The Great Experiment is over.

[California Girl]

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.

SOURCE

It is rather amazing to see this playing out in Congress.

The GOP has won the compromise battle but it seems intent on losing the war by forcing the USA to renege on its debt obligations.

We can only imagine the damage this is doing to our longer term reputation in the rest of the economic world.

If you were the national economic advisor of a nation that was currently holding trillions of dollars in US debts, wouldn't you be advising your masters to slowly but surely back off on holding assets in USD debt instruments?

I can only conclude that their real agenda is to destroy the US economy.

I can only conclude this because I cannot believe that they are stupid enough to think this will be good for this nation in the longer run.

Your 'source' doesn't work.

You can 'conclude' anything you like, but unless you make the effort to undertake actual research and apply some critical thought (yea, I know, that requires a non-partisan approach to thought but it does lead to a much more intellectually solid 'conclusion') your 'conclusion' will remain the bullshit that it currently is.

 

[Samson]

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.

SOURCE

It is rather amazing to see this playing out in Congress.

The GOP has won the compromise battle but it seems intent on losing the war by forcing the USA to renege on its debt obligations.

We can only imagine the damage this is doing to our longer term reputation in the rest of the economic world.

If you were the national economic advisor of a nation that was currently holding trillions of dollars in US debts, wouldn't you be advising your masters to slowly but surely back off on holding assets in USD debt instruments?

I can only conclude that their real agenda is to destroy the US economy.

I can only conclude this because I cannot believe that they are stupid enough to think this will be good for this nation in the longer run.

The webpage cannot be found

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Court has said that Money rules AGAIN. See: Citizens United for a primer

Not sure why you seem to think the government should be able to tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say about politicians.

.....Except (of course) Unions, right?

We wouldn't want anyone....below the grade o' CEO....making life difficult for Corporate America.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Not sure why you seem to think the government should be able to tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say about politicians.

So you agree w/ Gingrich that $= speech? Therefore more $ = more speech. Who do you think your Rep is going to spend more time with, some blue collar worker, or any worker from his/her district for that matter, or a lobbyist from Exxon?

You really need to read the decision sometime. You honestly think that it should be illegal for a group of people to buy advertising criticizing a politician 60 or 90 days before an election?

.....Especially a WEEK before an election.....like when Karl Rove was at his.....

.....MO$T effective!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Well don't I feel like a big loaf tripping over my own feet. I stumbled into a thread and thought the initial graphic had relevance to the topic. Excuse me as I exit stage left before my stupidity becomes public knowledge.

That's....

....OAF.....

.....Grandfeathers; a word long-established before you earned your English Degree.

(Maybe you should spend more o' your Summer Vacation with a dictionary.)

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Let’s say there’s this person called America. Now, there’s a person standing next to America named Gop. Gop is holding a loaded gun to the side of America’s head, and is demanding that you hand over fifty puppies, or he’s going to shoot America in the head.

Like any sensible person, you hand over fifty puppies, because you don’t want to see America get shot in the head. Gop takes the puppies and America lives.

Now, a couple months later, Gop and America are at it again. I guess America is Gop’s mistress or something, I don’t really know. The difference is that this time, Gop has put all the puppies in a cage and wired it with explosives.

Gop is now demanding five hundred puppies. If Gop doesn’t get five hundred puppies, he’s going to shoot America in the head, and blow up the fifty puppies you already gave him.

Now let’s say you get all five hundred puppies and deliver them to Gop, and tell Gop that in exchange for these five hundred puppies, you would really appreciate it if Gop would hand over the detonator for the fifty puppies wired with explosives, and the gun he’s holding to the head of America.

Gop refuses. Gop now has a gun against America’s temple, the hammer is cocked, and he has fifty puppies wired with explosives, with an offer for five hundred more if he’ll just put down the gun and detonator.

The problem is that Gop can’t do that, because Teaparty, his former partner, is holding his wife, Reelection, hostage too. If Gop doesn’t get all the puppies, and keeps the gun and detonator, Teaparty is going to shoot Gop’s wife Reelection in the head.

Now, for this to untangle itself, someone has to die. Either Gop blows up the puppies and shoots America in the head because you won’t give in to their completely unreasonable demands, or America and the puppies live because Gop gave you the gun and detonator, but Teaparty killed Gop’s wife, Reelection.

There is a third and fourth way. Gop turns around and shoots Teaparty, sparing his wife, mistress, and puppies, or Gop shoots himself, thus freeing America and the puppies and leaving Teaparty out in the cold.

So really, it’s a double hostage situation. The Democrats are offering the world to the GOP to keep them from blowing it all up, but the GOP can’t take the deal because if they do, the Tea Party will go fucking nuts and everyone that votes for it will face a primary challenge.

David Brooks Boldly Acknowledges That His Political Party Is Insane

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars of revenue increases.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.

SOURCE

It is rather amazing to see this playing out in Congress.

The GOP has won the compromise battle but it seems intent on losing the war by forcing the USA to renege on its debt obligations.

We can only imagine the damage this is doing to our longer term reputation in the rest of the economic world.

If you were the national economic advisor of a nation that was currently holding trillions of dollars in US debts, wouldn't you be advising your masters to slowly but surely back off on holding assets in USD debt instruments?

I can only conclude that their real agenda is to destroy the US economy.

.....And it isn't like they weren't "flagged", during the BUSH YEARS.

(When the Teabaggers still had a White President.)​

January 13, 2008​

"The recession-deniers were muzzled by a horrendous last two weeks of December, and the gloom-and-doomers are now out in force. Their key arguments:

* Plummeting housing will now drag down the rest of the economy.

*The "bad debt" problem is not just "sub-prime" folks who should never have have taken out mortgages in the first place. It includes credit card debt, "high quality" mortgages, car loans, and other leverage that have recently become a consumer way of life.

*Pressure on consumers is leading to a reduction in consumer spending (70% of economy), which, in turn, will lead to a reduction in spending by companies that sell stuff to consumers.

*The question now is not "will there be a recession?" but "how bad will it get?"

*The most optimistic forecasts in a NYT gloom-and-doom round-up are for three crappy quarters, regardless of what the Fed does. Less optimistic forecasts suggest that we are, well, screwed.

After blowing the last downturn, we've been worried this one since last summer (see below). We also suspect that, given the importance of housing to the economy and debt to consumer spending, the recession will be deeper and more prolonged than people think."

"U.S. Economy Screwed"

 

[midcan5]

You really need to read the decision sometime. You honestly think that it should be illegal for a group of people to buy advertising criticizing a politician 60 or 90 days before an election?

You of all people should know decisions are read as everything else is read.

This is excellent. Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World

"Personally, I question whether any of these approaches will work. The CU ruling established control over all three branches of government. The president and members of congress now know that they cannot be reelected without the financial support of corporations and special interest groups." Citizens United - One year later - Steven Rockford - Open Salon


Just came across this and thought it pertinent.

"To the extent the United States was governed by anyone during the decades after World War II, it was governed by the President acting with the support and cooperation of key individuals and groups in the executive office, the federal bureaucracy, Congress, and the more important businesses, banks, law firms, foundations, and media, which constitute the private sector's 'Establishment.'" http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/393

>

 

[P F Tinmore]

You really need to read the decision sometime. You honestly think that it should be illegal for a group of people to buy advertising criticizing a politician 60 or 90 days before an election?

You of all people should know decisions are read as everything else is read.

This is excellent. Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World

"Personally, I question whether any of these approaches will work. The CU ruling established control over all three branches of government. The president and members of congress now know that they cannot be reelected without the financial support of corporations and special interest groups." Citizens United - One year later - Steven Rockford - Open Salon


Just came across this and thought it pertinent.

"To the extent the United States was governed by anyone during the decades after World War II, it was governed by the President acting with the support and cooperation of key individuals and groups in the executive office, the federal bureaucracy, Congress, and the more important businesses, banks, law firms, foundations, and media, which constitute the private sector's 'Establishment.'" A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla

>

Candidates should wear "NASCAR jackets" so we will know who they will serve when elected.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Court has said that Money rules AGAIN. See: Citizens United for a primer

Not sure why you seem to think the government should be able to tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say about politicians.

.....Except (of course) Unions, right?

We wouldn't want anyone....below the grade o' CEO....making life difficult for Corporate America.

Unions should be able to say what they want about politicians as well.

Not sure why you think otherwise.

 

[Truthmatters]

You really need to read the decision sometime. You honestly think that it should be illegal for a group of people to buy advertising criticizing a politician 60 or 90 days before an election?

You of all people should know decisions are read as everything else is read.

This is excellent. Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World

"Personally, I question whether any of these approaches will work. The CU ruling established control over all three branches of government. The president and members of congress now know that they cannot be reelected without the financial support of corporations and special interest groups." Citizens United - One year later - Steven Rockford - Open Salon


Just came across this and thought it pertinent.

"To the extent the United States was governed by anyone during the decades after World War II, it was governed by the President acting with the support and cooperation of key individuals and groups in the executive office, the federal bureaucracy, Congress, and the more important businesses, banks, law firms, foundations, and media, which constitute the private sector's 'Establishment.'" A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla

>

Candidates should wear "NASCAR jackets" so we will know who they will serve when elected.

You stole my hubbys idea

 

[Avatar4321]

You really need to read the decision sometime. You honestly think that it should be illegal for a group of people to buy advertising criticizing a politician 60 or 90 days before an election?

You of all people should know decisions are read as everything else is read.

This is excellent. Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World

"Personally, I question whether any of these approaches will work. The CU ruling established control over all three branches of government. The president and members of congress now know that they cannot be reelected without the financial support of corporations and special interest groups." Citizens United - One year later - Steven Rockford - Open Salon


Just came across this and thought it pertinent.

"To the extent the United States was governed by anyone during the decades after World War II, it was governed by the President acting with the support and cooperation of key individuals and groups in the executive office, the federal bureaucracy, Congress, and the more important businesses, banks, law firms, foundations, and media, which constitute the private sector's 'Establishment.'" A Short History of Conservative Obstruction to Progress | Conceptual Guerilla

>

Repeal the 17th amendment and you will single handedly eliminate the control Special Interest have on all of the Federal Government.

But then I dont think that's really what you want.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Not sure why you seem to think the government should be able to tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say about politicians.

So you agree w/ Gingrich that $= speech? Therefore more $ = more speech. Who do you think your Rep is going to spend more time with, some blue collar worker, or any worker from his/her district for that matter, or a lobbyist from Exxon?

You really need to read the decision sometime. You honestly think that it should be illegal for a group of people to buy advertising criticizing a politician 60 or 90 days before an election?

Even if I did think it is a good idea to pass a law like that, there is the little problem of the text of the constitution which does says "Congress shall pass no law regarding freedom of press or freedom of speech....."

What part of "no" don't you understand? Even if we grant the proposition this was the wisest law ever passed since the days of Hammurabi, short of a constitutional change that grants Congress authority to pass the law, it is still contrary to the constitution for them to do so.

 

[Steelplate]

You really need to read the decision sometime. You honestly think that it should be illegal for a group of people to buy advertising criticizing a politician 60 or 90 days before an election?

Ummm.....yes. I don't want "the best government money can buy". Apparently, you do.

So you want people silenced. Got you.

See that's my problem with it. You can't silence people

I actually have no problem with the amount of money(unlimited). I have a problem with the anonymity. That part is bullshit. If the "people" want to speak up... let them do so in the open. The problem is, most of these superpacs aren't people... they are Corporations and really rich people trying to sway the public into voting for Corporate interests, not their own. Not only that... but it also leaves a back door for foreign money helping to determine our elections. The Chamber of Commerce may have already done so... they collected huge amounts from foreign countries around the time of the 2010 election... but claim that none of "that" money was used in their SuperPac ads. But the truth is... we'll never know, and they don't have to tell. Like I said... Bullshit.

 

[California Girl]

Ummm.....yes. I don't want "the best government money can buy". Apparently, you do.

So you want people silenced. Got you.

See that's my problem with it. You can't silence people

I actually have no problem with the amount of money(unlimited). I have a problem with the anonymity. That part is bullshit. If the "people" want to speak up... let them do so in the open. The problem is, most of these superpacs aren't people... they are Corporations and really rich people trying to sway the public into voting for Corporate interests, not their own. Not only that... but it also leaves a back door for foreign money helping to determine our elections. The Chamber of Commerce may have already done so... they collected huge amounts from foreign countries around the time of the 2010 election... but claim that none of "that" money was used in their SuperPac ads. But the truth is... we'll never know, and they don't have to tell. Like I said... Bullshit.

I agree with the issue of anonymity. However, the solution is not to legislate against it, it is for Americans to learn that anyone who wishes to hide their identity has something to hide. Treat the information with skepticism..... which I tend to do anyway - no matter where it comes from, unless I can verify it independently.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ummm.....yes. I don't want "the best government money can buy". Apparently, you do.

So you want people silenced. Got you.

See that's my problem with it. You can't silence people

I actually have no problem with the amount of money(unlimited). I have a problem with the anonymity. That part is bullshit. If the "people" want to speak up... let them do so in the open. The problem is, most of these superpacs aren't people... they are Corporations and really rich people trying to sway the public into voting for Corporate interests, not their own. Not only that... but it also leaves a back door for foreign money helping to determine our elections. The Chamber of Commerce may have already done so... they collected huge amounts from foreign countries around the time of the 2010 election... but claim that none of "that" money was used in their SuperPac ads. But the truth is... we'll never know, and they don't have to tell. Like I said... Bullshit.

Free speech allows us to be anonymous. If you don't like that, fine. But the government can't silence it. If it could, every internet chat board would be in danger.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ummm.....yes. I don't want "the best government money can buy". Apparently, you do.

So you want people silenced. Got you.

See that's my problem with it. You can't silence people

I actually have no problem with the amount of money(unlimited). I have a problem with the anonymity. That part is bullshit. If the "people" want to speak up... let them do so in the open. The problem is, most of these superpacs aren't people... they are Corporations and really rich people trying to sway the public into voting for Corporate interests, not their own. Not only that... but it also leaves a back door for foreign money helping to determine our elections. The Chamber of Commerce may have already done so... they collected huge amounts from foreign countries around the time of the 2010 election... but claim that none of "that" money was used in their SuperPac ads. But the truth is... we'll never know, and they don't have to tell. Like I said... Bullshit.

We need to put a "vet"....

....like Haley Barbour....

....on that one!

HE could figure-out what the C Of C hustle was!!!​

 

[Sallow]

Not sure why you seem to think the government should be able to tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say about politicians.

So you agree w/ Gingrich that $= speech? Therefore more $ = more speech. Who do you think your Rep is going to spend more time with, some blue collar worker, or any worker from his/her district for that matter, or a lobbyist from Exxon?

You really need to read the decision sometime. You honestly think that it should be illegal for a group of people to buy advertising criticizing a politician 60 or 90 days before an election?

Anonymously? When the financial interests of the very same people (in the form of tax payer funded government contracts) depend on an elections outcome?

Yeah..I sure as heck do.

 

[Avatar4321]

So you agree w/ Gingrich that $= speech? Therefore more $ = more speech. Who do you think your Rep is going to spend more time with, some blue collar worker, or any worker from his/her district for that matter, or a lobbyist from Exxon?

You really need to read the decision sometime. You honestly think that it should be illegal for a group of people to buy advertising criticizing a politician 60 or 90 days before an election?

Anonymously? When the financial interests of the very same people (in the form of tax payer funded government contracts) depend on an elections outcome?

Yeah..I sure as heck do.

So you think everyone who is concerned about the economy should be silenced? Well, that's a bit unexpected.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not sure why you seem to think the government should be able to tell people or groups of people what they can or cannot say about politicians.

.....Except (of course) Unions, right?

We wouldn't want anyone....below the grade o' CEO....making life difficult for Corporate America.

Unions should be able to say what they want about politicians as well.

Not sure why you think otherwise.

Union members vote on the expenditure of funds for political action; stockholders do not.