and DeMint and other southerners at the head of the declining Republican party, there's little sympathy among average people in New England for the Republican line.
Posted by: Reggie at February 15, 2009 07:48 PM (4lSz3)
28
Rick,
Thanks for your explanation of what you consider to be the center of the republican party. I suppose from many republicans' point of view that you are correct.
I also agree that McCain isn't a far right winger. For a while I considered voting for him. However, when he chose Palin as his running mate that was the clincher for me. That was a very bad decision on his part and may very well have cost him the election. I think that she's a great campaigner but she doesn't have the "right stuff" to win a national election. She certainly energized the "base" but she hurt the ticket in the long run.
I hear a lot of republicans saying that the party needs to go back to the basics of their "conservative" principles in order to win more congressional and senate seats. Do you believe that to be true? I don't. I think if the republican party goes for that approach they'll see results in 2012 similar to the results of 1936 when, after 4 years of FDR, the ranks of the republican party fell from 36 to 16 in the Senate and from 117 to 88 in the House.
For the republicans to ever regain power on the national level they are going to have to be appealing to far more people than the base that they've depended on in the past. The train wreck that we now have as a result of 8 years of Bush/Cheney politics has changed that model for years to come.
Posted by: Dude at February 15, 2009 11:02 PM (byA+E)
29
Dude, yes I feel they must go back to conservativism to win. Over 50% of the population is right of center by all surveys I have seen. Conservatism is what wins for Republicans not Democrat lite. What Republicans have lacked since Reagan are communication skills.
The prime movers of this credit crises mess we are in now was caused by Liberalism's pet projects, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Franklin Raines, Democrat and Obama advisor when CEO of Fannie Mae began a program in 1999 to issue bank loans to individuals with low to moderate income and to ease credit requirements on loans that Fannie purchased from banks. The MSM is not reporting this as it should, but like former President Reagan said "facts are stubborn things".
Posted by: Rick at February 16, 2009 07:53 AM (FWmwx)
30
Dude, yes I feel the Republicans must return to conservatism to win not remain Democrat lite. Most all national surveys seen have the population over 50% conservative. Republicans need to explain conservatism in a cogent manner. Proof of that is talk radio, as that is why liberal talk radio fails and conservative talk wins. Now liberals want to force you to listen to there side by implementing the so called "fairness doctrine". WOW, you should be opposed to that!
Regarding the credit crises mess we are in. The prime movers were two pet projects of the Democrats. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Franklin Raines, Democrat and Obama advisor, when CEO of Fannie Mae began a program in 1999 to issue bank loans to individuals with low to moderate income, and to ease credit requirements on loans that Fannie purchased from banks. This is not being reported by MSM, but as a former President said "facts are stubborn things"
Posted by: Rick at February 16, 2009 08:08 AM (FWmwx)
31
Rick, the problem with Republicans returning to their core conservative principles is this: they keep moving the goalposts! Frankly speaking, i don't even know what being conservative is anymore.
Supposedly, this is a center-right country, although i'm not sure what that means either. Fact is, Americans are strongly addicted to big government without even knowing it. Big government in most peoples mind seems to constitute the programs that "everyone ELSE gets," and not the ones that YOU happen to benefit from.
I've seen it time and time again here in so called "conservative" Arizona. People raising hell about government interference in this or that, but God forbid they don't get federal funding for their favorite pork projects.
In any case, after 8 years of Bush, and what..12 years of Republican majorities(?), the GOP has almost no standing when it comes to the claim of preferring less government IMO.
Posted by: Mr Barkley at February 16, 2009 01:15 PM (TaLKz)
32
Rick,
You seem to be an intelligent and articulate man who can engage in respectful and civil political discussions. I appreciate that.
I disagree with your assessment that the republican party should return to its prior brand of conservatism in order to regain power. I hope they do go that route because I believe they'll have little chance of success with that agenda.
While it may be true that 50% or more of the voting public considers themselves to be somewhat conservative, the old brand just doesn't fit anymore. The RNC understands this. They don't like it but they understand it.
Fannie and Freddie certainly have their share of blame to bear in this current financial mess. However, there's plenty of blame to go around. The Right Wing Media doesn't want to acknowledge this because it conflicts with their ideology.
Many of these "toxic assets" (what a deceptive term!) are the results of subprime loans made to middle and upper middle income people who simply bought more house than they could afford. We're talking couples with incomes of 80-120 grand a year, not exactly poor minorities and poor white trash. The bankers and mortgage brokers loved it! It seemed as if it would never end. Of course, the bubble eventually burst, as it always does when you're dealing in fantasy. There are thousands of million dollar homes and condos that have been foreclosed in south Florida alone. We can't blame that on Fannie and Freddie.
So, what's the right thing to do for the American economy and people, now? Honestly, I don't know. I don't think anyone else knows either. It's all speculation, computer models, etc.
I do know this. If we're going to socialize the debt of the private sector we should also socialize some of their profit.
The problem is under-regulated free market capitalism. I'm a capitalist. But I understand the need for common sense regulations and oversight. Without it, we'd all be living in a rat's nest with the exception of a very few super wealthy people. In fact, we're on the verge of being there right now.
I wonder what would happen if the government did absolutely nothing about our current economic crisis: no TARP, no stimulus package, not anything. What do you think would be the consequences of that?
I am opposed to the fairness doctrine. Most liberals aren't going to spend 3-6 hours per day listening to left wing propaganda. The right wing talk shows enjoy the success that they do because there's an entertainment market for the product that they deliver. Granted, many of the listeners often confuse the entertainment factor with "news and facts". In reality, most of those conservative talk shows are to American Political Discourse what Championship Wrestling is to Professional Sports. Personally, I believe that pundits like Rush and Coulter don't even believe themselves half of the venom that the spew on the airwaves and in print. They have recognized a market and capitalized on it. Fine with me. That's the American way!
Some of my more liberal friends don't understand why I'm opposed the to FD. When I ask them if they would spend 3 hours of their days listening to a liberal talk show they all say, "No, I don't have time because I'm too busy with my work."
From one old timer to another............
Respectfully,
Dude
Posted by: Dude at February 16, 2009 01:26 PM (byA+E)
33
From what I am understanding is that it's OK to go way into debt if we want to kill foreigners but it's not OK to go into debt to help fellow Americans? Confusing. Very confusing.
Posted by: Ed at February 16, 2009 01:34 PM (BUJoA)
34
"White trash", huh? Nice. Fifty bucks says the 0bama-drone who posted this filth is the type that screams RAY-CISM whenever you criticize the Messiah. No wonder the Neo-Nazi types were so eager to get The One elected - he and his worshippers are doing a wonderful job of setting race relations half a century back.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at February 16, 2009 02:07 PM (CDO06)
35
Dude, I think a political party should run on its ideology and not attempt to fool people by running candidates that fit the views of a given area. If they cannot sell their ideology then fold the tent. If feel the RNC should not emulate the DNC in this way.
Yes you can blame Fannie & Freddie. Many people with high incomes have poor credit scores. Franklin Raines CEO of Fannie eased the credit requirments resulting in a housing boom and bubble that has now been pierced. The Fed also had a part due to keeping interest rates low too long.
Posted by: Rick at February 16, 2009 02:27 PM (FWmwx)
36
Dude, I forgot to ask you what "Right Wing News Media" you're referring to? I thought it was generally acknowledged by now that most all the major news outlets are liberal.
Posted by: Rick at February 16, 2009 03:09 PM (FWmwx)
37
As for one of the most "incompetent administrations in history", Obama seems to have an early lead in garnering the title, espeacially when their follow on is ...
The United States has abandoned its policy of sanctioning companies that aid Iran’s nuclear and missile program, they said.
The officials said the new Obama administration of has decided to end sanctions against Iranian government agencies or companies that aid Teheran’s missile and nuclear program. The officials said Israel has been informed of the new U.S. policy.
“We were told that sanctions do not help the new U.S. policy of dialogue with Iran,” an official said.
Posted by: Neo at February 16, 2009 03:28 PM (Yozw9)
38
Nine,
Your brilliant and well thought out comments always remind me of a line in an old Eddie Vinson song: "Her mind is on vacation and her mouth is working overtime". And just so you'll know, white trash is a moniker that many of us Southerners proudly wear. There are, of course, several kinds of white trash. But, that's a whole separate topic for another time. In the meantime, you should crawl back under your rock.
Rick,
It is generally acknowledged by conservatives that the MSM is liberal. But, it ain't so. Do the research to see who owns the MSM. I wish that we truly had a liberal MSM, meaning a media that would truthfully inform the American people about our system of government.
Granted, there are a few liberals who report for the MSM as there are also some conservatives.
I've never read nor heard even one MSM report, not even Fox which is openly Conservative and slanted toward the republican party, that explains to the American public how our government uses phony accounting methods to calculate our deficits. This was mentioned by another person previously in this thread.
Not once have I ever heard a MSM report to the public the truth about the Federal Reserve Banking System. Most people, in their blissful ignorance, actually think that it's a part of the Federal Government. In fact, the Fed is the piggy bank, a private corporation devised by the financial elite in this country in the early 1900s and established by Congress, that prints the phony money out of thin air that it then loans to the government and of course, charges interest on this phony money. Both parties and the financial sector love this system.
If we truly had a liberal media in this country it would be informing the people of the REAL corruption that lies at the root of our present system of government and the problems. That ain't likely to happen. Unfortunately, they are too busy pitting us against each other as a diversionary technique to maintain the status quo. My hope is that Obama will prove to be a notable exception to this rule. Time will tell.
Neo, I'm a bit skeptical of the source of your quote in regards to:
"The officials said the new Obama administration of has decided to end sanctions against Iranian government agencies or companies that aid Teheran’s missile and nuclear program."
Posted by: Dude at February 16, 2009 04:45 PM (byA+E)
39
Liberal talk shows don't do very well for one major reason: Liberals don't care much for the "preaching to the choir" programming for 3 to 4 hours. I'm fairly liberal, but i know why i'm a liberal and after spending nearly 7 years in the military, and 13 years of running a business, i know how i became one. I don't need any confirmation from Bill Press, or anybody else. I'd much rather test my beliefs by listening to people producing meaningful counterpoints.
Not to say that all liberal programming is bad because it isn't. Actually, Press, Schultz, Rhodes, Hartmann (the best talk show host PERIOD, liberal or otherwise), and Colmes have very good shows. All are successful too.
I hate the Fairness Doctrine because i don't want government controlling content. However, i've heard claims that the playing field isn't fair since so many media companies have been allowed to merge by the FCC. Don't know how true that is, but in any case, i'd rather not get government involved. I say let the conservatives have radio...after all, it hasn't helped them in the last two elections, has it?
Posted by: Mr. Barkley at February 16, 2009 04:53 PM (TaLKz)
40
Dude, This MSM issue you and I are commenting about isn't even close. There is no sense discussing it further. What your most recent post illustrates to me is a lack of following the news, in depth, and with an open mind. This issue has been put to bed, even by the media, PERIOD. I'm suprised anyone would have your point of view. Suggest you start studing this issue by first reading the book "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, a liberal, and former employee of CBS and friend of Dan Rather.
Posted by: Rick at February 16, 2009 05:12 PM (FWmwx)
41
Mr Barkley, Well said. Most of us who are even moderately liberal aren't going to spend enough time listening to the "preaching to the choir" to support the advertising dollars required to fund the various "conservative" talk shows. We've got better things to do.
On the few occasions when I have tuned into some of those right wing talk shows I've noticed that it's interesting to note the type of products that are being advertised on these shows, when they aren't pushing yet another book! The advertisers certainly have identified their market!
I, too, am opposed to the fairness doctrine for the very same reasons that you stated. Let folks listen to what they wish and keep the government out of it.
Rick, You're right, no sense discussing the MSM media issue any further. I can assure you that I do follow the news, in depth, and read from many different types of media. We simply have a different perspective. In fact, it goes back to our earlier discussion of the meaning of liberal and conservative. You have your worldview and I have mine. They're different.
Posted by: Dude at February 16, 2009 06:16 PM (byA+E)
42
Rick, don't you watch TV? From the sunday talk show lineup alone, I would swear republicans recently won a landslide election! Why would a supposedly liberal media give so much airtime to the opposition party after a crushing defeat? Dick Cheney is on record saying he loved going on Meet the Press b/c he was never challenged. David Gregory seems to have the same habit as Russsert of stating RNC talking points as fact. "liberal media" is your security blanket that helps you and other far right wingers avoid confronting the fact that your policies failed. You want an idea of what liberal media is, check out olbermann/maddow, but try convincing anyone that they held all the magic media power and dooooommed McCain.
Posted by: somegayname at February 16, 2009 07:59 PM (1X5Dx)
43
Snowe and Collins, the RINO's from Maine sold out for 400 million to the state's exhausted Medicare fund. Our state, being a liberal stronghold, has mismanaged Medicare for years and is near bankrupt. Barrack, Pelosi, & Reid got a two-fer for their "stimulus" bill from our RINO's. Our solution is to vote for Democrats next time around so that we can get rid of the RINO's and spend the time to find real conservatives to run on the next election cycle.
Posted by: Arturus Canus at February 16, 2009 08:33 PM (eKke9)
44
Dude,
In response to your question
"I wonder what would happen if the government did absolutely nothing about our current economic crisis: no TARP, no stimulus package, not anything. What do you think would be the consequences of that?"
Simple, A few banks would have declared bankruptcy and gone to BR court. The shareholders would have had their assets reduced (or eliminated), the depositors would have been reimbursed up to the FDIC/FSLIC limits and, maybe, a few CEOs would have gone to jail.
Problem solved.
As it is now, The Democrats have twisted the system to reward failure (gov't hand outs and grants) and punish success (higher taxes on those who do well).
With the new Democrat system, what do you think we'll get more of? Rewarded Failures or Punished success?
Your a moron, Go buy a clue.
Posted by: Angry Conservative at February 17, 2009 04:58 AM (jSsV8)
45
Angry Conservative,
When you call someone else a moron, you should at least spell correctly.
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You're-and-Your
Posted by: Will at February 17, 2009 09:23 AM (tZjf+)
46
Next time I'll be more diligent at FIVE O'CLOCK in the f&%#@ing morning.
Posted by: Angry conservative at February 17, 2009 10:07 AM (jSsV8)
47
Angry Conservative,
Thank you for your enlightening and informative post. With your grasp of complex financial matters I'm surprised that the Bush administration didn't call on you as an adviser. Had he done so and followed your advice this whole TARP thing would be a moot point. Even though I'm a moron I do seem to remember that TARP passed under his leadership.
I'm not sure what we'll get now that the Democrats are in charge. I do know what we got after 8 years of the past administration. Granted, Clinton deserves some of the blame for this mess with his relaxing of banking regulations. Really, it's way too complicated for me to go into all of it right now. Besides, you aren't going to care what a moron has to say, anyway.
My hope is that Obama, with the help of Congress, will now take the necessary steps to put our nation back on track. I don't know what those steps should be. Really, I don't think anyone knows. It's all a craps shoot.
What you should keep in mind is that this isn't a Pubs versus Dems issue. As I've said before, that's just a smokescreen to divert our attention from the root causes of this mess.
The ONE thing that gives me hope is that Obama wasn't a part of the Beltway Establishment before coming to the presidency. He and his team are brilliant stratigists, as evidenced by their 50 state campaign plan. I hope that he will take bold and decisive steps, as did FDR.
One more thing, have you ever looked into the amount of money that's actually in the FDIC to cover the insured deposits? Check that out. You'll be in for quite the surprise, I'm sure. You might also wish to look into the number of folks who did not get fully reimbursed for their federally insured deposits when the S&L industry went belly up.
Thanks again for your thoughtful and informative response. You're a really sharp person!
Dude,
Posted by: Dude at February 18, 2009 09:29 AM (byA+E)
48
Dude, Here is what you said, with my comments included as a rebuttal.
Granted, Clinton deserves some of the blame for this mess with his relaxing of banking regulations. (Yes, Pres. Carter, Senator Frank, Senator Dodd and people who borrowed more than they can afford get the remainder. You overlook the fact the the Republicans tried to stop the wrecking freight train.)
Really, it's way too complicated for me to go into all of it right now. (Maybe for you. It's pretty damn simple for anyone with an ounce of common sense. Business go bankrupt everyday. Savings and Loans went under in the 1980's? Why didn't the world stop turning then? I gather you are not old enough to remember that or have lived though it. I did.)
My hope is that Obama, with the help of Congress, will now take the necessary steps to put our nation back on track.
(Wrong, Obama is going to reward campaign contributors. That is why the bail out bill was NEVER posted on the internet for all the taxpayers to read - as Nancy Pelosi Promised. Obama, Pelosi and Reid do not want anyone to see where all this cash is being spent.)
The ONE thing that gives me hope is that Obama wasn't a part of the Beltway Establishment before coming to the presidency. (the word your looking for here is CLUELESS. He had never, ever worked for a living. He has been in school, a community organizer and a senator. He has no idea how to run a government.)
He and his team are brilliant stratigists, as evidenced by their 50 state campaign plan.
(Really? Brilliant? Then why can't they figure out their own taxes? If I paid my taxes the way his administration has, I'd be in jail for 100yrs.)
One more thing, have you ever looked into the amount of money that's actually in the FDIC to cover the insured deposits? Check that out.
(So, We can't afford to bail out depositors who have cash in failing banks but we can payout 700 Billion on Obama's word?. Hmmmm sounds fishy to me. Bear in mind, FDIC and FSLIC only cover CASH on deposit up to the 250K limit. Security that you hold in a 401k and IRA are still yours even if the institution that you purchased then through is gone. Perhaps you should do some research. As an investor, I know where my money is, and what would happen if the bank I have it in goes under.)
I stand by my original argument because I saw it work in the 1980s. There was pain but not the runaway inflation that we are about to see. By the way, have you checked the price of gold lately? Look at the rice in price since Nov-2007. that is when the TARP was passed and gov't flood gates opened up. I won't defend Bush for signing the bill authorizing TARP. However, Congress (As the Legislative Branch) writes the laws, the President (as Executive Branch) enforces the laws. Bush is complicit but not the ONLY person that deserves Blame for TARP.
Since you seem to be an Obama supporter, answer one question.
Since Obama spent 9 months on the campaign trail attacking Bush for overspending, how do you justify his 90 degree turn and support for this 700 Billion Pork bill?
Once you get out of school and start working for a living, you'll get an education.
Posted by: Angry Conservative at February 18, 2009 04:55 PM (jSsV8)
49
Angry Conservative,
I'll respond to your post in more detail later today or this evening. Believe it or not, I'm already a working person...........and have been for decades. Even so, my education is continuing. I hope that I keep learning as I continue on this journey of life, which by the way has been a nearly 60 year trip, thus far.
One more thing for right now: Why do you always seem to find it necessary to insult someone with whom you disagree on a topic? Why don't we just stick to the issues and topics and be civil as we debate our disagreements?
Regards,
Dude
Posted by: Dude at February 19, 2009 09:20 AM (byA+E)
50
I'll await your answers but don't piss down my leg and then tell me it's raining. My BS meter is pretty sensitive.
Your posts read like most of the arguments made by college students and left wing nut-jobs. I'm giving you credit by assuming your a college student and not a left winger. You'll get my respect when you earn it. You have no right to it until then. I expect no less from anyone here.
Posted by: Angry Conservative at February 19, 2009 03:44 PM (jSsV8)
51
Angry Conservative,
Earning your respect is the least of my concerns. You don't even respect yourself enough to refrain from posting vulgar and profane comments on a public forum. I don't care what you think about me.
Furthermore, you are wrong in your assumptions. I graduated from college in the early 70s. In your way of thinking, I guess you could call me a left wing nut-job. In my way of thinking I consider myself to be an independent thinker. I don't buy into the party line of either of the major parties. I realize and understand that corruption exists in both parties.
In your world it seems to be all about Republicans versus Democrats. In my world it's more about trying to understand and base my votes on who's going to try to do the best job for ALL Americans. Yes, I voted for Obama and was proud to do so. I also voted for the incumbent Republican US Senator who represents my state.
When I said that he and his team are brilliant strategists I was, of course, referring to the campaign team. You know, the team and the strategy that convinced enough voters to give him 52.9% of the popular vote and an electoral college landslide victory, garnering more than double the electoral votes of Senator McCain.
I was not referring to the foolish choices of nominating people to cabinet positions who had outstanding tax issues. That was a big mistake. You'll get no argument from me on that point.
I'm not suggesting that we can afford the TARP bailout. In reality, we can't afford to bail out either the banks or the FDIC insured deposits, should that become necessary. Most of that FDIC money to cover insured deposits is a myth.
The Deposit Insurance Fund currently has appx. 45 billion dollars to cover insured deposits of roughly 4.5 TRILLION dollars. That's 1% (ONE%) of the insured deposits. In the unlikely scenario of ALL of the US banks failing at the same time, well, what can I tell you? Do the math. If even 25% of the banks holding 25% of the insured deposits were to fail, not an unlikely event, there's still only a fraction of the funds available to cover those supposedly insured deposits. THAT is a big problem. Both of our political parties share equal blame in this mess.
NYU Economics Professor Nouriel Roubini, who has accurately predicted much of what has come to pass in the last several months, predicts that Congress will have to bail out the DIF. In July 2008 FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair acknowledged that the FUND is seriously under funded.
So, don't count on your FDIC insured deposits actually being insured nor can you assume that you'll get all of your money should your bank or banks fail. Furthermore, there's nothing in the law that says WHEN your insured deposits would be paid to you in the event of a bank failure. In fact, the FDIC website states that "FDIC deposit insurance is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government." That's rather ambiguous in my opinion, and more importantly, in the opinion of legal experts and economists!
By the way, the S&L bailout of the 1980s cost the taxpayers more than 150 billion dollars. The former FSLIC was underfunded, too.
In other words, it's all a dog and pony show of gigantic proportions. I suggest that you or anyone else interested in learning about the REAL problem that we face, and the root cause of our problem, go to youtube and search The Creature from Jekyll Island. Listen to the recording that shows a time of 1 hour 11 minutes 12 seconds. I'd post the link here but I'm not sure if that's allowed under the terms of service of this forum. This is NOT a partisan issue. It is enlightening and informative and you can certainly be assured that neither of our major political parties nor ANY of the MSM (right leaning or left left leaning) will discuss this or even want the public to know the history of the Federal Reserve Banking System. If you do take time to listen to this recording keep in mind that it was recorded in 1994. It's as if it were recorded today.
I cannot defend and do not defend the 700 billion pork bill. It's far from perfect. I have a lot of mixed feelings and concerns about it.
Pork Bill or no Pork Bill, we ain't seen anything yet. My main point is that our government has for decades been run and manipulated by a hand full of the Super Wealthy people of the world. Our free market capitalist system is all based on a myth and we the people are pitted one against the other by these people under the guise of Republican versus Democrats, liberals versus conservatives, left wing versus right wing.
My HOPE, and I'll freely admit that it's only a HOPE, is that our current President will finally stand up to the corruption that we have endured for nearly a century now.
I'm still getting my education. Are you?
Dude
Posted by: Dude at February 19, 2009 09:27 PM (byA+E)
52
My BullShit meter went off concerning your comments about the FDIC. Bankruptcy means a firms assets do not cover the existing liabilities. It does not mean the bank has zero Assets. During bankruptcy, creditors get paid a PORTION of their liabilities. Depositors are first in line and the FDIC/FSLIC make up the difference. Stockholders and Bond holders are further down the line and usually lose out. But, since they are investors, they SHOULD understand the risk when investing in a financial institution.
Your HOPE in Obama is a misplaced. He is a child of the most corrupt political machine in the country. Blagojevich is a prime example of the Chicago political machine.
If you graduated college in the early 70s then you should be about 10yrs from retirement. Are you comfortable that you will get back your Social Security payments? Keep in mind that we are going to have 10% - 20% (at least) inflation for the coming presidential term. If you think I'm full of shit, look at the price of Gold. Check the spot price since November of 2008. About the time the TARP was signed.
Your going to get an "Obama" education alright. He is going to turn you around, pull down your pants, bend you over and give your a SERIOUS education.
Why do you think the IRS is pressuring the Swiss banks to give up clients names? Simple, anyone with half a brain is hiding what few assets they have left. You left wingers think Utopia is coming. I KNOW that Cuba style government is coming. We'll get Hyper inflation, gov't control of industry and Big brother control of the media, just like Cuba, Venezuela and a host of other banana republics.
Your Quote -> "Our free market capitalist system is all based on a myth and we the people are pitted one against the other by these people under the guise of Republican versus Democrats, liberals versus conservatives, left wing versus right wing."
I'm done wasting my time on you. I thought you might be reasonably intelligent but I was mistaken. Go back to your little "Hope" plaque and "Change" sticker. Lay down your prayer rug and kneel before the Messiah if that makes you feel worthy.
Posted by: AC at February 20, 2009 06:19 AM (jSsV8)
53
Angry Conservative,
As I thought, reasoning with you is a waste of time. You take everything I've said out of context, ignore reality, and are so full of yourself that you can't think in a logical manner. It's no wonder that you call yourself Angry Conservative. Your fantasy is collapsing around you, indeed it has already collapsed, and you don't even know it, or whom to blame.
I have absolutely no delusions that Utopia is coming. In fact, I believe just the opposite is in our near future. Thankfully, I and my neighbors here in the boonies have survival skills. We still know how to grow and preserve food and still understand the concept of "helping our neighbor".
I believe in the Messiah, that's for sure. But it ain't the human being to whom you refer. My Messiah is Jesus Christ.
Let's call it a draw. You live in your bubble and I'll live in mine. That's the good old American Way! Time will tell which one of us is right in our analysis.
Have a nice day,
Dude
Posted by: Dude at February 21, 2009 11:19 AM (byA+E)
54
I forgot to tell you; The FSLIC, which you have mentioned several times in your posts, was disbanded in 1989. If you're going to discuss current political and economic issues you'll be better prepared if you'll actually use some up to date information as you do your "research". 1989 was 20 years ago!
Believe it or not, I do know the difference between a depositor and an investor. My post concerning the FDIC, which you dismiss out of hand without offering any evidence to the contrary, was addressing insured deposits only.
I'll give you credit for one thing. You're the King of the Straw Man Argument!
Gold prices? Within the past 12 months gold peaked at $1011.25 on March 17, 2008. Yesterday, February 20, 2009 the spot price was $989.00. Yes, gold prices have enjoyed a steady increase over the past few months. Considering the current mess that we're in, with or without TARP, seems logical to me that it would be increasing and will continue to do so for quite some time. However, I ain't an expert on gold prices.
As you look deeply into your crystal ball that enables you to see into the future and KNOW what's going to happen, it's past time for you to break out the glass cleaner and give that thing a good cleaning.
Enough of dealing with this garbage of yours for now. I hope that you do realize that I'm in no way trying to convince you of anything nor have any hope of you becoming less "angry". I wish you well, though. More importantly, perhaps there are people who visit this forum but don't participate in the discussions who will read both of our posts and at least use their brains to THINK about your position and my position on issues and then come to their own conclusions based on rational thought rather than knee jerk reactions, towing the party line and making assumptions for which there are no facts to support. I support everyone's right to have their own opinion even if I don't respect their opinion. I don't respect the way that you express yours.
Now I'm done.
Dude
Posted by: Dude at February 21, 2009 03:34 PM (byA+E)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 12, 2009
Gregg Dumps Obama Over Stimulus, Census
Barack Obama's choice for Commerce Secretary, Judd Gregg, just withdrew his name from consideration citing "irresolvable conflicts" with the the $789 Billion Multi-Generational Financial Rape Act being pushed by a highly partisan Democratic Congress and supported by the President, along with Obama's naked power grab in attempting to take control of the census:
"Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy," he said. "Obviously the president requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives."
In referencing the stimulus, Gregg, known as a fiscal conservative, made clear his distaste for the package that his fellow Republicans say is filled with wasteful spending.
Only three Republican senators have supported the spending and tax-cut plan. They were the lone members of their party who pushed a compromise bill expected to cost $789 billion and be on the president's desk in a matter of days.
Gregg was also apparently objecting to the Obama administration's plans for the U.S. Census Bureau director to report to White House senior staff as well as the Commerce Department, which oversees the bureau.
Republicans charged that such a move could politicize the once-in-a-decade event.
The outcome of the census has deep political implications, since congressional districts are drawn based on population. Many federal funds are distributed on the basis of population, as well.
Barack Obama has tried to steamroll the American people by using fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) in an attempt to bully a liberal spending bill upon the American people only thinly disguised as a economic plan, and is also attempting to grab control of the Census, which critics cynically suggest Obama will use to redistrict Congressional districts favorably for the Democratic Party, a thuggish stunt that may see the Adminstration
sued as a result.
I cannot recall a President showing the level of unbridled arrogance and incompetence we've seen from this President not even one month in office. If he doesn't learn to control his ego, and learn to act as a leader and not a campaigner this current recession may one day be regarded as the high point of one of the most laughably incompetent administrations in history.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:35 PM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I can remember, which the press can't seem to do, just a few years ago when Tom DeLay and Texas tried to mess with redistricting and the Census...I believe it was.
If Bush had tried to take over the Census directly, all hell would have broken loose.
Today? I bet most Americans don't have the slightest idea this move has been made.
I really detest the American news media...
Posted by: usinkorea at February 12, 2009 05:59 PM (bkhdy)
2
Is Barack Obama a product of Affirmative Action? Upon reading his wife's thesis I recognized she was.
Posted by: Rick at February 12, 2009 06:02 PM (FWmwx)
3
Did Gregg seriously grow a pair? Political self-preservation or not, good show! Frankly I couldn't care less why he did it as long as he did it. We may be screwed by the RINO twerps (I really hope not), but going out kicking & screaming isn't the worst thing in the world.
Yay Senator Gregg!!!!!!
And really, why aren't people screaming bloody murder over the Census? What bull is this?
Newsmedia is dead and the MSM can kiss my carbon-emitting tailpipe.
Posted by: Slveryder at February 13, 2009 07:19 AM (pNRPX)
4
So…Obama will legislate from the center? Right…! We now find out that King Obama is so Liberal that a RINO Republican cannot even work with him WOW!
Are the American people getting buyer remorse yet?
http://frankilinslocke.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Franklins Locke at February 13, 2009 03:45 PM (Awurw)
5
Like many Americans, I have mixed feelings about the stimulus bill. None of us know if it's going to work or not. For those of you who are so adamantly against it, what do you propose as an alternative?
Do you really believe that the government should do nothing? Do you really think that if John McCain would have won the Presidency that the government would have done nothing?
Posted by: Dude at February 14, 2009 03:44 PM (byA+E)
6
I propose we invade Poh-Kee-Stawn, politicize the census, nominate a slew of tax cheats for office, tax small businesses to death, and run the US into the freakin' ground with a massive budget defecit, you zerobama-worshipping drone.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at February 14, 2009 03:49 PM (CDO06)
7
Nine,
Somehow, I don't think that you're going to be a good candidate for the re-education camps. I'm afraid that it'll be off to the gulag for you! Hopefully, they'll put you somewhere where it isn't terribly cold. If you can learn to be just a wee bit more subtle when expressing your contempt and hatred of our "Glorious Leader" perhaps, just maybe, they'll give you a double ration of the daily gruel. Cheers!
Posted by: Dude at February 15, 2009 11:25 PM (byA+E)
8
Why is he rambling about the Gulags? This has got to be the strangest tangent a troll has gone off on at CY.
Who says I hate anyone? I love Teleprompter Messiah & I'm glad he won. McCain was an old fool who would have groveled before the Dems at every opportunity. Dude's Affirmative Action Wunderkind represents political comedy at its best. Plus, the Messiah & his appointees have helped us recover so much in back taxes, I recon we won't even NEED a stimulus anymore.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at February 16, 2009 04:36 PM (CDO06)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
History, New Retail Spending Figures Suggest Recession May Be Over, Democrats Attempt to Ram Through Multi-Generational Financial Rape Anyway
It was never about helping the American people, folks. Never.
If Democrats had wanted a true stimulus to help the economy, they could have easily crafted a bill that both parties would have supported fully for just over $100 billion dollars. Instead, the House and Senate Conference bill is a
1,434 page bloated spending spree costing $798 billion, with even more massive spending in the wings as Democrats will attempt to spend at least that much again on more government bailouts of the financial sector.
While our
Easter bunny continues to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) in an attempt to bully the American people into accepting the solution offered by Democrats, the American people are increasing rejecting the pork-filled corruption that is this "stimulus" bill. Further, it is a bill, that like most government intervention, appears to be too little, too late to matter.
History suggests that the worst of the recession
may be over, and
a rise in retail spending seems to support that possibility. Corporations that have been hard hit are still reporting a curious increase in sales to new customers, and the CBO itself said that
without any intervention at all, the economy
would correct itself in 2009.
So what does the Democratic Party, firmly in control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, attempt to do? They attempt to rob you blind, paying off left-wing special interest groups with your tax dollars.
No wonder Obama supporters are spending their own money to
campaign against this boondoggle.
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are
expanding welfare, folks, with with a very clear intention of putting you on it. People dependent on government, embrace government, and Democrats hope if they make enough of you dependent upon them, they'll be in power for decades to come.
Perhaps you'll let them win, and fundamentally change this country into a socialist state, a greater Sweden or France. These are not horrible countries, but they are not the United States.
Americans love their freedom and their independence, and the risk and opportunity that independence brings.
So I have a simple question for you: are you looking to accept this nightmare and become a socialist, or are you still enthralled with the core beliefs of our founding fathers,
and not so easily led to slaughter?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:52 AM
| Comments (40)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
There are two reasons for the bill. The first is to fund ACORN and its ilk in their efforts to find imaginary Democratic voters. The second is to transfer large amounts to labor unions that will in turn contribute vast sums to the Democratic Party and its members. It is, in other words, public financing exclusively for Democrats.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at February 12, 2009 01:31 PM (Yk65S)
2
Economist Peter Schiff sums up, accurately I think, how Obama and Pelosi have set us on the road to ruin as a nation--certainly as a superpower. The idiots are now in charge, and we're just along for the ride.
Obama likes to use the refrain that he "inherited" this economic crisis. His solution is to worsen it by doubling--perhaps tripling--the debt. The definition of insanity.
Posted by: Just Askin' at February 12, 2009 02:16 PM (esv00)
3
Please note: I've had to intentionally misspell the word "socielism" in this post because the spam filter would not let me post the word in its correct spelling.
Your fear of the United States becoming a socielist state is unfounded. We are and have been experiencing degrees of socielism in our society for decades. What we actually have is a blend of a free market capitalism system with some socielism thrown in for seasoning. This is nothing new in America. What we can expect to see in the future is a bit more seasoning.
First of all, how do YOU define socielism? That's a fair question since you and many others on this forum use the word often as if it's something to be feared and avoided at all costs. So, what IS socielism? What does it mean to you when you hear the word? Before we can discuss a thing in an intelligent manner we first need to define that thing.
Next, we should define capitalism and the free market. What do those terms mean to us? I say this because many so called "conservative" commentators seem to pit socielism against free market capitalism as if there were no middle ground at all.
In fact, both systems have many and diverse forms. Furthermore, both systems in their extreme and purest forms are not systems under which I would want to live, nor do I think that very many other Americans would like to live under either of those systems in their purest forms.
To me, this isn't a Republican versus Democrat issue. It's not about my team against your team. If you honestly examine the history of the shades of what we call socielism in America, both of the major political parties have supported the concept in one way or another.
Again, please define what you mean when you use the word socielism as it applies to America. This could be an interesting discussion.
Kind Regards,
Dude
Posted by: Dude at February 12, 2009 06:25 PM (byA+E)
4
Economist, from what I've read, are saying 2009 is going to be an economic wash with the possible starts of a recovery at the tail end. January markets have predicted the year in 7 of the last 10 years, and markets were down this year. This information is from my daily reading of the Wall Street Journal.
Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, was on Morningstar in a video interview. He is no lefty. A true capitalist and unwavering optimist. In his 51 years of investing he's never seen anything like we are currently experiencing. He then went on to say the current climate has only been bested by the Great Depression. I'll trust his word. He knows investing and he knows business.
The point is that things ARE in fact bad. Obama isn't making it up. Whether his stimulus package is going to help is a fair debate. The Republican alternative wasn't cheap either. It was a 400 billion dollar bill. There are no sunny options right now, but to claim that the severity of the situation isn't significant is an gross inaccuracy.
You are going to need a lot more than a January retail sales report to be convincing.
Posted by: SPW at February 12, 2009 11:33 PM (dL6Y8)
5
On top of the retail sales, the CEOs of the major banks yesterday on Capitol Hill showed puzzlement in regard to TARP II. Since none of them would be seeking additional funds from TARP II (unless the funds were cheap), they had no idea just what Treasury would be doing with the money.
Posted by: Neow at February 13, 2009 12:21 AM (Yozw9)
6
On top of the retail sales, the CEOs of the major banks yesterday on Capitol Hill showed puzzlement in regard to TARP II. Since none of them would be seeking additional funds from TARP II (unless the funds were cheap), they had no idea just what Treasury would be doing with the money.
Posted by: Neo at February 13, 2009 12:22 AM (Yozw9)
7
You mean, a few weeks into Barack Obama's presidency, he stopped the recession?????
Clearly, those of us on the right must do something to mess up the economy again. A third war maybe?
I vote for an invasion of Mexico. What say you?
Posted by: Herb at February 14, 2009 07:12 AM (zdpq+)
8
Thank goodness we are finally starting to feel the effects of the Hoover Recovery.
Posted by: calling all toasters at February 14, 2009 10:43 AM (OXUt5)
9
((((New Retail Spending Figures Suggest Recession May Be Over)))))'
hahahahahahahahahahahah~!
-->Retail trade sales were up 1.1 percent (±0.7%) from December 2008, but were 11.0 percent (±0.7%) below last year. Gasoline stations sales were down 35.5 percent (±1.5%) from January 2008 and motor vehicle and parts dealers sales were down 22.2 percent (±2.3%) from last year.
____>
M3
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PRELIMINARY REPORT ON MANUFACTURERS' SHIPMENTS, INVENTORIES, AND ORDERS
December 2008 --------------- Released 10:00 A.M. EST February 5, 2009
(M3-2(0
-12)
Note: All figures in text are in seasonally adjusted current dollars
For Data - (301) 763-4673
For Questions - Chris Savage or Jessica Young
(301) 763-4832
Summary
New orders for manufactured goods in December, down five consecutive months, decreased $14.8 billion or 3.9 percent to $362.4 billion, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today. This was the longest streak of consecutive monthly decreases since the series was first published on a NAICS basis in 1992 and followed a 6.5 percent November decrease. http://www.economicindicators.gov/
------
There is no bright side to the economy, all signs are that it is going to continue to tank. I see signs that major corporations are going to cut and run with the stimulus money.
We can hagle politically , but as i see it. They are all GovCorp and they are all Destroying the country of greed and self indulgence.
occasion2b
Posted by: walker at February 15, 2009 12:55 PM (BSkMn)
10
Confederate Yankee,
Thank you for this forum. It's a great place for thinking and non thinking people, both left leaning and right leaning, to gather and exchange ideas and insults. It's FUN and occasionally informative.
A gentleman named "Rick" and myself have had an interesting and civil political discourse in another thread here at your forum. Though our points of view are quite different, we don't insult each other. I especially enjoy that type of discussion.
It's also fun to read posts of, and sometimes debate issues with, some of the "intellectual giants" who visit your forum. I particularly enjoy reading the posts of one humanoid who frequently uses the term "drones" when referring to those of us whose politics are anything to the left of Attila the Hun.
Again, even though more often than not I disagree with your point of view, thank you sincerely for providing this forum.
Very Best Regards,
Dude
Posted by: Dude at February 16, 2009 06:41 PM (byA+E)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 11, 2009
Joe Biden to Attend Special Olympics
Admit it. Your lip twitched into a smile when you read that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:14 PM
| Comments (39)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The easy joke: In which events is he participating?
I leave the rest to subsequent posters.
Posted by: ECM at February 11, 2009 10:24 PM (q3V+C)
Posted by: Buffoon at February 11, 2009 11:11 PM (Lo+zb)
3
Making a comment is too much like shooting cripples.
(Did I *really* say that? Bad. Bad. To reeducation camp for you, boy.)
Posted by: Mark L at February 12, 2009 08:47 AM (bWB5j)
4
I'm sure he'll get a nice, big hug for whatever he does there.
Posted by: MikeM at February 12, 2009 09:04 AM (NN/XE)
5
And he felt right at home.
Posted by: Exurbankevin at February 12, 2009 09:12 AM (toqoX)
6
Damn! EVERYbody beat me to the obvious conclusion.
Posted by: cmblake6 at February 12, 2009 11:14 AM (mSaOp)
Posted by: megapotamus at February 12, 2009 12:29 PM (LF+qW)
8
Being a "cripple" myself, I find Joe's attendance to be repugnant. I really don't think his participation offers any sort of challenge!
Posted by: PhyCon at February 12, 2009 01:01 PM (4od5C)
9
Better there than in Washington!
Posted by: Marc Boyd at February 12, 2009 10:18 PM (Zoziv)
10
How insulting to those special athletes...they deserve better than a washed up also ran (who never achieved anything in his career except "being there", who is constitutionally handicapped, and common sense challenged. What kind of example is he going to be to them?
Posted by: Doug in Colorado at February 13, 2009 11:26 PM (pBzFe)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 10, 2009
I Get the Feeling...
...that Barack Obama won't be happy until he does to our economy what Chris Brown did to Rihanna.
As if Carter II wasn't causing enough mayhem on his own by spreading FUD about the economy, his Treasury Secretary—that genius who couldn't figure out how to pay his own taxes—just caused the stock market to tumble with a bailout plan investors found
woefully inadequate. All the while, a stumbling bumbling, helicopter-head-smacking 44 travels the country, seeking support for a "stimulus" that may cause more long term damage to the economy (and extend the recession) more than doing nothing at all.
It is getting quite farcical, the disjointed cluelessness of our shiny new POTUS. I could almost bring myself to be amused as he implodes his undeserved cult status, but the sad fact remains that he's hell-bent on ill-fitting solutions that are almost certain to wreck the hopes and dreams of the present generation, while saddling the next with undeserved debt.
Yes, many of those who will be hardest hit voted for him. Yes, many of those voted for him did so for the most superficial of reasons. Yes, they do, in some respects, deserve the change they elected.
But nobody should be forced into misery because our last President was a fiscal train-wreck that the new one seems intent on topping in economic ineptitude in his first month in office.
What a sad, sad disaster to watch unfold.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:44 PM
| Comments (57)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Barry is absolutely clueless on how to handle this stuff...all he's done throughout his political career is campaign for the next seat/office that appeals to him. He has never made a real stand on any one issue...has no desire to work with both parties to fix what is ailing this country, and has appointed imbeciles and morons to cabinet posts that are their because they have connections to him or are Clinton Administration retreads....
God help us if our enemies decide to do us in over the next four years....
Posted by: fmfnavydoc at February 10, 2009 10:19 PM (utes0)
2
It's worse than that. Not only is he clueless about how to do the job, he doesn't care about doing the job. Did you see the story over the weekend about how he's revamping the National Security Council, adding positions and concentrating security policy there? Reid and the Bitch Princess wrote the bailout bill, the Bitch Queen is controlling foreign policy, Geithner is running Treasury on his own, and little Barry the Pinhead is doing absolutely nothing except talk. He's carefully building an administration in which all the actual decision-making power is held by others, and he's just a figurehead.
Posted by: wolfwalker at February 10, 2009 11:09 PM (1eyqK)
3
Yeah, stupid Barry, he should have listened to the Republicans who want to fall back upon the proven tax cut and deregulation economics that got us to this rosy spot in the first place.
It truly is shocking that Obama has not been able to end the recession in 3 weeks, what a hack. McCain flew to DC and solved it in one week, didn't he?
All the Republicans have offered besides more tax cuts is measures to squeeze the income of UAW workers because those guys make way too much money at $40 an hour, while at the same time crying about efforts to limit CEOs walking away with multi-million bonuses because limiting pay is, wait for it, anti-capitalist.
Posted by: Jim at February 11, 2009 12:32 AM (Jow7W)
4
Making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent is what we need to do, dontcha know? They've worked so well for us up to this point...and yes, deregulation is always good. We need more creative financial flights of fancy like credit default swaps...also, we need to continue the Bush policy of taking a hands off policy towards the future Madoffs of the world. LO f'n L.
Posted by: Macgruber at February 11, 2009 12:55 AM (6I6OG)
5
I don't recall anyone suggesting the Bush tax cuts as the way out of the recession, but keep thwacking that strawman if it makes you feel good.
What will stimulate growth--and is the only thing that is actually proven to stimulate economic growth that I'm aware of offered by either party--is a cut in our sky high corporate tax rates (second highest in the world) and a reduction in the capital gains tax.
But perhaps our brilliant economists Jim and Macgruber can please explain how a stimulus package that is filled with spending that kicks in several years down the road in 2011-12 will impact a recession that the CBO and other economic experts suspect will begin to correct on its own in 2009.
Posted by: confederate Yankee at February 11, 2009 01:08 AM (iLfpd)
6
Bush a deregulator? That makes me laugh, literally laugh out loud. Because, contrary to the mythos of the Left, Bush has enacted more regulation, not less. Of course, the two geniuses that dropped by probably think Hoover was a laissez-faire capitalist along with Nixon and the Bushes. The sad fact is that truly free market Presidents are rare, because politicians hate the idea that there is anything above their own (mediocre) intellects, like say the choices made by millions of people betting their own money on the accuracy of their decisions. Personally I'd hold that the free market Presidents this century are Harding, Coolidge, Eisenhower, and Reagan.
The problem with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's that they know so much that isn't so. -Ronald Reagan
Posted by: Britt at February 11, 2009 01:17 AM (ggOIi)
7
It bears continuous repeating:
DJIA end of session on January 4th 2007, the start of the Democratically controlled 110th Congress: 12,800.18*
National unemployment rate for December 2006: 4.5%
Federal Deficit for 2006 $247 Billion
Average monthly GDP growth for 2006: 3.4%
Since December 2007, at least 3.57 million jobs have been lost.
Posted by: toby928 at February 11, 2009 10:06 AM (PD1tk)
8
So Jim and Macgruber, are you going to repent for that garbage? You aren't allowed to say things that are false.
Posted by: brando at February 11, 2009 10:46 AM (qzOby)
9
Thanks for the quick response Confed Yank. and sorry it took me so long to get back to you.
90% of the Senate Republicans voted for the Demint amendment to the Stimulus Bill, an amendment that was nothing but a slew of tax cut proposals. Every Rep talking head I've seen talking about the economy has been pushing tax cuts, and crying about spending, from the Presidential campaign right up until today. That's why I mentioned the tax cut 'strawman'.
As for the speed of job creation, of course some of the spending would not create jobs immediately, it's a market not magic. But how can you in one breath worry about the speed of job creation while in the next breath talk about corporate and capital gains rate cuts as the answer? Businesses aren't going to create jobs today based upon the expectation of marginally increased profits in the coming years. They create jobs in response to increased consumer demand, how exactly would a corporate rate cut increase consumer demand in the short term?
Posted by: Jim at February 11, 2009 01:36 PM (Jow7W)
10
Jim and Mac speak as one...
DEregulation never happened. Actually the regulations, always in some flux, came to be applied in such a way that they DEMANDED that those who have no power or perhaps intent to repay loans be made loans. Gee.
Whatever, what these creepy anti-american pukes believe or disbelieve is moot. Liberalism as we know it today is nothing but a luxurious fiction now abrading rapidly against the guardrail of reality. Barry's BS will pass. It will make things catastrophically worse and even the geniuses who voted for Obama will have to see simple sense.
As for Bush's culpability, it is real and great. The policies we knew as Compassionate Conservatism, basically a more competent Liberalism, was the lesser of two evils but we must acknowledge that the "kooks" who denounced Bush as a hopeless squish and RINO were right. But those policies were consensus and, as we see now, would have been geometrically worse under Democrats. I find a strange, late-developing respect for Bill Clinton. He actually saddled these idiots for a while and held off the lunacy for a bit. Jeepers.
Posted by: megapotamus at February 11, 2009 01:44 PM (LF+qW)
11
Obama is going to spend us right into something must worse than the "Great Depression." Between the Congress and Obama, they are going to bankrupt the nation before future generations get the bill.
Posted by: Franklins Locke at February 11, 2009 04:24 PM (Awurw)
12
Jim, what got us into this mess in the first place were two government sponsored entities, Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae. Franklin Raines, Democrat, Obama advisor and former CEO of Fannie Mae began a program in 1999 to issue bank loans to individuals with low to moderate income and to ease credit requirements on loans that Fannie purchased from banks.
Posted by: Rick at February 11, 2009 04:58 PM (FWmwx)
13
It was interesting when a few of the major bank CEOs today (just a couple hours ago) showed amazement and chagrin at just what Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would be doing with the TARP II monies given that they expected to pay off the TARP I money on time or early and had no need for additional TARP loans (unless they looked cheap).
Is the economy really getting worse or is the Obama administration just blowing it up to look better when the economy eventually comes around ?
Posted by: Neow at February 11, 2009 05:28 PM (Yozw9)
14
"They create jobs in response to increased consumer demand"
Actually, no, they create jobs in anticipation of increased consumer demand. Successful businesses don't wait to start producing a product until after they see the demand; they have to have the product ready when the demand shows itself.
Laying out a stable, predictable and favorable business environment now will create jobs now, not later, and will increase consumer confidence to spend now, rather than putting off spending out of fear of layoffs (even Keynes would agree with that).
Every existing business is the equivalent of a "shovel-ready" project, to use Obama-speak.
Posted by: notropis at February 11, 2009 06:02 PM (OsLMt)
15
I have news for you folks. Our nation is already bankrupt and has been for quite some time now. What difference does it make how much the stimulus bill eventually costs? It's all play money anyway. We've been operating on money created out of thin air, and paying interest on it mind you, for decades.
Posted by: Dude at February 11, 2009 10:26 PM (byA+E)
16
With the mortgage crisis on going, no one seems to be addressing the serious possibly of stagflation or hyperinflation and the impact that would have on ARMs. Printing all this money to cover the debt can certainly fire inflation. And if that happens, we ain't seem nothing yet when it comes to mortgage defaults. In the 1981-2 recession ARMs few and far between and with ARM interest rates at 2.48% people still have a problem meeting their mortgage payments.
Posted by: amr at February 11, 2009 11:06 PM (mxAK2)
17
"Actually, no, they create jobs in anticipation of increased consumer demand. Successful businesses don't wait to start producing a product until after they see the demand; they have to have the product ready when the demand shows itself."
Right. A Starbucks owner will hire extra workers "now" based upon the prospect of paying slightly less in taxes in coming years despite the fact that he has fewer customers in his store.
A plumbing company will hire additional plumbers today with the hope that demand will suddenly spike - no doubt due to all the bored new Starbucks employees drinking free coffee at work.
Manufactures, with inventory they cannot sell at the moment, will hire new employees to start cranking out widgets to join the old widgets on the shelf, as soon as they hear they will pay less in taxes in the coming years.
Seriously, walk me through a scenario where a business will hire people today because of the idea they will pay less in taxes next year - even when they already have more people on hand to meet the current demand for their products.
Posted by: Jim at February 11, 2009 11:21 PM (Jow7W)
18
"Successful businesses don't wait to start producing a product until after they see the demand; they have to have the product ready when the demand shows itself"
This is the dumbest thing I read here, and false in numerous ways. Some companies create the demand. For example, look at the iPod. There were plenty of MP3 players in the late 90's early 2000's, but they failed. Along came the iPod, coupled with better technology and slick marketing, and everyone had to have one. The demand for iTunes was a happy byproduct.
Plenty of companies are successful by moving into existing marketspaces. Companies such as Sanza make decent coin producing cheaper, but less sophisticated mp3 players. This revenue didn't exist before the iPod.
Companies also don't expand drastically to produce and support a given product until it has proven sales. Sure, they hire the necessary R&D staff, but this is never as many jobs as production. For example, this is why new tech is really expensive: you limit factories and assembly lines to that happy medium that will allow you to get the product reasonable availability while keeping your investment reasonable should the product fail and be canceled. Once the market is demonstrated you ramp up production and buy components in ungodly quantities.
Also, this is the second dumbest:
"what got us into this mess in the first place were two government sponsored entities, Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae" While they certainly were mishandled, I'd really like to know how Freddy and Fanny forced Wall street to leverage these mortage backed securities 40 times over and bet their own skin that housing prices would increase 15% every year?
The problem is we removed risk from these decisions. Banks could lend without fear, since they could in turn sell any mortgage to Wall street. Easy money, and banks would have been fools to turn it down. Why wall street bought any and everything I have no idea. Maybe they knew they were too big to fail?
Posted by: somegayname at February 11, 2009 11:32 PM (q0Pd2)
19
"A Starbucks owner"
Well, if your idea of economic recovery is employing Starbucks espresso-pushers, you're probably correct. On the other hand, if you're deciding when to ramp up production of the Ford F150, and you think you should wait until the demand shows itself, before you start making Fords, well, maybe you better go back to school, Jimmy. Because if people decide they want a pickup, and Ford F150s aren't available, they'll buy Dodges or Toyotas. They won't put their names on a waiting list.
Gay person: Absolutely, we rely on marketing to create (or enhance) a demand. And that supports my point about how production anticipates demand. Steve Jobs didn't wait to see what the iPod marketing campaign would produce for demand before he actually shipped iPods, did he? When people want them, they darn well better be there. And if he miscalculates on demand, there will either be shelves full of iPods, or a run on Zunes.
There will also always be the bottom feeders; people trying to sell low-quality knock-offs to fill a demand, but that means that there's an unmet demand, which usually means the suppliers didn't forecast correctly.
In general, folks that wait to see what the demand is, then try to jump after the fact and fill it, lose.
Proactive beats reactive every time. If you can't anticipate the market, you lose. If you think you can wait for consumers to demand your product before you decide to find a way to supply it, you really have no experience in the market economy, do you?
I'm going out on a limb, here, but I'm guessing neither Jimmy nor the Gay guy have ever actually hired anyone or produced anything, or, in fact, turned a profit in the free market. I have. And I currently do. And I will again in the future, once I get a good handle on where we are with tax policies, and where I think the consumers are in their spending patterns. In the meantime, my former employees are looking for work elsewhere (and having pretty good success at finding it, actually.)
"Consistency is all I ask; give us this day our daily task." -- Tom Stoppard, "Rosencranz and Guildenstern are Dead."
Posted by: notropis at February 12, 2009 02:36 AM (OsLMt)
20
Here's the problem notropis, there already are F-150s sitting on lots all over the world, you seemed to miss that part of my post, you know, goods already sitting on shelves.
Companies aren't laying off workers because they are afraid of their 2011 tax bill, they are laying off workers because they have products they can't sell. Telling Ford to build more F-150s just in case isn't economics, it's suicide.
I'd love to hear more about your free market success, especially the part where you are currently turning such great profits. With all that profit it's odd you're laying people off.
Posted by: Jim at February 12, 2009 03:11 AM (jHMRy)
21
"especially the part where you are currently turning such great profits. With all that profit it's odd you're laying people off."
A) I can't find any place where I said I'm currently turning great profits. I'm not. That was your typically snarky embellishment. I did say that I'm turning a profit. If I weren't, I'd be out of business. And to do so, I've had to cut costs (read: employees). But, in point of fact, the current economic situation is seriously less than ideal, especially if you're in a business where you need to anticipate demand 6-12 months into the future, as I am.
If you wonder how tax policy affects that: well, I'm much more willing to risk retaining an employee or two against hope for future income if my expenses are less. It's what we call, in probability theory, "expected value."
B) I also can't see where I ever said anything about current backlogs. I merely responded to a statement of yours, a rather stupid one, that I quoted in full:
"They create jobs in response to increased consumer demand"
My point was, and is, that that's not how the private sector creates jobs. Job creation is not, in general, a response to demand; it's an anticipation of demand. Ford, right now, is struggling with anticipating demand in 2010 and 2011, while it decides how many employees to retain and how many to lay off, and at which plants, in 2009.
C) I was apparently correct in my guess; that is, you have absolutely no personal experience in the market, as an employer, or a business person.
D) If you want to address yourself to points I actually make, then go ahead. If you just want to continue to blow air out of your nether regions, then I won't bother to respond.
Posted by: notropis at February 12, 2009 03:45 AM (OsLMt)
22
This coming from the guy who has ignored the majority of what I've already written here, and makes up stupid and demeaning nicknames for people he does not agree with. Yeah you've done a great job of responding to the points others have made. Pat yourself on the back for me.
If it's stupid to say businesses add employees in response to increased demand, and conversely decrease employees in the face of diminished demand, why the heck did you lay people off? You shouldn't have cut costs, you should have increased them, boosting production and hence generating the inevitable increased profits when folks start buying all the goods you made for them before they even cared to buy them.
What is/was this business any way?
Posted by: Jim at February 12, 2009 03:56 AM (jHMRy)
23
Well, I wrote a reply, and the spam filter ate it. I'll try again:
"This coming from the guy who has ignored the majority of what I've already written here"
I couldn't possibly care less what "the majority" of what you've written here is/was. You made a particularly stupid comment, and I responded to it, to wit:
"They create jobs in response to increased consumer demand"
Next:
"makes up stupid and demeaning nicknames for people he does not agree with"
Let's see. I called you "Jimmy" when you call yourself "Jim." Sorry if you found that offensive. Someone else refers to themselves as "somegayname" and I paraphrased it as "gay person." I don't see where my reference is any more demeaning than the original. But whatever blows your dress up.
"If it's stupid to say businesses add employees in response to increased demand, and conversely decrease employees in the face of diminished demand, why the heck did you lay people off? "
It's tempting to just note the fact that you're a total idiot, and let it go, but I'll try once more:
I lay people off in anticipation of bad times, not in response to them. My business was off about 15% in the 4th quarter of '08, but I anticipated a further reduction of 25-30% in the first half of '09, so I downsized. When/if things look good going forward, I'll ramp up, before -- not after -- the fact.
That's just good business. And something you clearly don't understand.
Posted by: notropis at February 12, 2009 04:24 AM (OsLMt)
24
"I couldn't possibly care less what "the majority" of what you've written here is/was."
Cool, then stop crying about me not addressing every point you think you've made. Deal? You want to shorten my list of three kinds of businesses, Starbucks, mid-sized skilled shop, and a factory, to just Starbucks so you can laugh at me, great, but again don't cry about me not addressing the points you feel you've made.
"I lay people off in anticipation of bad times, not in response to them. My business was off about 15%... "
Demand dropped, you cut jobs.
"When/if things look good going forward, I'll ramp up, before -- not after -- the fact."
If demand increases, you'll hire people.
Now go buy an F-150 already, there are thousands of them just sitting there.
Posted by: Jim at February 12, 2009 04:40 AM (jHMRy)
25
I don't think notropis has ever contributed to a free market economy. Even in his made up example, he arbitrarily defines cutting jobs at -15% as anticipating the market, where waiting for the other -5% drop to -20% would have been responding to the market.
I pointed out an example of a company successfully creating the demand for a product, not relying on some oracle to tell them to have ipods on the shelves at a certain date. Other companies had made players available and failed. You could also lump the ipod in as response to demand for portable music players created by the sony walkman decades earlier. As another example, in the 80s Atari and Nintendo established the market for home video game consoles. 20 years later, Microsoft and Sony make a good chunk of change from this market. Sony didn't enter until the mid 1990's (playstation I), while microsoft didn't enter until the late 90's (xBox I). Nintendo faded lost this market for a while, then hit a homer with the Wii. So notropis is once again spectacularly wrong with the statement: "In general, folks that wait to see what the demand is, then try to jump after the fact and fill it, lose".
Reality shows that much of capitalism is responding to established market demand with better or cheaper products. There is nothing "bottom feeding" about filling a market demand, thats capitalism. For example, I own a sanza mp3 player that I bought for 5$ for running, so I don't have to worry about dropping or losing it. I would never have taken my iPod running, but before the iPod I was content with my walkman.
I've given specific examples to show that your generalizations don't hold water. In response you just make more false generalizations. Some specific examples from the business world (if they exist) might help your argument. Lying about owning your own business and contriving situations do not support it. I've listed verifiable situations in consumer electronics with specific companies. You replied with "One time at band camp...".
Posted by: somegayname at February 12, 2009 10:13 AM (q0Pd2)
26
Most of you folks don't understand the relationship between a tax cut and P&L. If you are a business and your taxes are cut, You see budget relief almost immediately. Your profit side goes up. You don't have to put aside as much each month to pay your regular tax. The effect is immediate. You may have to pay monthly or quarterly, but less tax money is gone until you settle with Uncle every year. Usually a tax rate change will change the Tax rate tables immediately.
Posted by: Marc Boyd at February 12, 2009 10:06 PM (Zoziv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 09, 2009
Bu-wawk-Bawk!
After listening to yet another doom-and-gloom speech from Barack Obama, I'm starting to think of him as the Easter Bunny President.
Barack Obama: Smooth on the outside, full of stale air on the inside, with no backbone, and a 90% probability of a meltdown under the slightest bit of heat and pressure.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:09 PM
| Comments (64)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Bad call using chocolate; you know some idiot is going to call you racist. You should have used a peep anyway. They melt, too, plus like Obama they're yeller.
I mean yellow as in CHICKEN, not in high-yellow.
Damn. Obama complicates everything.
Don't use chocolate, don't use peeps. Use the cactus because he's prickly. Use a handkerchief because he's snotty.
Posted by: alix at February 09, 2009 11:33 PM (N0hv7)
2
And you get this from what in his press conference? That he made sense? That he didn't blow smoke up your billowing skirt, Bob?
Really. I used to have a grudging respect for your focus on holding the media to the truth, even when you were focused only on the left, I gave you credit.
But this post is beneath you and brings out the disgusting repostes like the one alix defecated here.
My offer of a drink is still open. We're in the same neighborhood and we have the same interests (just different perspectives). You know how to reach me. I'll pick up the tab.
Posted by: David L Terrenoire at February 09, 2009 11:42 PM (Bx4FB)
3
Obama a rotten egg?? Yep.
Posted by: l at February 10, 2009 12:31 AM (KquNY)
4
It's tragic to murder three Easter bunnies to make this point. Cruelty to animals is not acceptable.
Posted by: miriam at February 10, 2009 11:03 AM (p7QDM)
5
He cries doom and gloom so we will pass his bill, then gets soft ball questions from his media. This is all a game to him to get more power. This guy will end up making Bush look good. . . He is only interested in his power grab.
Posted by: JD at February 10, 2009 12:34 PM (VyXDV)
6
Will this work...don't know. But having lived here for awhile...59 years..I truly believe we are a nation bold enough to TRY. Don't know if your first bike ride ended in a crash, I don't know if any of you had a grandchild bike crash. But we encouraged the effort. These times require effort. The GOP is demonstrating they are not even willing to try. Hey, I hurt myself when I crashed my bike..don't force me to try try again...
Posted by: yep at February 10, 2009 04:25 PM (fPbtf)
7
www.aypearl.com specializes in wholesale jewelry, handmade jewelry, jewelry wholesale, fashion jewelry, discount jewelry, cheap jewelry, wholesale pearl, wholesale crystal, wholesale gemstone, wholesale turquoise, wholesale coral, wholesale shell, wholesale Austrian crystal, china jewelry wholesaler, wholesale china jewelry, wholesale handmade jewelry, wholesale fashion jewelry, wholesale costume jewelry, handcrafted jewelry, wholesale jewellery and so on.
Posted by: wholesale jewelry at September 03, 2009 06:32 AM (Vu8Pt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
As King Pyrrhus Crows
The Multi-Generational Financial Rape Act of 2009, AKA the "stimulus, bill," has passed in the U.S. Senate.
Congratulations, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid. You deserve all the credit for this bill passing, and I mean that will all sincerity. You
own this bill, lock, stock and barrel. All the blame that will thunder down upon you in years to come. All the anger, distrust, and blind hatred that will result from your short-sightness and political greed. You've earned it all.
To their credit, not a single Republican voted for the House version of this toxic pork-laden spending bill, the stench of which was so bad than even 11 conscientious House Democrats could not vote for it
In the Senate, the opportunistic partisanship was equally strong, without a single Democratic Senator having the moral courage to vote against a bill destined to cause long-term economic harm.
As for Hollow Man... well, the bloom came off his proverbial rose far faster than any of us could have anticipated. In just two remarkably bitter weeks, "hope" and "change" was completely abandoned for the cheap theatrical politics of terrorizing the public with threats of impending doom.
President Obama cried of a financial catastrophe if he did not get the special interest pork he desired, irresponsibly undermining consumer confidence as he railed about a second Great Depression that would occur if he did not get his way.
Enjoy your temporary victory while you can Mr. President, for once the true cost is known you will be loved no more.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:41 PM
| Comments (47)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I'm depressed. Globally, nationally, and locally I keep hearing how the world will end soon if we don't expend billions of dollars and impose dozens of restrictions on our citizens to stop CO2 emissions by humans. Right on top of this comes Obama telling me that I should fear far reaching, deep economic troubles if I don't sign on to the stimulus bill. Before that, it was the elderly, uninsured, homeless, poor, and some others I've forgotten that would literally die if I didn't vote for Obama and every Democrat on the ticket.
After listening to Mr. Hope and Change for the last two weeks, it's amazing I have any optimism left - but I should - neither Obama or the Democrats are using any of it.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at February 09, 2009 08:54 PM (FJRFk)
2
They'll be crushed when they find out this world "is not about them" and they are but a forgotten atom, non-existing.
In the meantime they can be impeached, kicked out (placed into Gitmo) for being traitors, enforcing taxation without representation, etc. etc. Shed the newly signed orders and prepare for world attacks from the real Communist who "cut" first without the talking you into numb-ville.
Posted by: dlc at February 10, 2009 12:03 AM (m8IDT)
3
Meanwhile, European economic "experts" for the media are proclaiming to anyone with a microphone that "only" 800+ billion dollars will not be enough and that far far more will be needed before the US have paid the price for the damage done "by Bush and greedy American bankers".
Posted by: J.T. Wenting at February 10, 2009 01:30 PM (hrLyN)
4
This is yet another fine mess we've gotten in to because the communists were able to silence McCarthy.
Posted by: cmblake6 at February 12, 2009 08:22 PM (mSaOp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
CBO Report: Stimulus Bill Unnecessary; Economy Will Right in Second Half of 2009
According to a report from non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the recession is going to end this year, without the costly, pork-laden stimulus:
CBO anticipates that the current recession, which started in December 2007, will last until the second half of 2009, making it the longest recession since World War II.
This recession, however, may not result in the highest unemployment rate. That rate, in CBO's forecast, rises to 9.2 percent by early 2010 (up from a low of 4.4 percent at the end of 2006) but is still below the 10.8 percent rate seen near the end of the 1981–1982 recession.
In preparing its economic forecast, CBO assumes that current laws and policies governing federal spending and taxes do not change. This forecast, therefore, does not include the effects of a possible fiscal stimulus package.
On that basis, CBO anticipates that real GDP will drop by 2.2 percent in calendar year 2009, a steep decline.
CBO expects the economy to begin a slow recovery in the second half of 2009 and to grow by a modest 1.5 percent in 2010.
The very liberal leaders of the Democratic Congress and our neophyte President have attempted to ram a wish-list of left-wing "progressive" spending programs—costing hundreds of billions of dollars—down our throats, sold to us with threats on a platform of fear.
If you are a responsible moderate, Democrat, or Republican that wants to stop the doubling of our national debt because these corrupt and opportunistic politicians want to use economic fear to feather their political nests, start by calling the three Republican Senators below, and demand they withdraw their support from this unnecessary stimulus bill.
Sen. Olympia Snowe (202) 224-5344
Sen. Susan Collins (202) 224-2523
Sen. Arlen Specter (202) 224-4254
If these three won't back the stimulus, it will not pass and we will not saddle the next generation with unnecessary debt.
While you're at it, call your own Senators and Congressmen and give them a piece of your mind as well:
Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121
House switchboard: 202-225-3121
Kill the stimulus.
It's time to remind these leeches that they work for us.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:00 AM
| Comments (41)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
You racist hatemongers just don't get it, do you?
We won, you lost.
You will not get another chance.
Get over it and get with the program or you will be crushed like insects.
Praise OBAMA!
Allahu akbar!
Posted by: Yes We Did at February 09, 2009 02:02 AM (4LO45)
2
What makes the above comment so great is this:
One really isn't sure if it is sarcasm or not.
I've known leftist troglodytes who feel that way.
Posted by: JP at February 09, 2009 04:36 AM (Tae/a)
3
According to the first comment if you disagree with Obama and his liberal democrats you're racists. Typical comment from the ignorant left. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, two government sponsored entities given to us by the left, were the prime movers of this credit crises. My guess is most on the ignorant left never heard of them.
Posted by: Rick at February 09, 2009 08:02 AM (FWmwx)
4
Of course if the "stimulus" goes through it will cause the economic troubles to get much, much, worse and last much, much longer.
Which is of course exactly why it was dreamt up in the first place.
With the economy down the drain, The One will have an excuse for His plans to destroy what's left of freedom and liberty, and to not act when His friends in Iran and the rest of Islamistan start the establishment of the Khaliphate.
Posted by: J.T. Wenting at February 09, 2009 12:47 PM (hrLyN)
5
Bob, your beloved George Bush doubled the national debt from around $5 trillion when he entered office to more than $10 trillion today. And you cheered the whole way. So please spare us your whining.
Posted by: Pinson at February 09, 2009 01:42 PM (qgN6C)
6
Pinson demonstrates typical leftist "logic" - "This guy screwed up, so it's OK to screw up even more!"
Pinson simultaneously demonstrates that his knowledge of conservatives is derivrd from...we'll, I don't know where. Conservatives were hammering Bush all along for his excessive spending.
There're even more errors in his rather short statement, giving a profoundly low sinal-to-noise ratio. Very impressive, in a very sad way.
Posted by: alanstorm at February 09, 2009 02:43 PM (3yNpY)
7
Bush and the Republicans did spend wildly. If not for the promises by Democrats to spend even more wildly and to surrender in Iraq ASAP, we probably would have voted them out of office sooner.
Now that The One and Democrats are in control, judging from their "Stimulus" bill, it appears their problem with Bush is that he didn't spend enough! I never understood why liberals hated Bush so, he was one of them when it came to big spending.
Posted by: mindnumbrobot at February 09, 2009 03:13 PM (d5LvD)
8
My guess is most on the ignorant left never heard of them.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Yeah, I've heard of them. They're not the ones whho invented credit default swaps or credit derivatives, both culprits in the financial collapse. They used them, sure, because unregulated financial bright boys sliced up our good mortgages with bad mortgages, rated them triple-A, and sold them as asset-backed debt, insured against loss to the world credit market.
But I'm just an ignorant lefty. What do I know?
Posted by: David L Terrenoire at February 09, 2009 11:31 PM (Bx4FB)
9
So David, you agree Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were the prime movers of the credit crises and the Left gave us both.
Posted by: Rick at February 10, 2009 07:34 AM (FWmwx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 06, 2009
Fencing Pigs
I got this parable via email from my father, and it certainly seems to describe what our government is trying to do to Americans today.
A professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.
The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime.
In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. 'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.
They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.
Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.
The multi-generational financial rape that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and so many members of our Congress are trying to force down our throats—under increasing threats and ever-louder fear-mongering—is a betrayal of the core ideals of our Founding Fathers.
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin... they did not want a large and powerful government. They went to war against such a monstrosity, one that had strangled them with punitive taxation and oppressive government. The fought tooth and nail for to establish a free republic where Americans could enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Our socialist President and his Democratic Party acolytes are not breaking any laws in trying to ram this $1 trillion dollar of waste down our throats... and wouldn't hold themselves accountable if they were.
As with many tyrannical governments of the past, they're sincere in their belief that encroaching further into our lives—taking a little more liberty, putting up one more fence post at a time—is for our own good.
But power only makes governments hungry for more power, and a point is eventually reached when that strangling power, that encroaching fence, must be put asunder before to envelops those who love liberty and turns them into slaves.
We face a very simple choice here, in early February of 2009, my fellow Americans.
We stop the fencing today.
We stop our government, Republican and Democrat alike, and declare that they will not have their bloated stimulus, this financial rape of our children's future, that dwarfs the costs of the entire Iraq War and Afghan War combined.
We will shout out NO MORE.
Or in the not too distant future, we will face a far darker decision, that of surrendering what little of our freedom that remains to the all powerful government, or sharpening our tusks, and going to war yet again against tyranny. Hopefully, you will act to day and not allow yourself to be led dumbly into that pen. You will stop it,
now, before it can successfully be constructed.
There are pig farmers in the White House and Congress that would see you led in captivity so that they may dine on your fatted flesh.
Will you be led to slaughter.
Or will you be free?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
02:05 PM
| Comments (76)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I will move to Georgia. The Red States are going to secede. I have no question, myself. It will be good for America - the free America that will be the new nation. If you think about it logically rather than emotionally (in attachment to the 50 state USA), it's a wonderful solution. We can once again be a conservative nation and have free enterprise, prosper, succeed, be free of abortion, homosexual rights legislations, etc.
I think of how wonderful it will be to live in a true America again that is like our founders founded. It's a great privilege and honor - one I am looking forward to. From my pov, Obama and his followers are getting into the cage and are the wild pigs.
Here's why: without the right - they're going to bear the results of their own leftist policies and foreign relations. They're herding themselves into a prison of their own design. But you and I didn't design it, know better, and want to be free. Good riddance to them. Let's start anew in a new Confederate Yankee nation.
Posted by: l at February 06, 2009 02:32 PM (KquNY)
Posted by: USMCdaughter1 at February 06, 2009 04:40 PM (mxAK2)
3
Globilization has made many people today simply give up the idea of sucessful competition. Furthermore, they don't want the anxiety of competing. It is easier to say the game is rigged. This massive government intervention cannot be reversed; even more will be called for in years to come as having more than your neighbor morphs into a hate crime.
Posted by: mytralman at February 06, 2009 04:58 PM (26p91)
4
Did you hear that noise? It was the gate slamming behind you. It's too late.
Posted by: Don, the Rebel without a Blog at February 07, 2009 12:38 AM (kMR9P)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 05, 2009
Rider On a Pale Horse
In a profoundly dispiriting missive to the Washington Post, Beelzobama, Lord of the Flying Excuse, has issued forth one of the most negative, doom-proclaiming pronouncements ever issued forth from the Oval Office ,The Actions Americans Need.
It is a ledge-walking lament of a false Prophet attempting to extort America into supporting his pursuit of a nakedly partisan ideological agenda.
Barack Obama has put radical orthodoxy over country, and chosen opportunism over leadership. It is, in short, an editorial that deserves to be read and understood so that a trainwreck of a President may be properly mocked and scorned.
The dishonesty begins with the first proverbial stroke of the pen:
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:54 PM
| Comments (55)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
It's why experienced professionals never hire rookies like Obama. He wants to believe his life is exceptional, that he's the savior who has all the unique answers to what is so terribly nonunique, common, predictable and uninteresting. He is the college freshman who comes up with radical answers... only because he didn't show up for class for 5 weeks when we explained the common causes.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at February 06, 2009 01:34 AM (7r7wy)
2
Notice how he says "inherited an economic crisis" as if he and his Dem buddies weren't a large part of the cause but just innocent bystanders come to fix the previous administration's mistakes.
Posted by: Bill Scrunty at February 06, 2009 07:23 AM (lMLa9)
3
I think his description of impending disaster is entirely correct but that it serves only as an excuse for this huge bill to be passed. The solution to a debt crisis is obviously not more debt.
And with respect, hinting at "suggestions of improvement" in the economy is nothing more than a cabin upgrade on the titanic. Trillions of dollars has been lost or defaulted on. The economy cannot turn the corner until that value is wiped off the stock market, houses and other investments that were inflated in this bubble. We have not even reached the half way mark in writing down losses to their full value.
Posted by: Scott at February 06, 2009 10:28 AM (stw7Y)
4
From the Times... “Japan’s rural areas have been paved over and filled in with roads, dams and other big infrastructure projects, the legacy of trillions of dollars spent to lift the economy from a severe downturn caused by the bursting of a real estate bubble in the late 1980s. During those nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the developed world — totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy — while failing to generate a convincing recovery.
“Now, as the Obama administration embarks on a similar path, proposing to spend more than $820 billion to stimulate the sagging American economy, many economists are taking a fresh look at Japan’s troubled experience.
...
In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan’s Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations.Et tu, Brute Times ?
Posted by: Neo at February 06, 2009 11:06 AM (Yozw9)
5
our young President, in his first ever executive position
NOT first-ever. He was anointed Chairman of the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago, by none other than his uber-leftie friend Bill Ayers. Ayers had successfully applied for a grant to 'improve' the education of Chicago kids, and scored an initial 92 million to do it. By the time Obama had disbursed all the funds to his favorite 'community organizing' groups, matching funds had boosted that sum to nearly $160,000,000. That was a bonanza for the grant recipients, but made no improvement whatever to school performance. It no doubt filled his groups political war chests just fine.
Now comes the Obama, using our CRA-induced economic difficulties as an excuse, full of hopes of repeating the Annenberg scam - just sign onto his enormous 'stimulus' bill, and he'll have a stupendous war chest of money to shovel out to ACORN and all his other cronies - with a little skimmed off for some unions, and other window-dressing. This may be the most audacious piece of Alinskyism ever seen. Hang in there, Senators, and vote no.
Posted by: Micropotamus at February 06, 2009 01:02 PM (zzrOm)
6
It is quite clear that you do not understand the scope of the mess that the George W. Bush legacy has gotten us into. It is quite understandable to me, as an average American that if you let everything go to pot, that that is exactly where you're going to wind up in, in the hole. Lest you forget the 10 Trillion Dollar bill that George and his boys left on the desk for the American public to pick up the tab on.
Posted by: Peter Buchta at February 07, 2009 04:24 PM (NZhHX)
7
The last thing in the world we need now is more debt. The one bright spot in the economy is the lack of inflation. Inflation is a disaster for poor people, for the lower middle class, and for people on fixed incomes. Amazingly, given the way we've been printing fiat money for all these year, and the huge deficits and debts all levels of government, private businesses and individual consumers, have run up, not to mention our trade deficits, our money is still actually worth something!
The benefit of this to most people, particularly the more vulnerable persons listed above, is enormous. Today, gas costs less than a third of what it cost only a year or so ago. The value of that reduction to anyone who drives a car, or even rides the bus, is immense. Anybody who works for a living has to commute (except for the very few who walk to work), they are all benefited by low energy costs. And, unlike with tax cuts, the poorer you are, the higher percentage of your money goes to pay for gas, so the poor actually benefit more from the great drop in prices than the rich. It's like a great stimulus that only the oil producing countries have to pay for, and that is "self targetted" to the poorest wage earners! And it doesn't add a penny of debt to our country's balance sheet.
What, exactly, is the big tragedy that "must be addressed?" That the housing bubble burst? Good, I'm glad it burst, now housing is more affordable. That the stock markets went down? OK, that is not good, but its hardly the end of the world, either. For all the BS propaganda about wide-spread stock ownership, the overwhelming majority of it is owned by the rich and the super rich, and the institutions they control. So what if someone who owned a hundred million dollars of stock last year now "only" owns sixty million? How much of that hundred million was the result of a rising stock market? Very little of this alleged "catastrophic loss" of assets is anything more than the trimming of paper profits. To me, and to most people, the price of gas and the price of food is a lot more important, and, the lower the better. Sure, some middle class people dabbled in the market, many of them beyond their means. But, whose fault is that? Everyone knows that stocks are risky investments. These people would have been fine if they just bought municipal bonds or CDs. You can't take all the upside gains as just par for the course, as your due, and then go crying to "the government" when you get bit by the downside risk. Nobody forced anyone to buy stock, TS if that stock is now worth less than it was before.
The only economic indicator I see as troubling is the unemployment rate. A modest, short term stimulus to keep household incomes in the middle class and below from falling off the cliff due to layoffs may well be indicated. But, another trillion dollars? Why?
Let all the bad debt be written off. Let's start shoveling ourselves out of the pit we have dug, not dig down further. Put a few people to work shoring up the infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) which is almost a good investment anyway. But, please, don't drive us deeper and deeper into debt.
Posted by: ruddyturnstone at February 07, 2009 09:02 PM (pmmgY)
8
Gx80a3 actress gershon
actress renee
actress skye
actuarial
actuator
acu
acupuncture
acura auto
acura car
acura cars
acura rl
acura rsx
acura tl s
acura tl
acura toyota
acura used
acura
acute leukemia
acuvue colored contacts
Posted by: mcxhareshx at February 11, 2009 12:39 PM (vwMFX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 04, 2009
Four Million
Ironically, both the number of people who will vote for Barack Obama if this stimulus bill passes, and the number of people who have now visited this blog.
And guess who Mr. Four Million was?
I'm also pretty sure he was a significant number of those other 3,999,999, but hey, who's counting?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:50 PM
| Comments (33)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Confederate Yankee, I don't agree. Everything that Obama does has an unintended consequence. People are falsely assuming that Obama is successfully buying votes. Not true. He's going to bring this economy crashing down to national devastation by borrowing and spending when we are already precariously over the edge of the cliff, overextended, and hanging onto a bush. We're going to fall. So, if there was "room" for him to buy votes - he'd succeed. But there isn't. He's borrowing beyond our ability to repay. Many negative consequences will result. This will blow up in his face. Hyperinflation will "wipe out" the gains he gave to some. Everything will crash under this weight that the system cannot support. We're less structurally strong as a nation in business and infrastrucure than we were in 1929. He's literally lighting the match that's going to burn down our "Rome".
He's not going to be re-elected. In fact, I doubt sincerely that our current political system and national unity will withstand what's about to hit. He's thrown the USA into her death throes - the moment this "porkulus package" is passed. I don't think people who anticipate that he's "buying votes" really see the big picture of the calamity he's setting in motion with this plan. Put a fork in her. America's done the moment this bill is signed. It's a death warrant on a democracy that remained intact over 200 years. It will result in the dissolution of the USA. We're in that bad of shape. They think we can always "afford more". Wrong. The Government itself is going to fail - like Wall Street collapsed. Mark my words. A super-tsunami is what Obama will set in motion with this bill.
Posted by: l at February 05, 2009 12:50 AM (KquNY)
2
It will result in the dissolution of the USA. We're in that bad of shape.
You must be young. This isn't even close to the great depression...or even the Carter years of double digit inflation and double digit unemployment.
Did you ever sit in an odd/even gas line?
Posted by: PA at February 06, 2009 09:31 AM (Ygf78)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Messiah Thinks He Has More Money Than Jesus
Or something like that.
Twice today, CNN has done short segments on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's declaration that
To give the proposed economic stimulus plan some perspective, "if you started the day Jesus Christ was born and spent $1 million every day since then, you still wouldn’t have spent $1 trillion."
Both times they said the claim checked out, the second time with a famous mathmetician (although I think they just needed a calculator).
Christ's birth in year zero one, times 365, times 2009, gets you 733,285,000,000, or a bit over $733 billion. (Yes, I'm leaving out leap years.) You're not even three-quarters of the way there...
King Urkel the First is disappointing a lot of people, especially those that have the mathematical sense to understand that the "stimulus" bill he and the far left are trying to force down our throats is little more than a trillion dollar wishlist of pork, handouts, and political graft that may not save or create so much as a single American job.
I was listening to the local AM talk station on my way home this evening and they mentioned that there has never been a significant economic recession in any country ever helped by government intervention. He cited the financial trainwreck FDR created during his attempt to alleviate the Great Depression that we are still paying for, and the mess the Japanese government made to their economy under similar circumstances, which again, they have not recovered from.
And such big government programs fail for a very simple reason:
you cannot spend your way out of debt.
If Barack Obama was truly serious about helping the economy, he would push across-the-board cuts for all federal agencies not directly involved basic safety and security, impose a government hiring freeze so that the size of the government would shrink through natural attrition, and lower various taxes so that companies would be encouraged to grow their businesses. Such a plan isn't too far off from what I've heard some conservative Democrats and Republicans are promoting.
But I don't think Barack Obama really cares all that much about getting America out of this recession. He seems far more interested in using the economy as a weapon of fear to impose an ideological agenda.
I hope he enjoys the euphoria of his brief popularity while it lasts. It is melting rapidly, and unlikely to last the coming spring thaw.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:45 PM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Great blog, here Confederate Yankee.
And, Dan, I am robbing your quote and posting it on my blog on the sidebars for perpetuity!! That is outstanding. I'll credit it to you. That's the best. lol
You guys made my day. Obama is going to absolutely incite the dissolution of the USA in revolt. We're just NOT going to become the Muslim communist nation he envisions. He might just as well try to make Iran Christian with our Constitution and our system of Government. It won't work!! You just cannot shove down the throats of the American people the "change" he envisions. Can't do it. It will never work. He's a foreigner who doesn't understand our faith, our nation, and our history... our American spirit. He cannot redefine us. He can only seduce the weak and unstable. He cannot seduce those of us who have character and conviction and are the true America that is consistent with our founder's values and vision. We still have the same character and spirit. And, Don, thanks ever so much - we still have the same God: Jesus.
Like you said, "Jesus saves!" And Obama spends. (And it's gonna cost him.)
lol
You guys made my day. God bless.
Posted by: l at February 04, 2009 10:56 PM (KquNY)
2
The Dems should be careful. People are getting fed up with welfare spending, corporate and tax cheats. The bankers stole the money after the minority lending prefferences were put in place by Bawney Fwank and Chris Dodd because bankers are always much smarter than polititians. All the tax cheats are Dems it seems. At the grocery store today, a black woman on a welfare card was complaining to the cashier because only $78 of a $81 bill could be put on the card. The other people in line behind her just shook their heads in disgust as they prepared to pay for their OWN groceries, and this slugs too. In fact, they pay for the slugs FIRST, thru taxes, before they have to buy their own on what's left them by the govt after confiscatory taxes are wrenched from them without consent, no matter what that fool Harry Reid says about voluntary taxes. There may be a middle class tax revolt in the making, just below the surface, and the morons in Washington have absolutely no effing clue. Obama's approval rating will be in the 20's very soon. But then , that would be racist wouldn't it?? (sarc off).
Posted by: nadadhimmi at February 05, 2009 06:11 PM (3nGAd)
3
nadanhimmi,
If it makes you feel any better 18 states reduced their welfare roles last year, and the number of people on government assistance is at a 40 year low.
CY,
I am not too excited about aspects of the stimulus bill. However, cutting funding to all federal agencies except national defense (which is what I assume you are getting at when you say "across-the-board cuts for all federal agencies not directly involved basic safety and security") would be a disaster. We need to invest in our infrastructure to maintain and stimulate commerce and we need to invest in education in order to produce a competitive work force. Those aspects of our economy are critical.
The stimulus bill isn't stripped down enough right now, but bipartisan talks are taking place today. $100 billion has already been chipped off.
It would be great if tax cuts were the ultimate solution but they simply aren't.
And speaking of debt. GWB skyrocketed our debt while maintaining massive tax cuts. Here's a chart:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Obama has been dealt GWB's mess. I'd excuse him if he didn't hold by Republican tenets of economic theory. The current crisis is not a raving endorsement of their practices.
Posted by: SPW at February 06, 2009 08:42 AM (VftLx)
4
we need to invest in education in order to produce a competitive work force.
The US already spends 2X-3X more per student than the industrialized nations of Europe. We don't need to spend more, we need to look a lot harder at how its being spent.
Posted by: PA at February 06, 2009 09:34 AM (Ygf78)
5
"I don't think Barack Obama really cares all that much about getting America out of this recession."
I disagree. He's a far-left liberal Democrat and he believes government spending will acheive that goal.
Just because WE can't comprehend anyone beliefing in that ideology doesn't mean those who push it have ulterior motives. Nope, they're just misguided.
Posted by: DoorHold at February 08, 2009 04:24 PM (jD5Op)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Associated Press Goes After "Hope" Artist For More Than Change
I was emailed a link to this story from AP's Media Relations office tonight.
It seems that the wire service wants credit and compensation from an artist by the name of Shepard Fairey for his Barack Obama "Hope" image that was admittedly based on the work of an Associated Press photographer, Manny Garcia.
Now it has been a long, long time—circa 1991—that I was in college learning the basics of media law in a journalism class, but my initial reaction was that derivative art was protected under fair use laws.
And upon further review, it's a
good thing that I'm not a lawyer.
Fairey has apparently admitted his work came from Garcia's photo. It seems to me that the only real question here is whether or not Fairey settles our of court, or if he presses for a trial that he seems destined to lose.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:58 PM
| Comments (36)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
For once, I can't figure out which side to take. I am definitely VERY interested to see how it turns out, though!
Regards,
Brian "Assaulted by the AP" L.
Posted by: Brian L. at February 04, 2009 09:11 PM (gHC4P)
2
Considering that the Obama "DOPE" poster is a work of art, Fairey has an excellent "fair use" argument. If I do a tracing of a painting or a photograph and transform that into an illustration that illustration is generally considered orginal.
It is a technique used by many model-making magazines to illustrate details. For example, you want to show the chain wales on a Revolutionary-era ship, and the only illustration you have is of a model in the National Maritime Museum -- which will charge $200.00 for the privilege of using it. You blow up the image, trace the chain wales, and make a drawing from that.
Original artwork from fair use of a copyright image.
Posted by: Mark L at February 05, 2009 08:50 AM (a+kMW)
3
USA Network has Fairey on one of their "Characters welcome" promos. Makes me change the channel.
Posted by: GnomeSelfBeTrue at February 05, 2009 08:55 AM (onj4J)
4
Are Manny and the ap then going to re-emburse Pravda for using its study of Lenin from the 30's as the basis for their Obama worship?
Posted by: emdfl at February 05, 2009 09:08 AM (blNMI)
Posted by: hoolio at February 09, 2009 06:13 PM (bvgCs)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Runaways
As Kentucky's "Katrina on Ice" continues with Mississippi line crews confirming that damage to the Kentucky power grid was worse than what they saw on the Gulf Coast, and thousands faced another icy day and night without power, Michelle and Barack Obama fled an even more horrifying scene.
With little notice, the president and first lady Michelle Obama bolted the gated compound of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in their tank of a limousine on Tuesday. They ended up at a Washington public school, greeted by children who could not care less about the collapse of a Cabinet secretary nomination.
"We were just tired of being in the White House," the president candidly told the gleeful second-graders at Capital City Public Charter School.
"We got out! They let us out!" Mrs. Obama said as the kids and their teachers laughed.
The stress of $100/lb steaks and cocktail parties simply must have been too much to bear.
We're just lucky that in these tough times, we're graced with tougher leadership.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:00 AM
| Comments (45)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
We are in trouble. This guy has no idea. None.
Posted by: Swink at February 04, 2009 01:54 AM (i0kXn)
2
If he is tired of The White House He should resign. The sooner the better. He is as qualified to be President as I am to develope the next generation of rockets. Swaink has it right we are in trouble.
Posted by: Fearless at February 04, 2009 08:31 AM (IqJAY)
3
"We were just tired of being in the White House," the president candidly told the gleeful second-graders at Capital City Public Charter School.
"Il potere logora chi non ce l'ha"
(Power wears out those who don't have it)
-- Giulio Andreotti
Posted by: Nichevo at February 04, 2009 11:49 AM (+mJAC)
4
Second graders. Their Jedi mind tricks should still play in second grade. Have they left the school yet?
Posted by: Nichevo at February 04, 2009 11:50 AM (+mJAC)
5
Why don't you people understand?
Obama is a Muslim.
That fact explains all his actions to date. Much more is coming.
WAKE UP!
Posted by: Cassandra at February 04, 2009 01:10 PM (YE4d6)
6
well, it appears that my prediction* that Juggy would be the person to make Jimmy Carter look competent is coming true even faster than i thought....
(*not so much a prediction as an attack of the blindingly obvious. %-)
Posted by: redc1c4 at February 04, 2009 01:20 PM (sT30R)
7
i HOPE somebody CHANGEs the locks next time he leaves......
Posted by: danpa at February 04, 2009 04:10 PM (/vFCA)
8
Well, he could resign and they could go back to Chicago, except Joe Biden would be the worse VP made President since Chet Arthur.
Posted by: zhombre at February 04, 2009 05:15 PM (cuXMy)
9
Greetings:
I'm tired of the Obamas being in the White House, too.
Posted by: 11B40 at February 04, 2009 06:14 PM (/eMj4)
10
Great comments. Lets add to the mix the fond memories of our esteemed biased drive-by media just villifying and ridiculing George for reading a story at a school in Florida as the Twin Towers and America were being attacked by MUSLIMS. Interesting how they handle a similar event for a Democrap vs a Republican.
Posted by: RICH at February 04, 2009 11:30 PM (6671o)
11
Why don't you people understand?
Obama is a Muslim.
That fact explains all his actions to date. Much more is coming.
WAKE UP!
CY, you are really cultivating quite the loony bin around here. Well done.
Posted by: SPW at February 05, 2009 06:35 PM (VftLx)
12
She's First Lady and she can't stop herself from playing the victim. Her "slave masters" kept her locked up. How charming.
Posted by: twolaneflash at February 06, 2009 10:21 AM (05dZx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 03, 2009
Second Amendment Demonstration In Raleigh Tomorrow
Mike at Cold Fury pinged me to let me know that Bubba is organizing a demonstration in front of the North Carolina State Legislature tomorrow to remind them that our rights Shall Not Be Infringed:
February 4, 2009
2:00 till 6:00pm.
Raleigh, North Carolina
W. Jones St, from Salisbury St to Wilmington St,
facing the State Legislature.
Join with hundreds of fellow Americans, peaceably assembled to seek a redress of grievances from government officials who are not respecting our Constitutional Civil Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
As American citizens , We have a responsibility to protect and preserve ALL of the rights, freedoms and protections guaranteed ALL Americans by the Bill of Rights and the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments. These are our Constitutional civil rights and liberties, they are a birth right of ALL Americans extended to all naturalized citizens.
Call them Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights or Civil Liberties they are one and the same and mean as much to tens of millions of gun owners, conservatives and Constitutionalists as do other Civil Rights to other groups of people.
No more gun bigotry, No more infringement.
In addition to the gun bans currently being advocated by the Obama White House and some members of Congress, there are some moves afoot here in North Carolina (and in other states) where MoveOn.Org-affiliated groups and individuals are pushing for gun registration, ammunition licensing, and other pre-confiscatory schemes.
If you can make it, be there. If you aren't nearby, perhaps you might be able to find or organize a similar event near you.
Μολὼν λάβε
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:04 PM
| Comments (35)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Oaky, I'll bite. Clearly, it's Greek. Translation, please?
Posted by: Stoutcat at February 04, 2009 10:11 AM (kKdtK)
2
WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION…
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Posted by: danpa at February 04, 2009 04:13 PM (/vFCA)
3
Go Bubba, wish I could be there with you all!
Posted by: USMCdaughter1 at February 04, 2009 04:30 PM (GAf+S)
Posted by: helen at March 31, 2009 08:52 PM (D1uNu)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 02, 2009
Obama's Stimulus too Socialist for ... France?
Oui:
Paris rejects 'Obama-style' stimulus program
Prime Minister François Fillon on Monday rejected demands that the French government seek to stimulate consumer spending, rather than follow his plan to stimulate corporate and infrastructure investment, to lift France out of its economic slump.
"It would be irresponsible to chose another policy, which would increase our country's indebtedness without having more infrastructure and increased competitiveness in the end," Fillon said in a speech in Lyon.
Sacré bleu! You mean you can't spend your way out of debt?
What kind of crazy talk is that?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:47 PM
| Comments (41)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Exactly. France is doing the right thing to stimulate corporate and infrastructure investment. JOBS. Business. Real wealth. That's what he's focused on. Obama is definitely irresponsible - and the American people are clearly not intelligent if they don't see Obama's programs are bad for America.
Posted by: l at February 03, 2009 08:16 AM (KquNY)
2
It's official. The United States of America is now to the left of France. God help us.
Posted by: Mark at February 03, 2009 08:25 AM (q7UjI)
3
We are really in it deep when the French can out think us. . . .
Posted by: JD at February 03, 2009 12:24 PM (VyXDV)
4
Of course YOU have the answer for solving the stimulus problem, right? The Bush tax-cuts should be extended further after they did such a great job in the months and years leading into this crisis...
Why not give the new Obama administration a chance to prove themselves in this respect?
You've been unapologetically justifying EVERYTHING that the Bush Administration has been doing over the past eight years - yet we find ourselves in these tough economic times.
How about an honest evaluation of the Republican Party's response to the economic situation to date along with some suggestions for how the Obama administration should continue?
Short of that, you simply appear as whining children who are incapable of taking any responsibilities for their own actions.
Posted by: Adam Stanhope at February 03, 2009 06:43 PM (O64c3)
5
re Adam @6:43pm of course it was ok for all of you on the left to do it for the last 8 years!
Posted by: Rich in KC at February 03, 2009 06:59 PM (siQqy)
6
re Adam @6:43pm of course it was ok for all of you on the left to do it for the last 8 years!
And just look at the incredible prosperity and full employment we're experiencing here at the end of those eight years!
Posted by: Ivan Ivanovich Renko at February 03, 2009 09:23 PM (YMSLX)
7
Obama's administration already had a chance to prove itself. It was called the Carter administration.
Posted by: Walt at February 03, 2009 09:58 PM (Mj1Z8)
8
Screw Obama's stimulus package. I believe that in order to get ourselves out of this mess, what we really need to do is give more tax breaks to the ultra wealthy...I'm talking folks like John Thain (formerly of Merrill Lynch) who do things like spend $1400 on an office trashcan. Trickle down economics really is where it's at. And we should all be grateful for the monetary crumbs that will eventually accrue to us if we're patient enough.
Posted by: MacGruber at February 04, 2009 12:11 AM (6I6OG)
9
The Bush tax-cuts should be extended further after they did such a great job in the months and years leading into this crisis
Yes, they did. They did not repeal the business cycle, of course, but they did lift the USA up out of recession into the longest expansion of the economy in history.
To blame our current recession on the Bush tax cuts is even poor economics--it is literally tin hat territory. Even the crooks in Congress are blaming the "lack of regulation" for the current crisis, tho it really was overregulation and collusion between Democrats and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac that was to blame.
Posted by: iconoclast at February 04, 2009 05:58 PM (FGCRY)
10
To Adam:
Obama's Administration HAS been given a chance to prove itself. It was called the Carter Administration.
Posted by: Walt at February 04, 2009 07:56 PM (Mj1Z8)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 01, 2009
Obama's "Katrina on Ice"
More than 700,000 homes are still without power in Kentucky due to a massive ice storm that struck the state six days ago, forcing Gov. Steve Beshear to mobilize his entire state's Army and Air National Guard, a total of 4,600 men and the largest call-out in Kentucky's history.
FEMA has apparently been a no-show.
Our Hawaiian-borne President, basking in the glow of an overheated Oval Office and dining on $100/lb steak, has been utterly disinterested, indulging himself in
vodka martinis at
cocktail parties, as he continues to talk up the need for the $1.1 trillion dollar "stimulus" while simultaneously trying to lower expectations of its impact, knowing how little it will actually accomplish for the economy even as it furthers his
political agenda.
So please pardon some of my friends if they engage in a little hyperbole as they notice that our Freshman Senator cum President is a bit too giddy with his newfound power and the D.C. cocktail circuit to notice that as many as 1.5 million Americans are in dire straits at this moment.
After all, Barack Obama probably
doesn't hate white people no matter what 20-years in the pews of a racial separatist church suggests. It's just far harder to see a bunch of white people against ice and snow.
And Caleb, while I don't doubt that the sage of hopenchange has a distinct preference for the refined metropolitan areas of the nation over areas those that bitterly cling to the Bibles, guns, and snowshovels, I'm pretty sure even he doesn't consider Kentucky "southern", even on his 57-state map.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:13 PM
| Comments (74)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
My presidential expectation is frozen, sub-zero, and buried under generational debt. Burning through other people's money is the same old D.C. heat source. Toasty, mmmmm. It's good to be royalty!
Posted by: twolaneflash at February 01, 2009 12:36 PM (05dZx)
2
I read that piece at American Thinker's...
I think this could be a good blog to set up: a spoof of the news coverage of the Bush years.
I personally am going to consciously hold off on major attacks against Obama until he does stuff that warrant it. I'm specifically trying hard not to get into the "future telling" business that was the norm for the media in the first two years under Bush.
For example, the choice of Penetta for CIA concerns me a good bit, but I haven't said much about it.
I'd rather avoid the conservative blogsphere imitating not just the liberal one but the media itself.
But --- it might be nice to see a whole blog set up to mimic the Bush press as issues come up - like this ice storm one - complete with the type of hyperbole and doom-saying coverage in the Bush years.
Posted by: usinkorea at February 01, 2009 01:03 PM (DCtzE)
3
Has Kentucky's Governor requested Federal help? Because if he hasn't then there isn't anything the Fed's can do. This is the same reason it took forever to get Federal help in Katrina, because the Governor wasn't willing to call in Uncle Sam.
Posted by: Stan at February 01, 2009 01:06 PM (r8IAB)
4
With regard to Kentucky being southern ... he'd be wrong again if he didn't.
Mason Dixon: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/slave-maps/mason-dixon-line.htm
Posted by: Caleb Howe at February 01, 2009 01:13 PM (VyIhp)
5
Stan makes a good point. Local politicians have to request Federal help before they can get it. Otherwise it's "against the rules." Evidently Ray Nagin, New Orleans' mayor at the time of Katrina, and Governor Blanco, never took High School Civics classes or, more likely, never listened. The only Federal agency which has a mandate to intervene in a local crisis is the U.S. Coast Guard, which can act as a reinforcement of local law enforcement without being specifically requested to. The USCG did a spectacular job of rescuing citizens off rooftops and other flooded areas, while Nagin and Blanco dawdled and refused to ask for federal aid. Bush called Blanco twice urging her to request Federal help and intervention. She said she wanted to think about it.
The kicker here is that Nagin was re-elected New Orleans' mayor a few months after Katrina. What the heck were they thinking?
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at February 01, 2009 02:24 PM (doHlr)
6
Well, he did think that Kentucky was way south in the 57 states during the campaign when actually its northwest end is adjacent to his state, Illinois.
Posted by: Al Reasin at February 01, 2009 02:27 PM (GAf+S)
7
Caleb, I could care less about the Manson-Nixon Line; it is an artifact of history at best. Ask and real southerner (or a real Yankee) what the southern states are, and you'll consistently see the Virginia and points south, and on very rare occasions, Maryland.
Kentucky? Not so much.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 01, 2009 02:45 PM (HcgFD)
Posted by: Larry Sheldon at February 01, 2009 03:00 PM (OmeRL)
9
Well you can consider it however you like. I was born, raised, and reside in the south, so I guess I get to count as a 'real' southerner thanks.
Posted by: Caleb Howe at February 01, 2009 03:25 PM (VyIhp)
10
Re: Kentucky, South or Not-South? Far as I'm concerned, if the natives speak with a Southern accent -- it's South. I'm in Illinois and we refer to the portion of the state that's adjacent to Kentucky as "Southern Illinois," not just for geographical reasons: They have a Southern accent.
Re: Obama's Katrina On Ice. When I read how much suffering there was I too thought about Obama's apparent lack of leadership during a weather disaster, but only as it compared to the coverage of Bush's in a similiar situation. However, unlike people who blame Bush for everything that's ever gone wrong, I know better.
That white people may be camouflaged by all that snow and ice didn't occur to me ... Funny stuff right there!
Posted by: DoorHold at February 01, 2009 03:47 PM (sw+43)
11
It sometimes appears Democrats are racist. But they aren't really. They also appear to engage in class warfare, but again not really. Democrats believe they are the Master Party, which trumps race and class every time. Non-Democrats can be divided into three groups. Hidden Democrats are people like Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders. They are treated like Democrats. Most of the lapdog media belongs to this group. Potential Democrats, like illegal aliens and career criminals are next in line. So long as they don't oppose the Democratic agenda, they can be treated as people, Finally there are the opponents, Republicans, libertarians and conservatives. They are the enemy. They are not, in the Democrats view, strictly human. They can all die or at least just shut up and pay their taxes.
Honest Democrat is a contradiction in terms.
Posted by: Ken Hahn at February 01, 2009 05:04 PM (nHlbs)
12
Obama's well aware that the white "snow people" don't need rescuing from the ice. That's native ground for them. Of course, for the occasional non-white living in those flyover redneck states, it serves them right for leaving the plantation. They're of little utility to Obama now, so he can let them freeze.
Posted by: HatlessHessian at February 01, 2009 05:42 PM (7r7wy)
13
why should the press be concerned.....???
Bush isn't in office, and they don't want to point any bad fingers at Obie-1-Kanobee......
so guess what..... IT NEVER HAPPENED......
people in Kentucky suck and should eat shit and die, as far as the press is concerned......
Posted by: danpa at February 01, 2009 06:01 PM (/vFCA)
14
They're working on it:
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=47383
Why the press doesn't want to mention it much is another story.
Posted by: arb at February 01, 2009 07:38 PM (x1CDD)
15
Thanks arb. Now if Confederate Yankee would bother to do a touch of research he wouldn't make claims like FEMA is a 'no show.' More weak sauce.
And I have to ask, was Mason-Nixon a typo, or did you actually think that was the name of the line?
Posted by: SPW at February 01, 2009 08:05 PM (VftLx)
16
Bob, an Air Force buddy of mine is from Lawrenceburg, KY. Tell him he's not from the south and he might want to punch you in the mouth.
Posted by: Tim at February 01, 2009 08:09 PM (sp1sQ)
17
"Manson-Nixon?"
That's a Robin Williams line. He's always felt comfortable throwing gratuitous insults at Southerners. First of all, he's usually in New York or California. Second of all, he thinks they aren't smart enough to understand him.
Posted by: pst314 at February 01, 2009 10:14 PM (XP0Bd)
18
FEMA's working on it? That's all you got? Was that enough for you during Katrina? Amazing the things that are OK as long as a Democrat is in charge. Hey, maybe it will be alright to leave Iraq victoriously, too.
Posted by: Tim at February 01, 2009 10:38 PM (sp1sQ)
19
Tim, I simply posted the facts. You have no idea what my opinion is of the situation, or my pokitics in general. But here's a clue - if I disagreed with CY in general, I wouldn't be hanging around here.
Posted by: arb at February 01, 2009 11:25 PM (tzgwl)
20
Not only my pokitics, but also my politics. :-}
Posted by: arb at February 01, 2009 11:27 PM (tzgwl)
21
Sorry, Arb. I should have been more specific and noted that I was replying to STP, or whatever he calls himself. He seemed to think that any critiscism of FEMA is 'weak sauce' because FEMA is thinking about maybe getting around to planning to respond to this situation. That'll teach me to troll around websites and watch football at the same time.
Posted by: Tim at February 01, 2009 11:36 PM (sp1sQ)
22
Well, according to some local reporting FEMA is coming up with what the state is asking for Communications support and fuel supplies.
My question is why is the MSM not covering this one way or the other.
Posted by: OldDog at February 01, 2009 11:50 PM (CRC5/)
23
That's the point. The point isn't that Obama's not doing enough or that FEMA was hampered by weather. The point is the press lied and made it sound like Bush could call out the national guard on his own (he can't) or that he should have parachuted in to NOLA with supplies, himself. Can you imagine if Bush had eaten steak with congress and gone to a cocktail party 5 days into Katrina? The point is the press crucified Bush for this, and the public bought it, and the press learned they could tell the public anything or NOT tell the public anything.
So, the public does not hear about this, and no one is saying "why isn't Obama doing something." The press sucks.
Posted by: Sally at February 01, 2009 11:57 PM (N0hv7)
24
This from a Cincinnati paper:
"President Obama has declared Kentucky a federal disaster area in the wake of an ice and snow storm that left 600,000 residents without power.
Obama approved Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear’s request for the declaration, according to a news release from the governor’s office. That will activate federal programs to assist the state in its recovery effort."
The article is dated Jan. 29th.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) at February 02, 2009 12:15 AM (nas9l)
25
The storm hit on 27th.
The point still holds. If this was Bush eating steak, watching football etc, he'd be crucified for it.
But it's Obama. So most people don't even know that these people are hurting
Posted by: sally at February 02, 2009 12:18 AM (N0hv7)
26
Upon moving to Mass after growing up in St. Louis I was surprised to discover that I was from the South. Apparently anything south of Ohio is Pennsyltucky.
OTOH, my neighbor from deep-in-the-woods Kentucky claims she grew up in the Midwest. We always considered Kentucky part of the South.
Border state identity crisis. If you warrant a star on the Stars and Bars, I suppose you can go either way.
But back to the issue at hand...have there been any Sean Penn sightings?
Posted by: JohnL at February 02, 2009 06:37 AM (ywtR/)
27
At the risk of sounding like Jesse Jackson, the press believe "no blame, no fame." Kentucky is a conservative democrat state - 57% to 36% republican. Both governor and Lt governor are donks and they have only 6% blacks. Worst of all, the Bluegrass State cast its 8 electoral votes against Obama, who of course, is above all criticism. Besides, the press corp is still hot on the Obama puppy story and can't be troubled by problems in the wilderness of rural America. No one in New York or Washington cares about them.
Fortunately, the people of Kentucky, like most Southerners, already have rather low expectations of Washington. Here in Alabama, ice storms are particularly destructive. Couple people who drive too fast and have no experience with "winter" conditions with a wooded, mountainous terrain and you see extended periods of lost power. I bought a generator that powers my house as long as a propane truck can get in every 5 days. My neighbors know that when the power goes down, they can come to my house to get ice, take showers, do their laundry, check their email or cook a hot meal. It's like a block party. FEMA is for wards of the state.
If I were a Kentucky conservative, I would be helping my neighbors and quietly asking my conservative democrat friends how they feel about all democrat government now. It worked for Bobby Jindal in Louisiana.
Posted by: arch at February 02, 2009 08:19 AM (ZZW37)
28
As a native Kentuckian who lives along the Ohio River and has to tolerate the damned Hoosiers, and other Yankees, to the north, Kentucky is a southern state. Regardless of how the Civil War transpired, most Kentuckians associate themselves with the south.
Posted by: Tom Seaver at February 02, 2009 11:55 AM (T4dLI)
29
Tim,
My criticism of CY is that he publishes a post saying that FEMA has been a "no show" when that is clearly not the case. He hasn't taken anytime to look into the situation other than to cruise other blogs. Essentially his comment on FEMA is completely unsubstantiated. Hence it is 'weak sauce.'
The notion that this natural disaster is on par with Katrina seems a stretch. As of a couple of days ago, the total death toll for the ice storm was at 46. Katrina killed a little more than 1800 people and 700,000 people were displaced from their homes. Katrina was on a completely different level in terms of destruction.
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's engagement for this ice storm is equal to what Bush has done in the past for other natural disasters. He's declared it a federal disaster, when the weather clears he'll survey the damage and meet with the citizens. It will be your standard fare, and Bush would have not done much more.
If you want true comparisons then pick any low to moderate level natural disaster during Bush's term, examine how he treated it, and then compare that to Obama's actions.
Bush's biggest mistake was he treated Katrina, from a press standpoint, like a regular low to moderate level disaster instead of the high level one. Many in the Republican party have said it was the moment Bush lost his credibility and the party started it's downward slide.
CY would like this to signal the end of Obama's political career, but that isn't gong to happen in this case. Maybe later, but not with this.
Posted by: SPW at February 02, 2009 02:01 PM (VftLx)
30
I'm confused.
How can nearly 2 million blacks get into Washington DC in sub zero temps in 1 day,
when 200,000 couldn't get out of New Orleans at 85 degrees with four days notice?
Posted by: JosephineSouthern at February 02, 2009 04:26 PM (AKl3/)
31
President Bush did not treat Katrina as a "low to moderate" disaster, as SPW says. Even before Katrina made landfall he declared it a disaster, so that money and aid would be immediately available. He followed up with everything he could do on a Federal level, including FEMA. The folks who were dilatory about their response were Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco. Obama declared a disaster two days after the power outage for one million people in the middle of a cold winter. FEMA hasn't showed up yet in Kentucky... ohh, wait, I think they're thinking about it.
As a resident of Houston, Texas, I think I probably know more than most folks who only listened to the mainstream press about this. The US Coast Guard, the only Federally controlled agency which is empowered to respond to local emergencies without having to be requested, did a magnificent job rescuing folks from the rooftops of their flooded homes by helicopter, and by boat, while Gov. Blanco was still "thinkin' about it."
We have always known that Louisiana is a politically corrupt state, and they acted as we expected -- too little and too late. We sheltered more than 75,000 of New Orleans refugees here in Houston with only 24 hours' notice to prepare. That's the way we do things in Texas. The right way.
Marianne
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at February 02, 2009 06:28 PM (doHlr)
32
Marianne,
I stated he treated it "from a press standpoint" as low to moderate, i.e. he sat in Crawford strumming a guitar and when he did come to New Orleans he made a fool of himself at a press conference where he joked about coming to N.O. in college to party. He did not have his game face on and that's what people remember. His "your doin' a heckuva job Brownie" to the FEMA director was pure comedy and undercut his legitimacy and leadership ability. Period.
Posted by: SPW at February 02, 2009 08:21 PM (VftLx)
33
SPW
You are a fool. George Bush was a caring president. Wait four years and you will understand
Posted by: arch at February 02, 2009 09:56 PM (ZZW37)
34
I'm a Kentuckian, born and raised, currently freezing my rump off in the Storm the Media Forgot- and we are definitely part of "the South." Forget the Maxon-Dixon line, the beverage line is a better indicator of southern-ness. If you order tea in a restaurant and it comes on ice in a glass, you're in the south. If your waitress asks, "What kind of coke do you want?" and she's offering Pepsi products, you're in the south.
Posted by: Ornithophobe at February 02, 2009 11:39 PM (axnX5)
35
Orn,
You convinced me. It don't get much more southern than that.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 02, 2009 11:42 PM (HcgFD)
36
I'm not sure if it's because I'm a woman, but I'm looking at the men arguing politics about these 1.5 million people without power - and thinking it's just wrong. We really SHOULD CARE about these people - and THAT'S why it matters that Obama isn't doing anything!!!! People are dying. This isn't a political chip to play to criticize Obama and compare this to Bush on a political level. This is real human suffering, clearly more help is needed, and I want to know why this isn't being resolved. Why isn't business calling in other workers from outside states? (The power company). Why isn't FEMA doing something (not that I'm "for" FEMA - but since they stole our money in taxes - do the work!!!) It's ridiculous FEMA emergency funds were used for the Obama inauguration - while 1.5 million people go with out power in the freezing cold. This is UNAMERICAN!! The fake "President-elect's" pomp more worthy of FEMA funds than freezing Americans?? What a crock. Give us our tax money back or spend it when it's really needed. People are suffering. A REAL CRY should be going out - not this political hype stuff that makes it sound like most commenters on this post really don't care. I'm not seeing sincere concern for these people. It just doesn't sound right to me that people are crying about Bush. You care more about political wrangling than you do about these 1.5 million people... seems like. Something about it doesn't ring true to me.
Posted by: l at February 03, 2009 08:23 AM (KquNY)
37
Northwest Arkansas has been hit pretty hard by this ice storm. (Nothing as vast as Kentucky.) We have had power crews come in from as far away as Mt. Airy, NC. They had to have left NC sometime Monday afternoon as soon as the ice storm hit. I don't know who contacted them or how it was arranged but they were here. Now we do still have pockets without power. I do not have power yet, out since last Tuesday am. They are having to clear trees before things can be resurrected and that takes time. We are persevering but the novelty of it all is wearing off. We do have a generator and can make it to the gas station for fuel for it. If Kentucky was as on the ball as Ark was, they should have power crews there from other areas. I don't know if this is arranged by the power companies or the state. Fortunately the weather has not been too extreme here the last few days so things have been bearable. I understand Ky is schduled for more snow. Not a good thing.
On another note, I have never understood why people think that a particular location (say New Orleans) that took several centuries to build should be back up and running again within a few weeks or years for that matter. And what do you expect is going to happen when you build it BELOW SEA LEVEL?
Posted by: Razorgirl at February 03, 2009 12:09 PM (gHNO5)
38
Actually, KY has a deal with several other states whereby they share repair crews. I've seen massive convoys of out-of-state electrical trucks moving through Louisville this week. My kids call 'em "the Lights Brigade."
Posted by: Ornithophobe at February 03, 2009 03:10 PM (axnX5)
39
remember when the governor of kentucky declared a state of emergency during Hurricane Ike
that was weird
Posted by: energon international homerule strategies at February 03, 2009 10:50 PM (T0NfL)
40
SPW posts:
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's engagement for this ice storm is equal to what Bush has done in the past for other natural disasters. He's declared it a federal disaster, when the weather clears he'll survey the damage and meet with the citizens. It will be your standard fare, and Bush would have not done much more.
Please.
First of all, the primary responsibility for disaster response lies with the community and the state. FEMA has always been an "after-the-fact" agency that handles the long-term effects. Their minimum response time is 3 days.
Secondly, what else would you realistically expect the President to do? Disaster response isn't his job, that's what the state governors and FEMA are for! Bush did precisely what he was supposed to do, which is stay out of the way of the first-responders and offer moral support.
Where the heck do people get this idea that the Federal government, much less the President, is supposed be the first responder?
Posted by: PaulB at February 04, 2009 02:36 PM (tfMGP)
41
I stated he treated it "from a press standpoint" as low to moderate...
Because the "press standpoint" is the trooth! But I notice they didn't eviscerate Nagin who spewed idiocy after idiocy in the wake of Katrina, nor did they eviscerate Blanco the Blockade.
Getting things done is irrelevant. Gotta manage the press standpoint.
Posted by: Pablo at February 04, 2009 02:37 PM (yTndK)
42
Where the heck do people get this idea that the Federal government, much less the President, is supposed be the first responder?
From the "press standpoint". That's inoperative for the next 4 years, though.
Posted by: Pablo at February 04, 2009 02:39 PM (yTndK)
43
We live in north central Arkansas, and our power was finally restored last night. There are no words to describe the devastation.
We've been all over two counties, clearing roads and doing welfare checks. Other than the thousands of electric company personnel who responded from all over the South (our heroes) we've been on our own.
In ten days, here's what I HAVEN'T seen: FEMA. The Salvation Army. The Red Cross. The National Guard. The mobile units of ANY insurance company.
The single moment we were a blip on Obama's radar, he promised to send AmeriCorp (?!) to help clear roads. I guess they got lost, because they damn sure didn't show up here.
Posted by: lady red at February 06, 2009 10:27 AM (6R27R)
44
Imovie Converter AVI to Imovie MOV to Imovie WMV to Imovie FLV to Imovie ASF to Imovie 3GP to Imovie MP4 to Imovie MPEG to Imovie HD Video to Imovie AVCHD to Imovie MKV to Imovie DVD to Imovie MTS Converter MTS to AVI MTS to MOV MTS to WMV MTS to FLV MTS to ASF MTS to 3GP MTS to MP4 MTS to MPEG MTS to MKV MTS to DVD MTS to Apple TV MT2S Converter M2TS to AVI M2TS to MOV M2TS to WMV M2TS to FLV M2TS to ASF M2TS to 3GP M2TS to MP4 M2TS to MPEG M2TS to MKV M2TS to DVD M2TS to Apple TV
Posted by: helen at March 31, 2009 08:46 PM (D1uNu)
Posted by: grgr at April 15, 2009 02:46 AM (eeU6w)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 31, 2009
Why Stupid People Shouldn't Blog
Let me type this s l o w l y so that certain people who don't seem to be able to read with any level of detail can follow along.
The Pajamas Media advertising network—responsible for those ads you
generally ignore see in the sidebar over there to your right—is
going the way of the digital dodo on March 31.
Pajamas Media, the portal site that features news and opinion, is not closing. The blogfather, Glenn Reynolds, will still be found at
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/
Only the advertising network, which never made any money, is going away. Pajamas Media and
PJTV.com live on, and are in an apparent expansion phase.
The network going down to hurt some good bloggers who depended upon the network as their primary sources of income. They have my sympathy and sincere prayers. As someone who worked in web development contracting for many years, I know the fears of suddenly becoming jobless with a family to support as well or better than many, and the stress that can cause.
But I'm equally confident that those bloggers who were drawing enough traffic to draw significant income from their advertising, like
Ace and
Jeff and
Rusty, have the kind of unique voices and talent that may fair well on their own or other blog advertising networks. They, like the cheesy song says, will survive.
And while we get along on almost nothing, I think John Cole over at Ballon Juice strikes
just the right tone.
So I don’t have to keep answering this repeatedly in the comments, yes, I will no longer be with the PJ Media network starting 1 April. They are apparently moving on/the business model didn't work/whatever. Life goes on.
I understand there is an inordinate amount of bad feelings and some hostility being chucked around, and I want no part in it. Roger Simon and the others at PJ always kept their word to me. From where I sit, PJ Media was an ad portal that provided advertising content for this site, and that was about it. I never understood claims at the beginning of this several years ago that somehow I was "losing my independence" or the rest of the nonsense for signing up with them. As I have stated repeatedly, maybe others had different experiences, but the company was great to me. They always kept their word, their staff was top-notch and great to work with (and I really hope they find jobs quickly/keep their jobs), and Roger Simon was a great person to do business with the past couple years. I signed a contract through the end of March, PJ Media and I are both honoring it, and they are moving on to something different. This sort of thing happens hundreds of thousands of times every day all over the world, and is really rather unremarkable.
Life goes on, indeed.
As you might guess, the dissolution of the Pajamas advertising network will not disrupt things greatly here at
CY. I'll still write feature stories for Pajamas Media published at the still very active (And judging by the growing comments sections, more active)
pajamasmedia.com portal, and I'm already in discussion with another exciting potential partner who may be rolling some advertising and writing opportunities my way.
We encounter, we adapt, and overcome.
So let's move forward, shall we?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
04:25 PM
| Comments (45)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Don't forget to bury the dead..
Posted by: lasertex at January 31, 2009 06:30 PM (GUp/q)
2
Your snarling, sarcastic tone aimed at critics of PJM and its recent dissolution (call it whatever you want, the core behind its founding was the ad network) is not, perhaps, the best way to "move forward." It makes you sound petty. If you want to defend Simon and the other founders of PJM, you could do so without insulting the intelligence of other (now-former) PJM bloggers.
Posted by: PatHMV at February 02, 2009 09:51 AM (4NZ8H)
3
Pat, I'm aiming my post DIRECTLY at those bloggers too lazy or stupid to do a minimal level of research or basic fact-checking before publishing their rants.
I didn't aim criticism at so much as a single critic that had their facts straight, or even a plausible opinion. I struck specifically at those who had their facts wrong about what took place. Nor did I in any way defend Simon or PJM in the least.
I'm castigating those who half-read things (and linked three examples), fill in the blanks with what they want to hear, and then go on a fact-free, self-important bender.
Kinda. Like. You. Just. Did.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 02, 2009 10:19 AM (HcgFD)
4
Well, considering that Roger Simon's own letter said "we have decided to wind down the Pajamas Media Blogger and advertising network," I really don't see what, exactly, the folks you lambasted got wrong. Culture 11 said: "Now it looks like Pajamas Media network is shutting down." I likewise see nothing erroneous in anything Pamela or Ann Althouse said. It looks to me like you're pissed at them because they're adopting a critical tone against PJM, not because they lack basic reading comprehension. Perhaps you think they lack the ability to read because they didn't bother to note that the portal would remain. On the other hand, perhaps they felt that the portal is a relatively insignificant part of PJM as a whole. PJM did not sell itself on "hey, we're creating a kick-ass portal, guys!"
So what, exactly, did they get wrong? What exactly is "Pajamas Media" without the "Pajamas Media Blogger and advertising network"?
Posted by: PatHMV at February 02, 2009 10:36 AM (4NZ8H)
5
The "Pajamas Media Blogger and advertising network" is the little "Pajamas Media Network blogger" tag and three ads on individual blogs, and the larger collective network of blogs that featured those ads. Nothing more, and nothing less.
The portal, PajamasMedia.com, is a destination site featuring news and opinion features (and yes its creation was a key part of selling the original business plan, and the pitch to bloggers).
Pajamas Media is the company that ran both the ads and the portal.
These critics thought Pajamas Media the company was shutting down completely--a neat trick, considering they haven't laid off a single full-time employee that I'm aware of.
Atlas thought the company was going away. I know this for a fact, because we exchanged emails. The smug poster at culture 11 thought the same thing, because he griped about the aggregation and portal content, not just the ad network. The same with Althouse who declared in her headline that the entire enterprise has collapsed.
They got wrong, well, just about everything of substance. That you can't seem to grasp how far off they were even after having it explained to you for now the third time, you're obviously more confused than even they were.
The company is expanding, and chopped off part of the entity that was not working in order to streamline ops. That is the polar opposite of the story these and several other ignorant bloggers told, and is a fiction you apparently still believe.
Pajamas Media is a new media company, not an advertising company. It always has been. Advertising was just one part of the business, and it happened not to work out even as the portal worked and forays into video on the portal led the management to believe, for whatever reason, that the PJTV spin-off was worth pursuing.
I could care less that people are mad at PJM, and I haven't said word one against other bloggers that were critical of it, from those that always hoped it would fail, to those who feel they got screwed. The only bloggers I've gone after are those sloppy hacks who lack reading comprehension and went on the offensive without even understanding what they were talking about.
Any perception that I'm defending Pajamas or broadly attacking critics is a flight a fancy coming from your own imagination, not the result of anything I've written.
Like those I linked, you let your misperceptions get the better of you, and spouted off without knowing the facts.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 02, 2009 11:14 AM (HcgFD)
6
Well, I don't see any of that in the posts to which you linked. All Culture 11 said in the post to which you linked was: "Now it looks like Pajamas Media network is shutting down (they're going to go into vlogging fulltime?)."
I can't speak to what AtlasShrugged said to you in her e-mails, of course, but the post to which you linked said only: "Pajama media is shutting down the blog." That to me doesn't seem like an unfair interpretation of Simon's notice that the PJM Blogger and Ad Network were shutting down.
So the company may be expanding, but it is doing something very different from what it did before. It began as a network of bloggers, and it does not appear it will be that any more.
Perhaps you would have preferred them to focus on what remains rather than what is disappearing. But given that what is folding was a huge portion of the core of PJM from its beginning, I don't see how it demonstrates "stupidity" to write about the part that's disappearing without tossing in umpteen caveats and fine print. Heck, AtlasShrugged posted the entire Roger Simon letter.
You keep saying it's just the advertising network that's disappearing. But Simon's letter says that it's the Pajamas Media Blogger and advertising network which is disappearing. Got it, Mr. Reading-Challenged? AND. Two things going away. The blogger network AND the advertising network.
Here's PJM's own "about us story:
"Pajamas Media began in 2005 as an affiliation of 90 of the most influential weblogs on the Internet. They were linked together as an advertising network, but the intention was to provide a significant alternative to mainstream media. Two years later PJM has expanded its reach. Besides adding to its blog network, through its portal, PJM now provides exclusive news and opinion 24/7 in text, video and podcast from correspondents in over forty countries. Pajamas Media also has its own weekly show on XM satellite radio – PJM Political – and syndicates its original material like a news agency."
The ad network and the blogger network are both gone now. Those are the FIRST TWO THINGS which began PJM. The core has disappeared.
You want to call attention to the fact that PJM is still alive as a legal entity, doing different stuff than what it started out doing (much of it, other than the portal, very non-bloggy to my way of thinking), that's fine. But to insult others the way you did, with as little justification as you've been able to provide, makes you look like the stupid one, not them.
Posted by: PatHMV at February 02, 2009 12:13 PM (4NZ8H)
7
The effing title of Atlas' blog entry was "Pajamas Media Closes its Doors" and says in her lede "Pajama media is shutting down the blog." She clearly thought Pajamas Media was done entirely a point she reiterated via email, declaring it very confusing and saying she would try to pay more attention.
Likewise, culture11 declared "Pajamas Media goes down...." as the headline and then went on to complain about the content of the portal... he didn't grasp that there even was an ad network, much less that that was the only part shutting down.
Likewise, a less-than-sharp Althouse declared "The Pajamas Media blogging enterprise has collapsed," completely clueless in her inference that the company was shutting down in order to switch to PJTV.
If you simply can't or won't read the words posted here and on the pages I linked, and instead insist on substituting was passes for thought and interpretation in your mind, then we're at am impasse.
Further, my slow friend, the "PJM Blogger and Ad Network" was always one thing in reality, not two, as you so doggedly insist. It was the ads and "Pajamas Media Network Blogger" on the individual pages, and a blogroll on the portal... that's it!
The blog network was the ad network. "They" were the same entity; the terms were used more or less interchangeably, with the "ad network" used specifically when talking about the ads that appears on multiple blogs, and the blog network describing the sites on which the ads occurred. For the vast majority it is a distinction without a difference, and the fact that you've now been reduced to arguing the meaning of the intention of the word "and" should be a strong clue at just how nonsensical your ill-informed, combative argument has been from the start.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 02, 2009 01:00 PM (HcgFD)
8
Well, if you don't care about how much of an ass you seemed like, I can't help that. I've read all of the posts you linked to, and I still say you went WAY out of your way to call "stupid" people who at WORST merely misunderstood what Roger Simon was saying when he said the PJM blogger and advertising network was shutting down.
"PJM completely changing focus, shutting down its earliest and most visible function; corporate entity to continue." Sure, that would have been hyper-technically more correct.
You COULD have simply said "hey, it's not dead, guys!" and clarified what had happened; that's what I assumed you were doing when I read the link at Instapundit which sent me to this post. But no, you decided to insist that (at worst) confusion was rank stupidity and an inability to read.
Whatever. Me, I don't see the need to call people dumb and stupid if there's any other possible explanation, and even then I find that, as the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Your post, rather than providing a public service of providing clarifying information, made me believe you are an asshole. Perhaps you have some long-running feud with those other folks of which I am ignorant. But I'm a reasonable, decent guy who doesn't stop by this blog very much, stumbled across it, and was offended by the tone and thought you were fundamentally wrong in your criticisms, based just on reading the posts you linked to. Clearly, you're not interested in feedback and have plenty enough traffic, so I won't trouble you again.
Posted by: PatHMV at February 02, 2009 04:08 PM (4NZ8H)
9
Who are the stupid people who should not blog?
Posted by: Joe at February 04, 2009 10:01 AM (0Gde6)
10
do you mean Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, etc. shouldn't be BLOGGING....?????
Posted by: danpa at February 04, 2009 04:15 PM (/vFCA)
11
Is it OK if stupid people still read the blogs?
Posted by: Smorgasbord at February 04, 2009 05:25 PM (HA7GS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Paging Billy Carter
Though he's been known to complain that he lives in a shack on almost no income at all, George Obama, the President's brother, seems to have enough money for a nickel bag:
Inspector Augustine Mutembei, the officer in charge, said Obama was arrested on charges of possession of cannabis, known in Kenya as Bhang, and resisting arrest. He is scheduled to appear in court Monday, Mutembei said.
He is being held at Huruma police post in the capital of Nairobi.
CNN Correspondent David McKenzie talked with George Obama at the jail where he is being held. Speaking from behind bars, Obama denied the allegations.
"They took me from my home," he said, "I don't know why they are charging me."
In other "related" news, the President's illegal alien aunt, Zeituni Onyango,
faces a deportation hearing April 1.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:11 AM
| Comments (37)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
January 28, 2009
An Army of None
The Democratic Party's Multi-Generational Financial Rape Act of 2009—a pork-laden wishlist laughingly called a "stimulus" bill—has passed the House of Representatives on a 244-188 vote.
Not a single Republican voted in favor of the bill. Not
one.
177 Republicans voted in unison against the bill along with 11 responsible Democrats.
President Obama contemptuously reminded Americans several days ago that "I won" and that he gets to set the agenda as the leader of a nation and of a party that controls the Presidency and both houses of Congress.
Congratulations, Mr. President.
But also keep in mind that your leadership also saddles you with executive responsibility for the very first time in your life, and history will not likely be kind to the memory of an arrogant neophyte that attempted to spend his way out of debt.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:20 PM
| Comments (55)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"...and history will not likely be kind to the memory of an arrogant neophyte that attempted to spend his way out of debt."
Bingo. Just look at some of the little things- his anxiousness to jump into the oath before he should have and actually 'repeating' more than was actually said to him. Arrogant, self-centered. I saw a little of this in some other clips of him talking to people, where he never really listens to them all the way through, just too much trouble. He's just really good at blowing them off in a really friendly, feel good way. I feel like a father who just gave the keys for the family car to his 16 year old son. He's got some hard lessons coming up, I just hope we don't have to foot too big a bill for it.
Posted by: douglas at January 29, 2009 04:26 AM (20QoQ)
2
America elected these people. Come on 2010!
Posted by: arch at January 29, 2009 07:50 AM (ZZW37)
3
$100/lb steak....yummy
The sick part is that he made sure we all knew he was chowing down on it.
It's in your face for the next 4 years.
Posted by: torabora at January 29, 2009 09:28 AM (ROpbq)
4
and history will not likely be kind to the memory of an arrogant neophyte that attempted to spend his way out of debt.
Oliver Stone once said history was written by the winners. With all the forces desperately invested in seeing this thing be so great it eclipses Reagan, that's going to be tough.
To quote the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Posted by: Hawkins at January 29, 2009 10:13 AM (pKjWO)
5
Really, I'm shocked. When I heard Barry's "I won..." blurt it didn't occur to me at all that this would be enough to actually rouse the Republicans to actually stand on principle. Like so much on his resume, Barry's alleged political genius is declared, not documented. In any event and for whatever reasons modest congratulations are in order for the House Reps. Now on to the Senate. Do I dare dream that McCain will stop heaping disgraces on himself for 10 minutes to scuttle this monstrosity? It seems it is a time of miracles. HOPE!
Posted by: megapotamus at January 29, 2009 11:02 AM (LF+qW)
6
Oops. We should recognize that the opposition to this pig, unlike the campaign for it, was bipartisan. That's good, right? Thanks Democrats. If you are represented by a Dem NO, be sure to write a brief thank you. And best wishes to Sen Gillibrand or Gilligan or whatever. She's gotta be an improvement on Hillary! and who could have believed THAT would happen? CHANGE!
Posted by: megapotamus at January 29, 2009 11:05 AM (LF+qW)
7
How easily we forget. I recall Bush Junior telling the American People after winning his last election that he had received a mandate (hardly!) and that he had earned some political capital that he would now spend. Indeed he did. In fact, under his leadership and with the help of corrupt politicians in both of our major political parties we have no REAL capital left to spend.
President Obama is our last great chance to again become a great nation. He did win and won soundly.
Posted by: Dude at January 29, 2009 02:10 PM (byA+E)
8
"President Obama is our last great chance to again become a great nation. He did win and won soundly."
If by great nation you mean a morally crippled welfare state run by a bunch of self aggrandizing intellectual lightweight narcissists with absolutely no integrity or values, then yes, we have a chance to be a "great nation". Hell, I think we are there already.
Posted by: Jeremy at January 29, 2009 05:24 PM (aHlEZ)
9
President Obama is our last great chance to again become a great nation.
ROFL!! Darn you, I almost spit tea out of my nose at that line.
Oh wait...you were serious? You really believe we weren't a great nation for the last 8 years...but were before that? You believe that Obama (!!??) is out last and best chance to be great again? How does that kool-aid taste?
Posted by: iconoclast at January 29, 2009 05:41 PM (FGCRY)
10
I'm finally gonna get that unicorn! I just know it! Thanks, Presidunce Obama!
Posted by: Pablo at January 29, 2009 11:38 PM (yTndK)
11
I wonder if the democrats will ever realize, or admit, they bought a president from the same saleman who sold a million whopper choppers on TV. All of the 'as seen on TV items' are now in the dump. The Chairman is headed there fast, but Dimmy Carter is proud, they finally elected someone more stupid than him.
Posted by: Scrapiron at January 30, 2009 12:15 AM (GAf+S)
12
Bush did have a mandate in 2004 - and Obama and the Dems do have a strong mandate today.
The fact is - Obama and the Dems don't have to compromise after voters gave them the White House and a strong majority in Congress.
They will officially have that mandate until the next mid-term elections. Unofficially, they'll have it until polls start showing likely voters are pissed off at them (if that happens)...
What I find bitterly amusing about this latest vote is ---- how the media, of course, uses it to puff up Obama and attack Republicans.
Suddenly, just sitting down at a table to listen to the other party is enough to get big "bipartisan" headlines....Really?
If this were Bush and a Republican dominated Congress, the news would have been about how they "railroaded" this bill through. But because it is Obama, rather than getting the reality based articles that say the Dems are exercising their mandate, we get this poo about how Republicans are rejecting bipartisanism.
Bipartisanism now means just listening but ignoring and is devoid of the idea of compromise.
----- And even when 11 Dems jump ship to vote against it.....
Posted by: usinkorea at January 30, 2009 01:55 AM (lxcus)
13
It's going to be interesting to see this in the Senate. I predict it will fail back to the House where more pork will be added. Then it will pass again there and move on up to the Senate where even more pork will be added and it will pass on round 2.
Posted by: Dan Irving at January 30, 2009 03:09 PM (zw8QA)
14
It is very little consolation, but at least the media will have no one to blame but the democrats when we find ourselves in the same or worse economic situation, only a trillion dollars poorer.
Posted by: Eric at January 30, 2009 04:06 PM (NSIOL)
15
It is very little consolation, but at least the media will have no one to blame but the democrats when we find ourselves in the same or worse economic situation, only a trillion dollars poorer.
There you go again, thinking rationally. When this looting/porkfest is done and not accomplished anything other than jumpstarting inflation, the fuzzy-brained media will blame it on Bush, the Republicans, Reagan, Global Warming, Bush, Republicans, Sunspots, and that nasty fake lemon in Lipton tea. One thing Democrats and the media excel at: finding someone else to blame.
Heck, they probably will say it wasn't big enough and now we need a $2trillion pork bill to really get the job done right.
Please don't ever assume that Democrats and the Media (but I repeat myself) have any intellectual honesty or any other goal than to reward themselves and their supporters. There is nothing more important to Democrats (and a few Republican pols) than power and the privileges that accompany power.
Posted by: iconoclast at January 30, 2009 04:45 PM (FGCRY)
16
STOP IT!
Stop your vile, racist attacks on our new Leader.
We won. You lost. Face reality!
Praise Him!
Praise The One!
Praise OBAMA!
Allahu Akbar!
Posted by: Yes We Did at January 30, 2009 05:37 PM (RrmkQ)
17
Allah is a pig - and Satan.
But I can see why a person would see Obama as his representative and "the one".
Posted by: l at January 30, 2009 05:45 PM (KquNY)
18
The Senate action will be interesting. I think from a practical standpoint it's impossible for the House to be truly bipartisan. Each rep has a small and focused constituency and they will vote their constituency no matter what. Senators have to spread themselves across the whole state, so compromise has to come into play.
The commenter named "Dude" is correct about Bush's statements after he won in 2004. At his first press conference he stated:
"You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That’s what happened in the — after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I’ve earned capital in this election — and I’m going to spend it for what I told the people I’d spend it on, which is — you’ve heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."
Posted by: SPW at January 30, 2009 11:20 PM (VftLx)
Posted by: Ariah at January 31, 2009 12:23 AM (b10fF)
20
While I think it's great that the House Republicans finally stood up (not the change The One was hoping for I'm sure) it's not enough. They need to be offering a substantial alternative.
Not just a different pile of crap spending bill but serious cuts in the size and cost of government along with serious tax cuts. They want to stimulate the economy. Give the people their money back and get out of the way.
I don't think they have a chance in hell of pulling it off but they need to be telling people that there is a better way than the Belt Way to solve our problems. If they get that message out there now - they may find themselves in a position to do something about it in 2010 and 12.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at January 31, 2009 07:58 AM (R7LgM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 97 >>
Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.2486 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2196 seconds, 280 records returned.
Page size 253 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.