The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

Rachel Maddow with some excellently deserved scorn for the "Hoover wasn't even this dumb" spending freeze proposal.

 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

[HuskyCaucasian]

Rachel Maddow with some excellently deserved scorn for the "Hoover wasn't even this dumb" spending freeze proposal.

My wife, who grew up in Hoovers home town.. and home to his presidential library... West Branch Iowa, actually is very adiment that Hoover is unfairly criticized for the depression. He actually had a lot of the ideas that Roosevelt ended up using, but it was too little too late.

 

Ok, so the GOP idea to fix the economic crisis caused by a lack of demand and in which money is drying up and not being spent is to... not spend money. What a bunch of morons.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[HuskyCaucasian]

Rachel Maddow with some excellently deserved scorn for the "Hoover wasn't even this dumb" spending freeze proposal.

Economist: "This recession is broader, deeper and more complicated than virtually anything we have ever seen"

GOP: laissez-faire... it'll fix itself

[mr_genius]

McCain, after rushing back to Washington to give the banks a trillion dollars during is campaign, has decided that they should be allowed to fail. Uh yea, maybe mr.McCain should have thought of this before he voted to give them a blank check.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/08/business/shelby.php

[NorthSideSox72]

Not sure where to put this, but, its a perfect example of what some of us have been harping on about the way Congress does business. Specifically, the fact that you can have a bill that gets screwed over because of an unrelated amendment.

 

In this instance, there is a bill that appears to be ready to go, that will give DC a full voting member of Congress. But that bill has now stalled, because some moron in the Senate attached an amendment rolling back certain gun laws in DC.

 

Mind you, I happen to actually agree with both pieces here. But they should be voted on individually. This amendment is nothing more than a big f*** you from this Senator.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Good Idea... Bad Idea...

GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry, a key player in helping craft the Republican message, has offered an unusually blunt description of the Republican strategy right now.

 

McHenry’s description is buried in this new article from National Journal (sub. only):

“

We will lo

s

e on legi

s

lation. But we will win the me

s

s

age war every day, and every wee

k

, until November 2010,

”

s

aid Rep. Patric

k

McHenry, R-N.C., an out

s

po

k

en con

s

ervative who ha

s

participated on the GOP me

s

s

age team

s

.

“

Our goal i

s

to bring down approval number

s

for [

s

pea

k

er Nancy] Pelo

s

i and for Hou

s

e Democrat

s

. That will ta

k

e repetition. Thi

s

i

s

a marathon, not a

s

print.

”

McHenry’s spokesperson, Brock McCleary, tells me his boss is standing by the quote.

 

McHenry’s description of his party’s goal — to “bring down approval numbers” for Nancy Pelosi and House Dems — is being much talked about today among Congressional Dems. It’s likely that Dems will grab on to the quote today to bolster their charge that Congressional Republicans aren’t interested in playing a constructive role in governing and see their hope for political revival in the eventual failure of the Democratic majority’s policies.

 

Editorial

Boy this is all setting up to be a great DNC ad...

Limbaugh: "I hope he fail

s

"

McHenry: "Our goal i

s

to bring down approval number

s

"

Announcer: "And who i

s

wor

k

ing to ma

k

e America better?"

Obama: "if we come together and lift thi

s

nation from the depth

s

of thi

s

cri

s

i

s

; if we put our people bac

k

to wor

k

and re

s

tart the engine of our pro

s

perity; if we confront without fear the challenge

s

of our time and

s

ummon that enduring

s

pirit of an America that doe

s

not quit, then

s

omeday year

s

from now our children can tell their children that thi

s

wa

s

the time when we performed, in the word

s

that are carved into thi

s

very chamber, "

s

omething worthy to be remembered." Than

k

you, God Ble

s

s

you, and may God Ble

s

s

the United

S

tate

s

of America."

Edited March 9, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[kapkomet]

But it was so different in 2004-5-6-7 that Democrats wanted George W. Bush to fail. Just saying.

 

[Balta1701]

But it was so different in 2004-5-6-7 that Democrats wanted George W. Bush to fail. Just saying.

Which is of course why they blocked every single thing he tried to do. That's why we never invaded Iraq. That's why Bush never appointed any Supreme Court Justices over a filibuster and now we have only 7 justices That's why every funding resolution for the Iraq war was filibustered, and the war that never happened ran out of funding in 2005. That's why he wasn't able to institute $3 trillion worth of tax cuts in his first couple years over intense filibusters.. Thank Goodness that's why the Patriot Act was filibustered.

 

/kaperbole.

 

Seriously...one could make a much more coherent argument that the Democrats wanted George W. Bush to fail so badly that they gave him every single thing he wanted for 8 years, realizing shrewdly that everything he touched was going to implode, while now the Republicans have to keep him from succeeding and thus Obama can't be allowed to pass anything because that might actually succeed. Somehow I doubt anyone is that crafty, but at least it offers an explanation for behavior that doesn't contradict what happened.

[kapkomet]

That's the great secret, Balta. Seriously, every time these f***ers got in front of a camera, they would scream for Bush's failure. Harry Reid "The War Is Lost". Etc.

 

But then, they never actually backed up their words. They are more deceiving to me then Republicans because they say one thing to the cameras and then do the opposite when push comes to shove. Hello, Mr. Obama re: TARP I, GM bailouts, etc = yes vote on the senate floor, and then run for the NY Times hotline and say they inherited everything.

 

Can we please stop pretending that one party is better then the other?

[bmags]

That's the great secret, Balta. Seriously, every time these f***ers got in front of a camera, they would scream for Bush's failure. Harry Reid "The War Is Lost". Etc.

 

But then, they never actually backed up their words. They are more deceiving to me then Republicans because they say one thing to the cameras and then do the opposite when push comes to shove. Hello, Mr. Obama re: TARP I, GM bailouts, etc = yes vote on the senate floor, and then run for the NY Times hotline and say they inherited everything.

 

Can we please stop pretending that one party is better then the other?

 

But kap, until 2006, they were in the minority and the only real success they had in opposition was with privatization of social security, which they shut down (I think more to Bush's strategy to go public so quickly). Otherwise, Bush got everything.

Then, in 2006, yes they are in power in the house. But in the Senate, they only have 51 with Lieberman in the caucus...and guess what Lieberman was not - Anti-War.

 

And frankly, there's no argument you can make that they didn't inherit everything. TARP and GM bailouts did not cause the financial crisis, they were reactionary policies to it. And it was drawn up by Paulson and the people Bush picked, and if one thing Bush was not good at, we all know it was at picking personnel.

[kapkomet]

But kap, until 2006, they were in the minority and the only real success they had in opposition was with privatization of social security, which they shut down (I think more to Bush's strategy to go public so quickly). Otherwise, Bush got everything.

Then, in 2006, yes they are in power in the house. But in the Senate, they only have 51 with Lieberman in the caucus...and guess what Lieberman was not - Anti-War.

 

And frankly, there's no argument you can make that they didn't inherit everything. TARP and GM bailouts did not cause the financial crisis, they were reactionary policies to it. And it was drawn up by Paulson and the people Bush picked, and if one thing Bush was not good at, we all know it was at picking personnel.

But bmags, they wanted the President to fail. You can put words in any order you want to, but that is the bottom line.

 

It is no different now from the other side of the spectrum.

 

It's time to quit picking nits about how things are said. IF Barack Obama wants socialistic policies, you're damn right I want him to fail. IF George W. Bush wanted to spend $XXX money for nothing, you're damn right I want him to fail. Let's quit playing games with the wording because all it does is make everyone's three fingers pointing back at them mighty brown.

 

[DukeNukeEm]

socialistic.

Not a word.

 

I'm sort of amused by the knee-jerk "red scare" reaction of any movement to the left. What kind of "socialistic" policies does Barack Obama have?

[bmags]

But bmags, they wanted the President to fail. You can put words in any order you want to, but that is the bottom line.

 

It is no different now from the other side of the spectrum.

 

It's time to quit picking nits about how things are said. IF Barack Obama wants socialistic policies, you're damn right I want him to fail. IF George W. Bush wanted to spend $XXX money for nothing, you're damn right I want him to fail. Let's quit playing games with the wording because all it does is make everyone's three fingers pointing back at them mighty brown.

 

I disagree, they didn't play it like that, if they did they'd always vote 0. Bush wanted to the power to act in Iraq, the democrats supported it for the sake of national security. Bush then jumped the gun without evidence. Once they were in Iraq and wanted the budget to be emergency funds, the democrats went along with it.

 

The difference between the two, is the democrats maybe wrongfully play, we are already going to play it, so how are we going to get our fill. For the republicans, it's either we are going to do something or we are going to do nothing. Are the republicans right now saying "okay, here's how we stimulate the economy, we are going to remove mark to market, we are going to remove capital gains taxes to encourage investing, we are going to give tax cuts for small businesses and find acceptable projects."

Their mindset isn't, we are already going to do something (clearly) lets make sure we get some things in there we think will help the direction of the country. They took up..."we are going to do nothing"...

 

"WE ARE GOING TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENT SPENDING"

 

Whereas, you can make the argument, that I think the democrats are more realistic. Frankly, under the leadership of Bush and the terrible precedence of executive power of the last 50 years, and the fact that the war powers act is useless, Bush could've gone to war in Iraq regardless. At some point, if that is happening, you don't say we aren't going to fund the troops, good luck boys! You work in the new reality to try and give what's needed to succeed even if you conscientiously object. This was true for years until they finally got some backbone to say no more blank check until you show us some commitment or plan in Iraq.

 

But the Republicans now are playing, if they are going to do something, we'll propose doing nothing. Then if something works, f***. If something doesn't work, then surely people will think NOTHING WOULD HAVE.

 

This isn't a system of competing ideas. This is a system of one set of ideas, a void of where ideas should be, and an anchor that is republican politicians. They aren't proposing anything reasonable. Until they do, they'll be useless.

[kapkomet]

I disagree, they didn't play it like that, if they did they'd always vote 0. Bush wanted to the power to act in Iraq, the democrats supported it for the sake of national security. Bush then jumped the gun without evidence. Once they were in Iraq and wanted the budget to be emergency funds, the democrats went along with it.

 

The difference between the two, is the democrats maybe wrongfully play, we are already going to play it, so how are we going to get our fill. For the republicans, it's either we are going to do something or we are going to do nothing. Are the republicans right now saying "okay, here's how we stimulate the economy, we are going to remove mark to market, we are going to remove capital gains taxes to encourage investing, we are going to give tax cuts for small businesses and find acceptable projects."Their mindset isn't, we are already going to do something (clearly) lets make sure we get some things in there we think will help the direction of the country. They took up..."we are going to do nothing"...

 

"WE ARE GOING TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENT SPENDING"

 

Whereas, you can make the argument, that I think the democrats are more realistic. Frankly, under the leadership of Bush and the terrible precedence of executive power of the last 50 years, and the fact that the war powers act is useless, Bush could've gone to war in Iraq regardless. At some point, if that is happening, you don't say we aren't going to fund the troops, good luck boys! You work in the new reality to try and give what's needed to succeed even if you conscientiously object. This was true for years until they finally got some backbone to say no more blank check until you show us some commitment or plan in Iraq.

 

But the Republicans now are playing, if they are going to do something, we'll propose doing nothing. Then if something works, f***. If something doesn't work, then surely people will think NOTHING WOULD HAVE.

 

This isn't a system of competing ideas. This is a system of one set of ideas, a void of where ideas should be, and an anchor that is republican politicians. They aren't proposing anything reasonable. Until they do, they'll be useless.

Really? That's one opinion. And even when they do propose something, it's "useless". You're even using the same language the honorable Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid do. Those Republicans are "useless". Their ideas are "useless". Hell, they are so useless that I don't want them in the room for debate! Well, it's one thing to have ideas, and it's another to not have a s***faced clue how to present them, which I contend is the Republican's issue and has been for 8+ years now.

 

Re: your italicized points, yes, I do think they are presenting some of those ideas, but unless they REALLY work, they won't see the light of day unless the Messiah can get some credit. The reason Obama has been really quiet on all of this is because no one knows if this will work. He's betting a lot on something that's not proven, that's for sure. So, there are polar camps, just like always, which is frustrating.

 

Why is it that Limbaugh jumped out to front page news? Be a Dem strategist here. Why is that? Hint: this is all tied together.

[lostfan]

Really? That's one opinion. And even when they do propose something, it's "useless". You're even using the same language the honorable Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid do. Those Republicans are "useless". Their ideas are "useless". Hell, they are so useless that I don't want them in the room for debate! Well, it's one thing to have ideas, and it's another to not have a s***faced clue how to present them, which I contend is the Republican's issue and has been for 8+ years now.

 

Re: your italicized points, yes, I do think they are presenting some of those ideas, but unless they REALLY work, they won't see the light of day unless the Messiah can get some credit. The reason Obama has been really quiet on all of this is because no one knows if this will work. He's betting a lot on something that's not proven, that's for sure. So, there are polar camps, just like always, which is frustrating.

 

Why is it that Limbaugh jumped out to front page news? Be a Dem strategist here. Why is that? Hint: this is all tied together.

It's easier to b**** about things when you have a boogeyman. Actually this strategy made sense and I was laughing at all the Republicans apologizing but they took this one too far.

[kapkomet]

Oh, I guess I'm bored so I'm posting again. But I'm trying to not be a Kaperbolistic asshole.

[bmags]

Really? That's one opinion. And even when they do propose something, it's "useless". You're even using the same language the honorable Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid do. Those Republicans are "useless". Their ideas are "useless". Hell, they are so useless that I don't want them in the room for debate! Well, it's one thing to have ideas, and it's another to not have a s***faced clue how to present them, which I contend is the Republican's issue and has been for 8+ years now.

 

Re: your italicized points, yes, I do think they are presenting some of those ideas, but unless they REALLY work, they won't see the light of day unless the Messiah can get some credit. The reason Obama has been really quiet on all of this is because no one knows if this will work. He's betting a lot on something that's not proven, that's for sure. So, there are polar camps, just like always, which is frustrating.

 

Why is it that Limbaugh jumped out to front page news? Be a Dem strategist here. Why is that? Hint: this is all tied together.

 

They are proposing a spending freeze kap. That's not an idea. That's a joke. What are you hearing and seeing that i'm not.

Edited March 10, 2009 by bmags

[kapkomet]

They are proposing a spending freeze kap. That's not an idea. That's a joke. What are you hearing and seeing that i'm not.

I hadn't seen that one. That is a joke, you're right about that one. Can you link me? I'd like to read that one.

 

I've seen a lot of ideas sort of floating around out there, but again, as I have said, the Republican party doesn't have a CLUE about how to get their message out. Frankly, neither does the Democrat party right now, but that's another side of this that I'm not going down right now.

 

 

[bmags]

I hadn't seen that one. That is a joke, you're right about that one. Can you link me? I'd like to read that one.

 

I've seen a lot of ideas sort of floating around out there, but again, as I have said, the Republican party doesn't have a CLUE about how to get their message out. Frankly, neither does the Democrat party right now, but that's another side of this that I'm not going down right now.

 

I'm not familiar with breitbart, but this is the AP wire of the story I saw on TV.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The top Republican in the House is seizing on the latest spike in unemployment to call for a freeze on government spending and to urge President Barack Obama to veto a $410 billion spending bill.

Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the jump in unemployment to 8.1 percent and the loss of 651,000 jobs in February is a sign of a worsening recession that demands better solutions from both parties.

 

Boehner criticized the spending bill as chocked full of wasteful, pork-barrel projects. The Senate postponed a vote on the bill until Monday amid the criticism.

 

Boehner said he hoped Obama would veto the bill. He urged the president to work with House Republicans to impose a spending freeze until the end of this fiscal year.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh, I guess I'm bored so I'm posting again. But I'm trying to not be a Kaperbolistic asshole.

Not a word either, but, I like it.

 

[lostfan]

They are proposing a spending freeze kap. That's not an idea. That's a joke. What are you hearing and seeing that i'm not.

If they were actually in power they wouldn't be "proposing" a spending freeze. They have the advantage of not really being taken seriously right now so they can say anything they want to without any real consequence. They can come up with cute slogan-like ideas that sound nice and have a certain connotation to them i.e. "spending freeze" = "fiscal responsibility" even though it's horrible economic policy. And they know that intentionally reducing spending is disastrous, because they always talk about how raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. So in a nutshell they're just trying to convey a certain image for the dumber 25% or so of moderates that don't know any better.

Edited March 10, 2009 by lostfan

[FlaSoxxJim]

Not a word either, but, I like it.

 

Well, it may be an alternate spelling of Kaproballistic which I unsuccessfully tried to introduce to SoxTalk canon a while back. That would itself be a Kapified alternate spelling of caproballistic which is a tongue-in-cheek scientific term referring to the habit of primates throwing their feces.

 

[kapkomet]

Well, it may be an alternate spelling of Kaproballistic which I unsuccessfully tried to introduce to SoxTalk canon a while back. That would itself be a Kapified alternate spelling of caproballistic which is a tongue-in-cheek scientific term referring to the habit of primates throwing their feces.

 

It's not craproballistic?

 

I love it.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

It's not craproballistic?

 

I love it.

 

 

Biologists are fairly obsessed with bodily functions like that. I probably had to take too many liberties with spelling to make it fit. It's correctly spelled copro- not capro- but what the heck.

[Balta1701]

A member of the American National Socialist party, who was reportedly "Very upset" (his wife's words) about Mr. Obama becoming the President, was shot and killed by his wife in Maine in December. This wouldn't be that remarkable, except it appears he had the materials to make a dirty bomb available in his home.