THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[songsmith]

You do understand that pretty much ALL the Occupy folks are voting age, right? And that there are demonstrations in every major business center, and 100 colleges?

OK. How many is that? Do you think they'll vote any differently than they ordinarily would? .

Not sure of your angle here. None of the Tea Partiers voted any different than they normally would, which however they're told to vote. They voted for Bush twice. I'd remind you that Obama was elected by the largest majority in 2 decades, based largely on the college and ethnic vote. And likely will be again.

The rightwing and corporate media can delegitimize the protests all they want, and it obviously works for some people, but really, there is no difference between the 2 groups in effectiveness.

Ah, I see. So what is their caucus in Congress called? What elections have they affected? What legislation have they opposed/supported? What have they done besides get arrested?

(something that doesn't happen with the Tea Party).

Occupy has been around for about a month and a half. The Tea Party started over "Taxed Enough Already," moved on to opposing health insurance reform, and has demonstrated against illegal immigration, gun control, unions, and still has time to worry about Obama's birth certificate, HOWEVER,... the Tea Party has suffered tremendously in the past year, as their views on social safety-net programs, education, and a decidedly pro-corporate stance has dwindled their numbers.
I'd also point out that they don't want or need a congressional caucus... they are against CORPORATE corruption and greed, not gov't. You don't need gov't to help you beat a corporation, you only need public (consumer) sentiment.

Fox News can report that they're not focused, but they ARE called Occupy WALL STREET, and they are occupying WALL STREET, not D.C.

Yes, we've heard that its called "Occupy Wall Street". Its good to have a name. Exactly what is it they intend to accomplish on Wall Street?

They're the lead news story on every media outlet, right, left, or otherwise. You tell me.

The Tea Party is anti-government (well, at least until the right regains a majority), the Occupy movement is anti-corporate-rule. The Tea Party wants to eliminate government in favor of business, Occupy wants business to stay out of government and stop raping the American worker/consumer/citizen/environment.

This sounds an awful lot like Al Sharpton.

The Tea Party is NOT anti-government, nor does it want to eliminate government. It merely wants to reduce the size of government and get it back under control--at least that was the original intent. For progressives and neo-liberals, that means destroying many of the socialist gains they have made since FDR held the Supreme Court hostage.

If the Tea Party isn't anti-government, you need to clue them in on that. I know, I know... they only want government to be small enough to fit in our bedrooms, to control who marries whom, to make all the decisions about birth control and abortions. Oh, and our schools, to be sure kids aren't "indoctrinated" with non-Sunday-School-approved stuff like science, and keep kids from hearing about how things work in the far-off land of reality.

I must admit that I have become skeptical of the Tea Party since it has come under neocon influence.

I'm all for getting business out of government...as long as that also means getting government out of business. I just don't see how Occupy Wall Street will achieve any of that.

As with the crumbling influence of the Tea Party, time will tell. The Tea Party as a voting bloc may still have some weight, but look at the GOP candidate selection so far... they LOVED The Donald, then not... they LOVED Michele Bachmann, then not... they LOVED Rick Perry, then not... they LOVED Sarah Palin most of all, but she's not the person she claims to be... they LOVED Chris Christie, he said hell no... now they LOVE Herman Cain... The Tea Party is fickle, and tied directly to the rightwing media, and whomever they push in a given news cycle. In short, they have the attention span of a meth-freak.

[RobTheDrummer]

What's funny is that all of those candidates you just named are better than Obama. What has he done in three years? I mean, other than spending even more money that the liberal spender Bush has.

[songsmith]

What's funny is that all of those candidates you just named are better than Obama.

Mmmkay. That was my morning giggle. Thanks for that.

[Banned]

What has he done in three years? I mean, other than spending even more money that the liberal spender Bush has.

Notice how johnny avoided this part of your post?

He is on track to increase the debt by $6.2 Trillion in four years. That is exactly the same amount that W. Bush increased the debt, only difference is that he took 8 years.

[songsmith]

Okay let's look at Obama's spending (which can range fro $4T to $160T, depending on which effed-up website joey just came from).

Now take away the cost of the Iraq War, which did not achieve it's original goal of finding WMD's, but which the right insisted we get involved in. That bill didn't come due until Bush was gone, thanks to some fancy arithmetic by the rightwing-controlled Congress.
Now take away the cost of the Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy, which was more than the Stimulus and the Bailouts (the ones I vehemently opposed). Don't post a bunch of BS about "patriots keeping their own money," because bills are bills, and if your household has bills, the yacht should be the FIRST thing to go.
Now take away the cost of TARP and other bank gifts that happened BEFORE Obama.
Now take away the economic damage done by deregulation of derivatives.
Now take away the gifts to Big Pharma and Big Oil, in the form of special tax incentives and even grants.
Now allow for complete obstructionism from rightwingers in Congress, which forces him to find other ways to deal with problems Congress and cronyism caused.

I think you'll find it's not as bad as our resident troll would have us believe.

Totally partisan NYT graph. It's as accurate as any blog joey posts. :
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/ ... ref=sunday

I have no reason to "avoid" anything here, joey. When you finally come up with a cogent argument, I'll be ready.

[Banned]

Okay let's look at Obama's spending (which can range fro $4T to $160T, depending on which effed-up website joey just came from).

Now take away the cost of the Iraq War, which did not achieve it's original goal of finding WMD's, but which the right insisted we get involved in. That bill didn't come due until Bush was gone, thanks to some fancy arithmetic by the rightwing-controlled Congress.
Now take away the cost of the Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy, which was more than the Stimulus and the Bailouts (the ones I vehemently opposed). Don't post a bunch of BS about "patriots keeping their own money," because bills are bills, and if your household has bills, the yacht should be the FIRST thing to go.
Now take away the cost of TARP and other bank gifts that happened BEFORE Obama.
Now take away the economic damage done by deregulation of derivatives.
Now take away the gifts to Big Pharma and Big Oil, in the form of special tax incentives and even grants.
Now allow for complete obstructionism from rightwingers in Congress, which forces him to find other ways to deal with problems Congress and cronyism caused.

I think you'll find it's not as bad as our resident troll would have us believe.

Totally partisan NYT graph. It's as accurate as any blog joey posts. :
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/ ... ref=sunday

I have no reason to "avoid" anything here, joey. When you finally come up with a cogent argument, I'll be ready.

You can "what if" till you grow up.

Obama is still growing the DEBT twice as fast as W. Bush did. Marxists don't like facts as a rule.

[lonewolf]

Now take away the cost of the Iraq War, which did not achieve it's original goal of finding WMD's, but which the right insisted we get involved in. That bill didn't come due until Bush was gone, thanks to some fancy arithmetic by the rightwing-controlled Congress.

The costs of the wars were on-budget on a year by year basis...not deferred and then added up all at once as you seem to be implying. Except, of course, during Obama's first 2 years in office when there was no budget. You can't put something on-budget when you don't have a budget.

I hate to burst your bubble, Johnny, but Congress was held by the democrats for the 2 years before Obama was elected and then the two years after Obama was elected.

Now take away the cost of the Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy, which was more than the Stimulus and the Bailouts (the ones I vehemently opposed).

Sorry. Nobody has accurate information for that. If you can find an accurate dynamic economic model, I'd love to see it. I haven't been able to find one. The economy isn't a zero-sum game and you can't just change the tax rates and use the same income numbers. Please don't refer to CBO numbers as they are at the bottom of the math heap. All I can tell you is that within 3 years after the Bush tax cuts, federal revenues exceeded the pre-cut levels. After all, we were coming out of a recession and as the DC politicians keep reminding us, revenues drop during recessions.

Now take away the cost of TARP and other bank gifts that happened BEFORE Obama.

TARP costs were on Bush's final budget, not Obama's first. ALSO...the companies are paying back all that money and guess who's budget is receiving the benefit from the added revenues?

Now take away the economic damage done by deregulation of derivatives.

Um...as I have said time and time again...the statement that derivatives were deregulated is a bald-faced lie. Although it was debated all thru the 90s, nobody ever regulated them. You might be referring to the bill that President Clinton signed into law that allowed commercial banks to trade derivatives along with several other securities.

The real damage to the economy was and continues to be as a result of the real estate bubble. The MBS crisis was a short-lived, acute symptom of that bubble and has been dealt with. It no longer has any bearing on the economy.

Now take away the gifts to Big Pharma and Big Oil, in the form of special tax incentives and even grants.

Don't forget GE and Solyndra. Those tax incentives were there way before Obama ever left Springfield--probably before he left Chicago--he just added some new ones for corporations favored by the left. I don't like the tax incentives any more than you do, but it certainly illustrates that left wingers are completely clueless about investing.

A flat tax with a single exemption for all will take care of that. Too bad neither party will give up the old tax code--its their chief means of social engineering.

Now allow for complete obstructionism from rightwingers in Congress, which forces him to find other ways to deal with problems Congress and cronyism caused.

Compromise is the art of taking a really bad idea and making it worse. At least that is the case when you are talking about a single piece of legislation in the US Congress.

[Merge]

Have the people up there on Wall Street protesting issued a list of demands??

Let's try this again.

[lonewolf]

Have the people up there on Wall Street protesting issued a list of demands??

Let's try this again.

Yep...I've been waiting to hear this too.

[Merge]

Have the people up there on Wall Street protesting issued a list of demands??

Let's try this again.

Yep...I've been waiting to hear this too.

I'm hoping someone on here might be able to answer that for me. I've looked online, but all I can find is a list that can't possibly be real.

[RobTheDrummer]

What are they protesting? The laptops and iphones that capitalism has afforded them? Apparently they are doing well, since they don't have to work for days....

[Merge]

Personally, I like watching all the millionaire actors and musicians protest with them. Since when did "actor" also mean "political expert"?? These millionaires are protesting capitalism, which is precisely what made them millionaires. For whatever reason, no media outlet in this country will call them on that.

[RobTheDrummer]

For whatever reason, no media outlet in this country will call them on that.

Hmmm, I wonder why?

[songsmith]

Now take away the cost of the Iraq War, which did not achieve it's original goal of finding WMD's, but which the right insisted we get involved in. That bill didn't come due until Bush was gone, thanks to some fancy arithmetic by the rightwing-controlled Congress.

The costs of the wars were on-budget on a year by year basis...not deferred and then added up all at once as you seem to be implying. Except, of course, during Obama's first 2 years in office when there was no budget. You can't put something on-budget when you don't have a budget.

Nearly all the cost of the Iraq War was paid with borrowed money, that even some conservatives warned about at the time. In the trillions, it will not be repaid for a very long time.

Now take away the cost of the Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy, which was more than the Stimulus and the Bailouts (the ones I vehemently opposed).

Sorry. Nobody has accurate information for that. If you can find an accurate dynamic economic model, I'd love to see it. I haven't been able to find one. The economy isn't a zero-sum game and you can't just change the tax rates and use the same income numbers. Please don't refer to CBO numbers as they are at the bottom of the math heap. All I can tell you is that within 3 years after the Bush tax cuts, federal revenues exceeded the pre-cut levels. After all, we were coming out of a recession and as the DC politicians keep reminding us, revenues drop during recessions.

Actually, I did use the CBO numbers, as of July 2011, the Bush tax cuts cost 1.812 Trillion in Revenue, and revenue continues to fall as taxes lay at their lowest rates in half a century, and the economy still languishes. I'm not too concerned with your assessment that the CBO uses faulty math, as you offered none with a clearer result.

Now take away the cost of TARP and other bank gifts that happened BEFORE Obama.

TARP costs were on Bush's final budget, not Obama's first. ALSO...the companies are paying back all that money and guess who's budget is receiving the benefit from the added revenues?

That's what I said. Except for the part about who benefits from those revenues. Would you rather that they didn't give us back our money? Also, if the American taxpayer covered all those mortgages, why are people still getting foreclosed-upon? Is it because those banks used that money for acquisitions and executive perks?

Now take away the economic damage done by deregulation of derivatives.

Um...as I have said time and time again...the statement that derivatives were deregulated is a bald-faced lie. Although it was debated all thru the 90s, nobody ever regulated them. You might be referring to the bill that President Clinton signed into law that allowed commercial banks to trade derivatives along with several other securities.

The real damage to the economy was and continues to be as a result of the real estate bubble. The MBS crisis was a short-lived, acute symptom of that bubble and has been dealt with. It no longer has any bearing on the economy

The real estate bubble was created when banks could hand out all sorts of mortgages, then sell the risk to someone else, who then sold it to another paper-institution, etc. They did not do this prior to Phil Gramm (R) adding a 262-page addendum to an appropriations bill in 2000 that allowed it again, after Glass-Stegall outlawed it during the Depression. There was alot of tapdancing during the Bush administration, and much has been made of the laughably silly idea that the US Gov't forced banks to hand out free money. Rightwing media usually ties it to one HUD reg or another, but it's a sad attempt to divert attention from the inescapable fact that when you stop watching crooks, they steal from you.

Now take away the gifts to Big Pharma and Big Oil, in the form of special tax incentives and even grants.

Don't forget GE and Solyndra. Those tax incentives were there way before Obama ever left Springfield--probably before he left Chicago--he just added some new ones for corporations favored by the left. I don't like the tax incentives any more than you do, but it certainly illustrates that left wingers are completely clueless about investing.

A flat tax with a single exemption for all will take care of that. Too bad neither party will give up the old tax code--its their chief means of social engineering.

I haven't forgotten those guys. They are typical corporations sucking at society's teat, paying no taxes, like so many other abusers... Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, Mining Interests, etc. We need to get away from the 35%-myth, it simply is not the case. As for a flat tax, you are correct, it will never be implemented, because a main tenet of business is to internalize profits, and externalize costs. They need the population to pay for all the infrastructure they use, and they need the labor force to be hungry.

Now allow for complete obstructionism from rightwingers in Congress, which forces him to find other ways to deal with problems Congress and cronyism caused.

Compromise is the art of taking a really bad idea and making it worse. At least that is the case when you are talking about a single piece of legislation in the US Congress.

Compromise is what Obama does, even when it hurts America. He compromised with the rightwing, extending the Bush Tax Cuts in exchange for a one-time extension of UC benefits. He compromised on most of the major legislation he's attempted, like single-payer healthcare, the debt-ceiling, jobs, pretty much everything he's had to work with has been rejected, declawed, or otherwise shot full of holes. But it's election time. He sent the latest jobs bill for the simple reason that when the GOP rejects it, the Dems can point to the fact that they rejected a jobs bill in favor of more program cuts and tax favors for Big Business. You can be sure this will show up in congressional campaign ads. The Party of No will become the Party of No Longer.

[Merge]

Several Dems voted against the jobs bill, too. I've read that the vote was a prelim vote, and not the final vote on the bill. I'd like to know where the money for this jobs bill is/was going to come from, how does the President plan to pay for this??

[lonewolf]

1. Nearly everything we spend is borrowed. What does that have anything to do with the lie that the costs of the wars were somehow laid on Obama and not Bush?

2. You can go with CBO all you want, and you will be just as wrong as they have been on everything they have ever scored. I can't offer clearer numbers because nobody has bothered to crunch them accurately...least of all, CBO. Even if their numbers are correct, it is only a small fraction of the deficit under Obama.

The whole point is moot and irrelevant to real tax reform. If you want to band-aid the present system then thats your own poor judgement.

3. Another attempt to sidestep. Of course I am glad they are paying TARP back--thats not the point. I just was exposing the lie that TARP made Obama's deficit numbers bigger. In fact, TARP is making them smaller.

To answer your unrelated question: People are getting foreclosed upon because they can't afford the property that they bought. What ever happened to "Let The Buyer Beware"?

As a taxpayer, why should I pay one red cent towards mortgages made in bad judgement for homes that for the most part are nicer than my own? FUCK THAT!

Grrrrrrrrrrrr....if I want to do anything about the problem, I'll go to a foreclosure sale and pay in cash.

4. The real estate bubble was created when a buying frenzy inflated housing prices beyond their value. Having been a real estate investor for over 25 years, I recognized it as a huge opportunity to divest properties and take profits. Real estate novice's viewed it as a way to make a quick buck. Of course there are a lot more novice's than experts.

This was fueled in large part by bad lending practices encouraged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--the quasi-government corporations who's chief business was buying up most of those bad mortgages.

If you want business out of government, then you have to take government out of business.

[Banned]

If you want business out of government, then you have to take government out of business.

Nominated for Political Post of the Year.

[songsmith]

Taking government out of business is what caused caused the whole thing in the first place, but you can cling to whatever misinformation makes you feel most comfortable about it. If the government stopped prosecuting theft, the theft rate would not decrease... especially at the corporate level. Again, rightwing anti-government sentiment will change miraculously the instant there's a rightwing majority in the government. That's perhaps the biggest difference between the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement: Everyone understands the Tea Party is faking their stance in order to take over government, while the Occupy kids really truly do not want to take over corporations, they want them out of the democratic process. The Constitution was written by rich businessmen, but I know of no provision that protects corporations from the will of the people, nor allowances that give businesses power over them. Remember, the original Tea Party wasn't about taxation, it was about taxation without representation, and the tea didn't belong to the government, it belonged to the Dutch East India Company, the largest multinational corporation of it's day. The company had too much influence in Colonial affairs, until...

[Banned]

And why did only the East India Company import tea into the colonies? It was a law decreed by British government.

If government had not got involved with business, giving the East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade to the colonies, the Boston Tea Party might not have ever happened. Another fantasy theory shot down.

BTW, It is the height of douche baggery to say that you admire yourself, but we all know you do. I was referring to another.

[songsmith]

BTW, It is the height of douche baggery to say that you admire yourself, but we all know you do. I was referring to another.

What the f*ck are you blathering on about now? Admire myself? I'm trying to be nice to you, but you just can't abide that, can you?
You need to go away and let the grown-ups talk. Your little Brokeback Mountain obsession with me has to end.

[RobTheDrummer]

Conservatives are not anti-government, we are for limited government, just as the constitution was created for. Unlike some people that want government to hold your hand for everything you do, thinking it's somehow better. More government creates more bureau-crysis, crooked politicians, and opression.

[Banned]

BTW, It is the height of douche baggery to say that you admire yourself, but we all know you do. I was referring to another.

What the f*ck are you blathering on about now? Admire myself? I'm trying to be nice to you, but you just can't abide that, can you?
You need to go away and let the grown-ups talk. Your little Brokeback Mountain obsession with me has to end.

Read your signature line:

"
"Someone who you really admire said that you are the weakest link in any band you have ever been in." ---ucjoe "Yeah, no sh*t, Sherlock" --Me.

"
If you speak and understand English, you posted that you are the someone who you really admire.

No surprise to anyone here. But again, I was referring to another.

[Capt. Grammar]

BTW, It is the height of douche baggery to say that you admire yourself, but we all know you do. I was referring to another.

What the f*ck are you blathering on about now? Admire myself? I'm trying to be nice to you, but you just can't abide that, can you?
You need to go away and let the grown-ups talk. Your little Brokeback Mountain obsession with me has to end.

Read your signature line:

"
"Someone who you really admire said that you are the weakest link in any band you have ever been in." ---ucjoe "Yeah, no sh*t, Sherlock" --Me.

"
If you speak and understand English, you posted that you are the someone who you really admire.

No surprise to anyone here. But again, I was referring to another.

The "me" in Songsmith's signature line is the citation in reference to the quotation. It is not a self-reference.

You're welcome.

[Banned]

The "me" in Songsmith's signature line is the citation in reference to the quotation. It is not a self-reference.

You're welcome.

It this is the correct interpretation, I stand corrected.

[Hawk]

Conservatives are not anti-government, we are for limited government, just as the constitution was created for. Unlike some people that want government to hold your hand for everything you do, thinking it's somehow better. More government creates more bureau-crysis, crooked politicians, and opression.

We do not want the government to hold our hand. We want the government to protect us. I don't want big government either, but I believe certain things are necessary. BTW, where in the constitution does it say it's the president's job to find jobs for everyone ?

"Bureaucrats" has a negative connotation, but they are workers who work hard and do a good job most of the time.

Here is a list of government agencies. There are some I would scratch off as well. There are some I see as necessary for the protection of the people. lonewolf will say they should be state controlled, but I think one can be more organized than 50 different ones with 50 different outlooks.
And Joe thinks a dog eat dog mentality with the only protection one needs is the gun in Joe's pocket.

http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml


Of course there are NO crooked businesses, no crooked CEOs Etc..


What is this oppression you talk about Rob ? Please give me a list ?

I know Joe's list. He's pissed we can't have all hard drugs legalized among other oddities. What's your list Rob ?

BTW Joe, I thought the Boston Tea Party was because the colonies wanted representation in the British government ?