RIP Hugo

[Alan Fox]

I can't understand your statement. You recognize satire when you see it ? Are you attacking the piece because you fail to recognize it as satire or are you defending Hugo and his principles?

Failed to recognize it as satire.......Let me be clear.......Chavez and every other socialist are garbage......

[AmigOne]

Sorry Alex, you don't have to watch MSNBC to learn all the half truths, innuendoes and outright lies from Faux news, Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert do a good job in exposing them all the time. I just love their show.  Fox News must be the only channel that has a weekly statement correcting all the reporting errors of the previous week.

I plead guilty to throwing the bomb about the misinformed or as Limbaugh likes to insult all of those who don't agree with him the "low information voters".  I normally don't get involved in these discussions but when HartParr said that "the uniformed left idealizes dictators" well that touched a nerve.  And his comeback to my post that "the truth hurts" ... pathetic.  Does he know me?

Funny that you were more inclined to get involved by my Faux comment than by his original sweeping insult to those on the left.  And what a pity because he read your post with the same attention than he read mine.  All your valiant effort for nothing.  He didn't even understand that you were on his side and not being sarcastic and accused you of babbling.  A bad sign, he apparently gets angry before understanding what is written.
In my defense I can only say that I might have been under the influence since I read the University of Maryland study that watching too much Fox news makes you ignorant (http://voices.yahoo.com/university-maryland-study-shows-watching-fox-news-7432098.html).

I get the joke about the book and Prof. Bell, not very funny, something like Steve Doocy might say, or a forgotten half governor named...I've forgotten too. 

[alex]

Don't be sorry AmigO, my wife, a card carrying teacher's union member and self-described progressive liberal, loves Colbert, Stewart, Newsweek, Slate, New York Times, Huffington Post, Rachael Maddow....You name it, I've seen it in my home. They are all hilarious and since you brought up Limbaugh, using his lingo I could say (considering I have lived with her for the past 14 years) that I know a liberal and their sources like I know every inch of my glorious naked body.  Sufficient to say she too had a convulsive orgasm, a thrill up her leg (as Chris Matthews might say), when she learned not from a comedy show, (as informative as you might think Jon Stewart and Colbert are, it does not take away the fact that they are COMEDY shows geared toward that...uh oh, here it comes...."low information voter") but from an established educational institution that found that Fox News made you ignorant.  Not too long ago there was a poll that came out that basically parroted this previous "study", only this time NPR was highlighted as the source of best informed audience, did you catch that one? Some studies and polls are very hard to take seriously because they can all be manipulated to give you the results you seek.  I will not discredit your source because I think all sides should be heard and in many situations, such as this one, eye-opening ....consider this article from about the same time in 2010:

 

For the past few days, the far-left Fox haters have been using a study by the University of Maryland's World Public Opinion project to claim that FNC "mis-informs" its viewers. There's nothing particularly novel about the claims, but some lefties are apparently under the impression that this study lends academic weight to their deranged hatred of everything Fox. It does not.

Let's start with the study's broad disclaimer, which should have (but so far has not) dissuaded the Fox haters from their rabid attacks. The study's findings (pdf) plainly state:

…misinformation cannot simply be attributed to news sources, but are part of the larger information environment that includes statements by candidates, political ads and so on.

Anyone who thought calls to refrain from extrapolating some condemnation of specific media outlets from this study would deter liberals from doing just that clearly has not dealt with the Fox-haters before.

Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik expanded on the problem with singling out Fox, or any other news organization, using this study's findings:

Most of the fact-based questions about whether certain programs were started under Bush or Obama were, in fact, the very subject matter of political attack ads. And it would be no surprise to find that far more of those ads aired on Fox, since it is by far the highest-rated cable news channel with the biggest audience. And the channel is watched by many independents and people who are likely to actually go to the polls and vote. I read nothing in the report that addressed that possible misreading of the data -- that the "misinformation" came from the political ads viewers saw on Fox and not from Fox editorial content.

These issues of course did not stop liberal blog after liberal blog after liberal blog from piling on, with equal parts righteous condemnation and jubilant "told-you-so" snark.

But there are plenty of problems inherent in using the study as a cudgel against Fox beyond the specific, direct warning to not do so, and the problems inherent in ignoring that warning. Chief among them is the study's strange means of deciding what is true.

Guest-blogging for Patterico, Aaron Worthing examined one such example:

But the hilarious part is that the authors of the study themselves are misinformed. For instance, their first question is this “is it your impression that most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation: A) created or saved several million jobs, saved or created a few jobs, or C) caused job losses.” The first option is marked as correct.

WPO's "evidence": The Congressional Budget Office "concluded that for the third quarter of 2010, ARRA had 'increased the number of full time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 to 5.2 million compared to what those amounts would have been otherwise.'"

But there are two problems with that. First, um, we are going to trust the government to estimate the success of the government on this? Really?

Second, that utterly fails to relate to the question, which is whether a majority of economists who studied the question believe this to be the case.

And that question - whether a majority of economists agree with some contention - is a strange way to phrase it. Johnny Dollar explains:

Any time you ask about what ‘most economists’ believe, you aren’t really asking for facts or data. You’re asking someone to know the result of some survey--like an episode of Family Feud.

Furthermore, CBO's numbers have no basis in reality, as I have reported a number of times before. They are based on models that assume stimulus spending will create growth and employment, and hence the success of this particular stimulus package is predetermined. So if the idea is to reveal who is more attuned to reality, the CBO numbers are irrelevant; they only exist on paper, and have no real bearing on the success of the ARRA in creating jobs.

The blind faith the study puts in CBO's numbers suggest that it is quite eager to pass them off ipso facto as truth. That says a lot about WPO's perspective on the issue, and their politics generally.

The study makes a similar move with regard to the CBO score on ObamaCare's effect on the deficit. It parrots the numbers CBO released just before ObamaCare passed in March showing deficit-neutrality, but neglects to mention that those numbers pegged the law's 10-year cost using only 6 years of expenditures.

Rep. Paul Ryan

beautifully during the health care "summit." Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin blasted the "fantasy" numbers, and claimed the law would add $562 billion to the deficit. Even Democratic Senator Max Baucus admitted that the bill's cost was roughly 250% of the CBO score.

So the WPO study once again cherry-picked the numbers that would produce the "truth" best suited to bashing Fox News. For a study ostensibly concerned with "misinformation," the WPO is certainly peddling its fair share.

Zurawik picked up on this trend as well. "[T]he definition of a respondent who is considered 'informed,'" Zurawik wrote, "is essentially someone who agrees with the conclusions of experts in government agencies."

So, presumably, if you were to disagree with such top economic experts in government as Timothy Geithner or Larry Summers, you would be labeled as misinformed. If you dared to disagree with those experts in government who say that the Wall Street bailout was absolutely necessary and that the takeover of GM was desperately needed and that healthcare reform will actually be good for the economy -- you would be labeled as MISINFORMED...

Or, think of it this way: If this survey had been conducted when George W. Bush was president and his wall of "experts" in "government agencies" were working overtime to sell the New York Times on the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, you could have been "misinformed" if you said there were no such WMD's in Iraq. M-I-S-I-N-F-O-R-M-E-D. Agency experts did, after all, say the existence of such weapons was a fact.

Beyond the problems with the supposed-"truth" of specific questions, the question selection was itself stilted against Fox, as Johnny Dollar noted:

When you touch on 11 issues, most of them about ‘misinformation’ from the right, with only one (re the Chamber of Commerce) about ‘misinformation’ from the left , you are going to end up with many more cases of ‘right wing’ misinformation, skewing the result. Why no questions like: Were the Bush tax cuts primarily for the wealthy? Or: Does the middle class pay the majority of federal income taxes? By making most of the questions about one variety of ‘misinformation’, the study insured that more ‘misinformation’ would be found among viewers of that persuasion.

After all this, it should come as little surprise that WPO receives funding from a variety of hard-left organizations, such as the Ploughshare Fund and the Soros-backed Tides Foundation.

And it should be even less surprising that despite all the inaccuracies, omissions, and distortions in this study - despite even a direct warning against using the study to condemn single media outlets - it's been received by a frenzy of Fox-hatred from the left

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/12/20/study-claiming-fox-news-viewers-misinformed-fraught-errors#ixzz2NJ6cebqr

[HartParr]

Amigone- I said the left idolizes dictators and that made you mad---do you know any conservatives that idolizes them? No, that is a liberal tenant, if you are liberal and do not think the left is putting these people on a pedestal then you really need to reevaluate your ideals. This country is in a lot of trouble because many young people watch Jon Stewart, Colbert, and NPR and think that they are 'informed'. You claimed I was pathetic because I didn't know you--did I say YOU idolize anybody? No I said the left does and if you consider yourself a liberal then not only is that your problem but it is mine also, I would really like to protect that greatest bastion of freedom in the world. Instead of being offended of what Rush or I am saying about your level of ignorance you should take off the blinders and try to understand what we are trying to tell you. Did you read the above post? Did you realize how uninformed you sound when you make a statement like "I might have been under the influence'?

[RJBrown]

Liberals just plain Suck, they are ruining our country. The constant attack on the economy by liberals is working. These attacks have existed for ages but are only now reaching the tipping point. There are becoming more takers than payers today. Talk about biting the hand that feeds. Liberals feed on the carcass of business As they kill it. The ship is sinking, excess debt and spending fill the boat. The dam liberals answer is to bail more water INTO the boat.   

 The liberals are so arrogant as to be unable to acknowledge any other way. Labeling all who disagree with their "religion" as uninformed and ignorant.

Go to hell, go to North Korea, go to Venezuela, go anywhere just leave America so "we the people" can pick up the pieces. 

The only thing we are entitled to is the opportunity for a job, but when the liberals pull more and more money out of the economy the opportunity for work disappears.The only way to sustain an economy is to remove those parts that don't produce. To reward non productive actions is economic suicide. To bad rewarding the non productive is politically progressive.

Political enough for you?

The Republicans are too liberal today. They have found they must play the give away game to get elected. Pork is a killer. Most Americans are STUPID and cant see beyond their noses. If they weren't we would not be in the fix were in now. We decry the tax and spend but we vote for Uncle Sugar. We don't want what is good for the country or the economy. We want what feels good and we want it now. Real conservatism is tough love, liberalism is the drug that we are addicted to and will eventually die from.

[PTK]

May I suggest the great novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Whoever hasn't read it should pick-up a copy and study it. Needs to be required reading in our schools.

[flyboy0681]

Liberals just plain Suck, they are ruining our country. The constant attack on the economy by liberals is working. These attacks have existed for ages but are only now reaching the tipping point. There are becoming more takers than payers today. Talk about biting the hand that feeds. Liberals feed on the carcass of business As they kill it. The ship is sinking, excess debt and spending fill the boat.

 

I don't have a love fest for Obama, but as I've said elsewhere on this board, I'm all about fairness. To me that means that I remind people of facts that are left out of an argument. While the debt is most certainly troublesome, I need to inform some here that one of the reasons that it has soared under Obama is because he actually fulfilled (much to his detriment) a campaign promise in 2008 to place the two wars into the general budget. G.W. Bush had it placed into an supplemental spending bill each year which did not find it's way into the general budget. Of course the deficit is going to soar when a few hundred billion suddenly finds its way into the mainstream numbers each year. Don't believe me? Google it.

 

Now then, I wasn't on this board during the Bush years, but were you just as vocal about the deficit when Bush took the national debt from $3t in 2001 to $10t when he left office in January 2009, for a total of approximately $7t (give or take)?

 

This country was founded on liberal ideas. A country with a constitution which gives it citizens the power to rule? A republic where a president is elected by the citizenry every few years and not governed by a monarch for a lifetime? Courts where the average citizen can take their claim? Due process? No state sponsored religion? Blasphemy! If you think it's liberals that are ruining the country, I suggest a good look in the mirror.

 

And just for my own edification, MSNBC, NPR, Fox, et al, have been mentioned as outlets that have too much sway. What should I be listening to in order to become a more informed citizen?

[fantom]

We're ALL for fairness, flyboy. Nothing unusual about that.

 

You should listen to MooneySpace to become both more informed, and more confused. See, we're ALL for truth also.

I'm all about fairness. What should I be listening to in order to become a more informed citizen?

[HartParr]

I don't have a love fest for Obama, but as I've said elsewhere on this board, I'm all about fairness. To me that means that I remind people of facts that are left out of an argument. While the debt is most certainly troublesome, I need to inform some here that one of the reasons that it has soared under Obama is because he actually fulfilled (much to his detriment) a campaign promise in 2008 to place the two wars into the general budget. G.W. Bush had it placed into an supplemental spending bill each year which did not find it's way into the general budget. Of course the deficit is going to soar when a few hundred billion suddenly finds its way into the mainstream numbers each year. Don't believe me? Google it.

 

Now then, I wasn't on this board during the Bush years, but were you just as vocal about the deficit when Bush took it  from $3t in 2001 to $10t when he left office in January 2009, for a total of approximately $7t (give or take)?

 

This country was founded on liberal ideas. A country with a constitution which gives it citizens the power to rule? A republic where a president is elected by the citizenry every few years and not governed by a monarch for a lifetime? Courts where the average citizen can take their claim? Due process? No state sponsored religion? Blasphemy! If you think it's liberals that are ruining the country, I suggest a good look in the mirror.

 

And just for my own edification, MSNBC, NPR, Fox, et al, have been mentioned as outlets that have too much sway. What should I be listening to in order to become a more informed citizen?

NO! Bush had a deficit of 2t in eight years and O ran it up to 5.3t in four years. NO this country was not founded on 'liberal' ideals. The basic difference is that liberals believe more government is the answer and conservatives believe more government is a problem. Strong centralized governments wether they are monarchs, dictatorships, or socialist/communist are the very definition of liberalism.

[flyboy0681]

NO! Bush had a deficit of 2t in eight years and O ran it up to 5.3t in four years. NO this country was not founded on 'liberal' ideals. The basic difference is that liberals believe more government is the answer and conservatives believe more government is a problem. Strong centralized governments wether they are monarchs, dictatorships, or socialist/communist are the very definition of liberalism.

 

Obviously I meant Bush ran up the national debt to $10t, not the deficit and I stand corrected. However, it is still a fact that the wars were not counted in the deficit numbers between 2001 and 2010 and it would have exploded had they been included. As for smaller government, your statement is correct, but doesn't explain why during those same Bush years the size of government grew - at a time that Bush enjoyed having the GOP control of both houses. Let's face it, whomever is in power will spend like there's no tomorrow.

[HartParr]

agree 100%-this country needs real conservatism not Dems or Repubs spending on everything they can think of.

[flyboy0681]

agree 100%-this country needs real conservatism not Dems or Repubs spending on everything they can think of.

 

Hate to say it, and I'm not the first, Reagan couldn't get elected as a conservative by today's definition.

[alex]

BUDGET DEFICITS AND HOW PRESIDENTS TRULY RANK.

FORBES 7/11/2012 (Rich people magazine, so I figure they know a little about money issues!)

James K. Glassman, Contributor, I write on the economy, personal investing, and public policy.


Please forgive me. Over and over, I hear misinformation about deficits in prior administrations, and I can’t keep quiet any longer. I have to correct the record.
The latest was on “Squawk Box” on Monday morning. Joe Kernan, the host, is interviewing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, ex-candidate for president and chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Kernen cites campaign comments about “bad policies” going back “decades” affecting the high rate of unemployment today.


He asks, “What specific policies in the Bush Administration do you think are still being used to explain 8 percent unemployment?”
Dean responds, “The biggest ones are the deficits that were run up…. The deficits were enormous
Let’s shed some factual light on the situation by turning to table B-79 of the current Economic Report of the President. There we find the official statistics on federal spending, receipts, and deficits (or surpluses) as proportions of Gross Domestic Product. These are the figures that economists use in determining the relationship of the deficit to the overall economy, answering the question, “How much more are we spending than taking in?”
We can average the deficit-to-GDP ratio during a presidential term and get a good take on whether “deficits were enormous” in historic terms or not. The only tricky part is whether to give a president credit (or blame) for his incoming and outgoing years. For example, President Reagan took office on Jan. 20, 1980, but fiscal year 1980 started four months earlier. Similarly, he left office Jan. 20, 1989, but fiscal 1989 still had four months to run.
I decided to use three sets of calculations for each president: first, the deficit-to-GDP ratio from the fiscal year he took office to the fiscal year he left minus one (thus, for Reagan: 1981-88); second, from his first fiscal year plus one to the fiscal year he left (thus, 1982-89); and third, an average of the first two
Here are the ratios of deficit to GDP for the past five presidents:

Ronald Reagan
1981-88 4.2 %
1982-89 4.2
Average 4.2

George H. W. Bush
1989-92 4.0
1990-93 4.3
Average 4.2

Bill Clinton
1993-2000 0.8
1994-2001 0.1
Average 0.5

George W. Bush
2001-08 2.0
2002-09 3.4
Average 2.7

Barack Obama
2009-12* 9.1
2010-12 8.7
Average 8.9

*fiscal 2012 ends Sept. 30, 2012, so this figure is estimated

Source: Economic Report of the President, February 2012

The results for President Bush are skewed by the 10.1 percent deficit/GDP ratio in fiscal 2009. A large chunk of spending in that year went to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. In fiscal 2009, TARP contributed $151 billion to the budget deficit, but in 2010 and 2011, $147 billion of that amount was recouped and thus reduced the size of the deficit during President Obama’s watch. (These calculations are complicated and are laid out by the Office of Management and Budget. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf, p. 49.)
As for spending itself, during the George W. Bush years (2001-08), federal outlays averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, a little less than during the Clinton years (1993-2000), at 19.8% and far below Reagan, whose outlays never dropped below 21 percent of GDP in any year and averaged 22.4%. Even factoring in the TARP year (2009), Bush’s average outlays as a proportion of the economy was 20.3 percent – far below Reagan and only a half-point below Clinton. As for Obama, even excluding 2009, his spending has averaged 24.1 percent of GDP – the highest level for any three years since World War II.
Americans can judge for themselves whether deficits are “enormous”– but only if they have the facts. In this case, there is no denying the order in which the last five presidents rank on the basis of deficits: Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan in a virtual tie, and Obama.

 

 

 

Sad part is that this does not settle anything.There are those who will come up with their own numbers and explanations to suit their agenda. Only time will tell and history will make liars out of one or the other, or both!     WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

[flyboy0681]

Americans can judge for themselves whether deficits are “enormous”– but only if they have the facts. In this case, there is no denying the order in which the last five presidents rank on the basis of deficits: Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan in a virtual tie, and Obama.

 

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I wish it would have addressed what Bush's deficit would have been had the wars been on the books. Interesting that Clinton ranks number one and Reagan  just under Obama.

 

I guess this would be a good time for me to whip this cartoon out.

[fantom]

While continuing to demonize Bush, and suggesting Reagan couldn't be elected as a conservative, do you really think these guys would be liberals today, flyboy:

 

"I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one." ~ Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

 

"Freedom is lost gradually from an uninterested, uninformed, and uninvolved people." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ~ James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

 

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority." ~
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 22, December 14, 1787

 

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." ~ Patrick Henry

 

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ~ George Washington

 

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." ~ Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

 

Wonderful ideals of personal freedom, democracy for all, and relief from ANY sniffling large government,or any one person who takes it upon himself to re-engineer society. Serious term limits, major tort reform, no more political favoritism tax code, and probably a modified form a representative government is needed.

 

Let's pray the coming revolution is bloodless and non-violent, but I have my doubts.

 

 

 

President Obama, the Democrats, and plenty of Republicans in Congress, would like it if you'd spend the even more time talking about gun control and illegal immigration That's because when you are, you're not talking about the country's financial situation.

And, as the graph included here, taken from OMB budget data, illustrates, the situation is dire. Spending keeps going up. Revenues, however, are not. And, since we're borrowing the difference, President Obama has what Politico is calling a debt problem: "The staggering national debt — up about 60% from the $10 trillion Obama inherited when he took office in January 2009 — is the single biggest blemish on Obama's record, even if the rapid descent into red began under President George W. Bush. Obama has long emphasized Bush's role in digging the immense hole. But he owns it now."

 

 

 

Chart showing federal government outlays and receipts from 1999 to 2012.

 

(Photo: Reason Magazine)

 

Well, things did start to go south under Bush. But look at that graph more closely. In 2003, when we invaded Iraq (one of those "two wars on the credit card" that Obama likes to blame for the debt), and when we passed the Bush tax cuts (the other thing Obama likes to blame for the debt) revenue actually started to climb. The revenue and spending lines start to converge, and, as they head up to 2006 it actually looks as if the two might cross, with revenue outpacing spending.

Even the New York Times noticed, spotting unexpected increases in revenue in 2005, and in 2006 noting that a "surprising" increase in tax revenues was closing the budget gap. The heady possibility of surpluses was in the air. But -- look at the graph again -- everything changes in 2007.

What happened in 2007? The financial crisis hadn't struck yet. But we did elect a new Democratic Congress, with Democrats controlling both houses for the first time in over a decade. The trend immediately reversed, and became much worse with President Obama's election in 2008 and inauguration in 2009. (In fact, despite talk of "wars on the credit card," we could save a lot of money by cutting defense spending back to where it was in 2007.)

So does that mean that the ballooning debt is all Obama's fault? No. Most of those spending bills got Republican votes, too. But it does mean that, as Politico notes, Obama now owns the 60% increase in the debt that has occurred on his watch, and can no longer credibly blame Bush (under whom plenty of Democrats voted for spending bills).

Economist Herbert Stein observed that something that can't go on forever, won't. The United States can't go on forever increasing its debt by 60% every four years. Therefore, it won't. The only question is how things will stop -- smoothly or catastrophically.

As we head into the next debt-ceiling debate, it's worth considering these words from a patriotic senator concerned with America's future:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. . . . It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

The senator? Sen. Barack Obama, in 2006.

 

I wish that guy was President now.

[alex]

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. . . . It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

The senator? Sen. Barack Obama, in 2006.

 

I wish that guy was President now.

 

Me too!

[flyboy0681]

While continuing to demonize Bush, and suggesting Reagan couldn't be elected as a conservative, do you really think these guys would be liberals today, flyboy:

 

Using Jefferson may not have been the best choice because much has been written about his liberal thinking. Franklin could also be considered liberal. I can't make a judgement on Hamilton since it was only one quote and I don't know much about him.

 

I'm not here to demonize Bush or Reagan, but I have a problem with those that hold steadfast to conservative principals and think that Reagan is the poster child of conservatism for which, in my opinion, isn't true by today's standards (although it was for 1980). For what it's worth, a few Republican's had mentioned during the last election cycle that Reagan would not have won the 2012 nomination because he raised income and Social Security tax rates and gave amnesty to over 3 million undocumented immigrants.

 

I still consider myself a smack dab in the middle of the road moderate and it may surprise you that I have voted for more Republican governors over the decades than Democrat. I hold many conservative views as well as liberal.

[RJBrown]

Hate to say it, and I'm not the first, Reagan couldn't get elected as a conservative by today's definition.

NO ONE could be elected as a real conservative. The tit is flowing and No One wants it cut off for themselves, just for the other guy. We Will spend ourselves into oblivion.

I will gladly give up my share of the tit, future SS and  Medicaid, if everyone gets off the tit. End the Ponzi scheme before it bankrupts America.

[HartParr]

We'd be better served looking at total spending vs GDP in every case. Reagan was saddled with dem controlled congress and Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into Newt's Contract with America and now tries to take credit-pathetic. A very telling graph to look at is unemployment for the last 15 years or so. Governments can control trends with policy and our current unemployment devastation was started with Bush's last midterm. The new congress's first legislation was raising minimum wage. The dems did that for one reason-to hurt 'Bush's' low unemployment numbers.

[flyboy0681]

NO ONE could be elected as a real conservative. The tit is flowing and No One wants it cut off for themselves, just for the other guy. We Will spend ourselves into oblivion.

I will gladly give up my share of the tit, future SS and  Medicaid, if everyone gets off the tit. End the Ponzi scheme before it bankrupts America.

 

I find two of your comments interesting. What you are saying is that instead of Medicare, senior should pay for their own health insurance premiums, at least that's what I think you are saying. It was just yesterday that I was speaking to a friend that retired last year and up to now she's been on COBRA. She's 64 years old and has been shopping around for a policy to hold her over until she's 65 in four months. The best quote she got was for $5,500 a month from Blue Cross for a catastrophic policy. Mind you it's a catastrophic policy, not major medical. So what I hear you saying is that seniors should shell out approximately that much each month to take care of their own needs. Hell, I'm a little over 10 years younger and pay a little over $2k a month for my own individual policy.

 

As for SS, I'm divided on that one. Without it there would be abject poverty of seniors (fact, not fiction) because saving enough for retirement is extremely difficult when left to the individual, simply wouldn't get done. And no, if the 7% SS tax was suddenly taken away, American's would not take the equivalent funds from their paycheck and place the money into a retirement account.

[flyboy0681]

I find two of your comments interesting. What you are saying is that instead of Medicare, senior should pay for their own health insurance premiums, at least that's what I think you are saying. It was just yesterday that I was speaking to a friend that retired last year and up to now she's been on COBRA. She's 64 years old and has been shopping around for a policy to hold her over until she's 65 in four months. The best quote she got was for $5,500 a month from Blue Cross for a catastrophic policy. Mind you it's a catastrophic policy, not major medical. So what I hear you saying is that seniors should shell out approximately that much each month to take care of their own needs. Hell, I'm a little over 10 years younger and pay a little over $2k a month for my own individual policy.

 

As for SS, I'm divided on that one. Without it there would be abject poverty of seniors (fact, not fiction) because saving enough for retirement is extremely difficult when left to the individual, simply wouldn't get done. And no, if the 7% SS tax was suddenly taken away, American's would not take the equivalent funds from their paycheck and place the money into a retirement account. My Lord, look how many seniors are impoverished now, having to live solely on a $700/mo SS check.

[AmigOne]

Alex, you are starting from the wrong premise.  I'm not sorry about anything.  I didn't even care when you called Faux news "haters" and "rabid" which was a a pity that took something  away from your attempt to impart your post an aura of  loftiness.  And Harr I don't get mad, I don't hate specially because I follow that last words of that famous philosopher Richard Nixon ® on saying goodbye to his WH staff "remember that those who hate you don't win, unless you hate them back".  Great man, a pity he had to resign in disgrace.  

Hey, as far as I'm concerned the study by MU only reaffirmed something I already knew.  After all who could possibly take seriously a news channel that had Glenn Beck as one of its "stars"?.  I'm not going to try to debate your lengthy post (a bit convoluted, sorry...) and hyperlinked references.  Besides you lost some credibility when you said that Ryan "dismantled the budget gimmicks" when we know that not even voters in his state believed him thus they did not vote for him! (and Romney lost Mass too... must have been the 47% ) His speech then is not more credible than his latest rehash at an Ayn Rand "objectivistic" budget.  Can you imagine, an avowed catholic being influenced by an avowed atheist?.

It would be nice to have a debate free of epithets and insults but in today's polarized  atmosphere it is almost impossible.  So I'll leave it there and will concentrate on some other fun things.  Like watching Jon Stewart, even if it is a rerun.  Over and out.

[flyboy0681]

Alex, you are starting from the wrong premise.  I'm not sorry about anything.  I didn't even care when you called Faux news "haters" and "rabid" which was a a pity that took something  away from your attempt to impart your post an aura of  loftiness.  And Harr I don't get mad, I don't hate specially because I follow that last words of that famous philosopher Richard Nixon ® on saying goodbye to his WH staff "remember that those who hate you don't win, unless you hate them back".  Great man, a pity he had to resign in disgrace. 

 

This is America at it's best, free flowing ideas and opinions.

 

I agree with your Nixon comment, he had so much potential but all throughout his career and life, had a serious case of paranoia. In the end, why did he go along with the bugging of the DNC when he had the election in the bag anyway? While on the subject of Nixon, in addition to a few that came before him, he proposed a comprehensive national healthcare policy, but like Clinton, was shot down. So now we will have to live with what's coming our way.

[alex]

Enjoy your show! Attention to detail may help in the future. I did not call anyone names, I did not say Ryan dismantled anything...That was an article from MRC. As far as Beck is concerned, I believe he was on CNN(a whack job network? .....Soledad O'brien(maybe!)) before and there are a few people including Chris Matthews who though he was great, until he started speaking against the left of center.crowd.. and just like other anchors or opinion throwers, they move from place to place depending on who may have a better contract (($), but they become extremists or looneys when they join the dark side (right of center), which only further proves my point)....Lou Dobbs ring a bell? How about the Poster child of MSNBC Keith Olbermann to current . Great argument AmigO!

http://youtu.be/qKXzn6BOw5g

On MSNBC no less! Chris Matthews: "You're great-I listen to you all the time"

[alex]

It would be nice to have a debate free of epithets and insults but in today's polarized atmosphere it is almost impossible. So I'll leave it there and will concentrate on some other fun things. Like watching Jon Stewart, even if it is a rerun. Over and out.