Joe Scarborough

[osusev]

ok Tupa, Republican base ideology is not exactly a state secret. You dont want to own up to your party's based principles that are now failed policies thats fine. The demographics are pretty stark as to the makeup of your party. that does not necessarily define each individual but the basic premise of the GOP is pretty set in stone.

Trickledown Reagonomics were shown to be a failed policy, Neocon interventionism is a miserable failed foreign policy, now the deregulation small government role in business has proved disastrous, the top heavy tax cuts have not shown overall economic stability(it will always be seen as the rich getting richer and wealth concentration), social conservatism is being relegated to the small city low density states/white population because of minority demographic growth rates. and non traditional "christian" values.

Rush Limbaugh has 14 million listeners and can make the head of the GOP in congress apologize or back pedal from any derogatory statement...

You party of fiscal responsiblity has been turned upside by republican congressional spending along with your president... remember the social security SURPLUS.....

So let me get this straight What is the republican to do now since their branding is well tarnished.. Tupa you can say talk about myself all you want but your Party is struggling to find a way to be relevant. Sarah Palin politics/Bush rovian standards have proved disastrous for your party. There is no leadership or vision for your party and the demographic shift is only growing. IF Obama is moderatly successful he will be in office for 8 years which puts your party effectively out of power for the next decade. The population will continue to shift national election demographics and the Dems influence will only grow.

IF they actually returned to Fiscal responsiblity that would most certainly be a start, the party needs to shift AWAY from the idea of tax cuts for the wealthy to appeal toward all demographics. The pro business needs to shift to pro SMALL business with efficient regulation of large business. There is nothing wrong with social conservatism as long as it does not bring the religous pushing influence. Militirism is another problem with the hawk section of the party. The party needs to move away from the evangelicals and Rush/Hannity types. They would increase the overall appeal of what a republican used to b

[Westside Steve]

@osusev said:

You party of fiscal responsiblity has been turned upside by republican congressional spending along with your president... remember the social security SURPLUS.....

No we don't Sev.

We remember a projected surplus that disappeared after the Clinton recession, the dotcom bubble burst and 9/11.

Then we remember unprecedented growth until Dems took the houses.

And eve if it were more than an opium dream to ya, we didn't elect DLC Bill Clinton and a Republican house this time.

WSS

[Aloysius]

@westside-steve said:

Surprised to hear you toss that particular crock of shit.

Honestly Alo, were you overjoyed when Bush "succeeded" in his plan to take out Saddam

Were you disapponted when he "failed" at his other initiatives that were blocked by the Dems?

Come on now, be honest.

It's natural for people to have mixed feelings when a policy they oppose is enacted: sure, they may think it's wrong or isn't going to work, but they also don't want it to leave millions of people unemployed and in poverty just so they can say, "Aha! I told you so!"

What Rush was doing was celebrating that second, ignoble impulse. It's like guys over the football board who cheered when the team sucked and Savage got fired. If you're more concerned about being right than about the team having success, you're not really a fan. You're just a Ghoolie.

And if that makes you a dick when it comes to football fandom, it's certainly not a good quality when you're talking about something that affects people's livelihoods.

[calfoxwc]

Apparently, Al, it isn't policy we're quibbling about.

It's the intentionally created crisis to manipulate voters toward "hope" and "change".

caused by the Dems in Congress the last two years.

And now, the determined attempts at underminging of our Constitution by Obama,

and also apparently, the restructuring of our entire country and way of life into a socialist

model.

Al, you guys can bring yourselves to admit Obama is in over his head, and what they are doing

is bringing us all DISASTER?

Really?

For you guys that cried and cried about your rights guaranteed by the Constitution because of Bush and the Patriot Act,

you think losing the 1st and 2nd Amendments, losing our right to private industry including personal choices of health insurance

is a good thing?

You want to sell this country out completely, in the name of buoying up the already diasatrous regime of Obama?

Surely you can't be serious.

[Kosar_For_President]

@calfoxwc said:

Apparently, Al, it isn't policy we're quibbling about.

It's the intentionally created crisis to manipulate voters toward "hope" and "change".

caused by the Dems in Congress the last two years.

And now, the determined attempts at underminging of our Constitution by Obama,

and also apparently, the restructuring of our entire country and way of life into a socialist

model.

Al, you guys can bring yourselves to admit Obama is in over his head, and what they are doing

is bringing us all DISASTER?

Really?

For you guys that cried and cried about your rights guaranteed by the Constitution because of Bush and the Patriot Act,

you think losing the 1st and 2nd Amendments, losing our right to private industry including personal choices of health insurance

is a good thing?

You want to sell this country out completely, in the name of buoying up the already diasatrous regime of Obama?

Surely you can't be serious.

LOL

[mz.]

@calfoxwc said:

including personal choices of health insurance

That's how you're spinning this???

Jeepers...

[Kosar_For_President]

mz. said:

That's how you're spinning this???

Jeepers...

That's why I was laughing.

[mz.]

It is pretty humorous, to say the least.

Cal shows he's more loyal to his HMO than to health care in general.

[Westside Steve]

Aloysius said:

It's natural for people to have mixed feelings when a policy they oppose is enacted: sure, they may think it's wrong or isn't going to work, but they also don't want it to leave millions of people unemployed and in poverty just so they can say, "Aha! I told you so!"

What Rush was doing was celebrating that second, ignoble impulse.

Ahhh bullshit.

Oh it would be true if anyone in his right mind was enthusiastic that Obammy's boondoggle would really work.

Ya see, those who haven't drunk the Kool Aid have serious doubts about it.

Many feel it will make things worse, a lot worse, in the long run.

I don't even hear a huge vote of confidence from guys like you.

Tell me Alo, you think it's a slam dunk for prosperity? It can't be stopped and them there evil republicans have no say.

Put up or.....

C'mon now!

WSS

[Aloysius]

No, I don't think it's a slam dunk. It may not be big enough, the tax cuts and spending may not be focused on the right areas, and we've never really dealt with an economic situation like the one we're currently in.

I think Megan McArdle makes some fair points here:

[osusev]

You party of fiscal responsiblity has been turned upside by republican congressional spending along with your president... remember the social security SURPLUS.....

No we don't Sev.

We remember a projected surplus that disappeared after the Clinton recession, the dotcom bubble burst and 9/11.

Then we remember unprecedented growth until Dems took the houses.

And eve if it were more than an opium dream to ya, we didn't elect DLC Bill Clinton and a Republican house this time.

WSS

Steve the dot com collapse was BEFORE Bush jr was elected... It had NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON LEGISLATION

March 10 2000:Over 1999 and early 2000, the Federal Reserve had increased interest rates six times[citation needed], and the runaway economy was beginning to lose speed. The dot-com bubble burst, numerically, on March 10, 2000, when the technology heavy NASDAQ Composite index[7] peaked at 5,048.62 (intra-day peak 5,132.52), more than double its value just a year before. The NASDAQ fell slightly after that, but this was attributed to correction by most market analysts; the actual reversal and subsequent bear market may have been triggered by the adverse findings of fact in the United States v. Microsoft case which was being heard in federal court. The findings, which declared Microsoft a monopoly, were widely expected in the weeks before their release on April 3.

One possible cause for the collapse of the NASDAQ (and all dotcoms) was massive, multi-billion dollar sell orders for major bellwether high tech stocks (Cisco, IBM, Dell, etc.) that happened by chance to be processed simultaneously on the Monday morning following the March 10 weekend. This selling resulted in the NASDAQ opening roughly four percentage points lower on Monday March 13 from 5,038 to 4,879—the greatest percentage 'pre-market' selloff for the entire year.

The massive initial batch of sell orders processed on Monday, March 13 triggered a chain reaction of selling that fed on itself as investors, funds, and institutions liquidated positions. In just six days the NASDAQ had lost nearly nine percent, falling from roughly 5,050 on March 10 to 4,580 on March 15.

Another reason may have been accelerated business spending in preparation for the Y2K switchover. Once New Year had passed without incident, businesses found themselves with all the equipment they needed for some time, and business spending quickly declined. This correlates quite closely to the peak of U.S. stock markets. The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000 (closed at 11,722.98, with an intra-day peak of 11,750.28 and theoretical[8] peak of 11,908.50)[9] and the broader S&P 500 on March 24, 2000 (closed at 1,527.46, with an intra-day peak of 1,553.11);[10] while, even more dramatically the UK's FTSE 100 Index peaked at 6,950.60 on the last day of trading in 1999 (December 30). Hiring freezes, layoffs, and consolidations followed in several industries, especially in the dot-com sector.

The bursting of the bubble may also have been related to the poor results of Internet retailers following the 1999 Christmas season. This was the first unequivocal and public evidence that the "Get Rich Quick" Internet strategy was flawed for most companies. These retailers' results were made public in March when annual and quarterly reports of public firms were released.

By 2001 the bubble was deflating at full speed. A majority of the dot-coms ceased trading after burning through their venture capital, many having never made a net profit. Investors often jokingly referred to these failed dot-coms as either "dot-bombs" or "dot-compost".

UNPRECEDENTED GROWTH? This only demonstrates you only PARROTING what you think is fact rather than actually understanding real data:

FACT: growth was below average in comparison to the average for business cycles between 1949 and 2000. Overall real GDP has grown at an average annual rate of 2.5%. Between 2001 and 2005, GDP growth was clocked at 2.8%, 0.6% below the average of 3.4%, while GDI (Gross Domestic Income) growth was 36% below average. The number of jobs created grew by only 6.5%, 28.5% below the average growth rate of 9.1%. The growth in average salaries was less than half as usual; 1.2% versus 2.7%, respectively. While growth in consumer spending was 72% faster than growth in income, it too has “failed to keep pace with the... average of previous cycles.” Only investment residential real-estate soared, growing 26% faster than average.[20][21]

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entr...shots_20051026/

"Price, L. (October 25, 2005). The Boom That Wasn’t: The economy has little to show for $860 billion in tax cuts. http://epi.3cdn.net/767992214da6a41eb9_3um6bn297.pdf

"Price, L. & Ratner, D. (October 26, 2005). Economy pays price for Bush’s tax cuts. http://epi.3cdn.net/767992214da6a41eb9_3um6bn297.pdf

The "projected social security surplus"... that "disappeared after the Clinton recession... again talking about something without even having a base idea what you are talking about. You like just spewing out partisan talking points..

Steve here is what the "surplus" WAS basically.. Social Security revenues is spent on government programs and retiring the federal debt, and the Social Security trust fund is credited with bonds equal to those expenditures. By reducing the debt, the logic goes, the government saves on interest payments and enhances its ability to borrow in the future to help pay benefits to retirees.

IN 2000 for the FIRST time the entire surplus was used for debt reduction....

Than in 2001 Bush Jr was elected and proceded to take our national debt from around 5.8 trillion to 10.7 trillion, mire us into 2 invasions, 2 occupations, 2 nation rebuilds along with long term stability in the main oil producing region and BOOM the surplus that DID EXIST a year before and the projected amounts for the next 8 years were GONE.

So during 9-11(When Bush told americans to spend money..... keep shopping) and the republican led and written enron loophole just prior to W becoming elected OIL skyrocketed from artificial speculation and the financial/Insurance industry deregulated went crazy and led us to the economic recession. Tack on the doubling of the national debt and yearly budget.....

Sure I am the one smoking Opium.

[calfoxwc]

so, Sev, you rather us have not done anything about fighting the war on terror after 9/11?

And you guys defend putting med insurances companies out of biz, save for one successful bidder

in ONE national health care insurance choice?

Then we are all screwed. Don't make us start posting horror stories about socialized medicine.

It's tragic.

You guys are so locked in to supporting Obama, that you can't see that this would be a megadisaster?

There is NOT enough money to run a nationalized health care system for the entire country.

Fact.

You aren't serious. You can't be.

[Westside Steve]

@osusev said:

You party of fiscal responsiblity has been turned upside by republican congressional spending along with your president... remember the social security SURPLUS.....

Steve the dot com collapse was BEFORE Bush jr was elected... It had NOTHING TO DO WITH CLINTON LEGISLATION

No shit!!!

Hey professor, the dotcom bubble burst and started ther CLINTON recession.

There goes the fake surplus.

That Bush "pulled us out of" if you need to play the hot potato game.

Geez.

Sure I am the one smoking Opium.

Or mixing it with your Kool Aid most likely.

Hilarious to see you boasting about a phony projected surplus and pimping Obammy's outrageous waste of borrowed dollars in the same thesis paper.

WSS

[osusev]

Cal you dont wage a "war" on a tactic. dont you get that? the "war" on drugs is a slogan just like the term"terror".

Yes I would have the U.S. go after CRIMINALS with Military and CIA SUPPORT like the Israeli's did after the Munich olympics.... LIKE after the OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING we used Law enforcement to hunt down the criminals. In the case of 9-11 with international criminals interpol and or aggressive CIA/Military tactics backed up at that time the WORLD community we could have assasinated them etc.

That would have made sense not the predetermined Iraq invasion, staying in AFghanistan and not pulling our manpower away would have been acceptable. People quoting a slogan about waging a war on a tactic.... real smart.

Steve I am not playing a potato game... You tried playing the partisan role trying to link Clinton's policy with the causation of the dot-com bubble and subsequent recession. You tried to talk about Bush and his supposed economic gains not me.

Steve YOU are the one parroting partisan political mumbo jumbo without qualifying your statements or even understanding the topic like the social security surplus. The surplus DID in fact exist and Bush and republican spending killed that plain and simple. Republican economists cant defend it so why are you trying to?

I like the subject of your rebuttal.. Kool aid and some sort of linkage about Obama and borrowing against the dollar. I see that you must have been reading my posts because prior I believe you were one of the individuals talking about the stimilas reallocating your money.

Like I have been saying for the last year the Focus FIRST should be to stop and or slow down Foreclosure and force the banks into lending credit... something that is happening. So yes I am very happy that within 2 months that is EXACTLY the direction he is going in.

[Kosar_For_President]

@osusev said:

Like I have been saying for the last year the Focus FIRST should be to stop and or slow down Foreclosure and force the banks into lending credit... something that is happening. So yes I am very happy that within 2 months that is EXACTLY the direction he is going in.

No way man, we should be focusing on Obama smoking weed 20 years ago. That was a joke.

Bush's stimulus gave billions to banks that are sitting on it.

[Westside Steve]

@osusev said:

Steve I am not playing a potato game... You tried playing the partisan role trying to link Clinton's policy with the causation of the dot-com bubble and subsequent recession. You tried to talk about Bush and his supposed economic gains not me.

Never.

Read a little.

There was a surplus on paper when the dotcom bubble was roaring.

It burst not because of anything Clinton did.

Matter of fact his NAFTA signing boosted the economy.

But:

When the dotcom magic was gon "projected" surpluses weren't projected anymore.

Oh well.

Same with housing.

Steve YOU are the one parroting partisan political mumbo jumbo without qualifying your statements or even understanding the topic like the social security surplus. The surplus DID in fact exist and Bush and republican spending killed that plain and simple. Republican economists cant defend it so why are you trying to?

If you piss and moan about deficit spending under Bush you really should bitch (or STFU) now.

It's now worse.

A lot worse.

And the market ain't with ya.

Now if you can recall that I said "boy am I glad Bush is throwing money around hand over fist" you'd have a point. (I didn't BTW)

I like the subject of your rebuttal.. Kool aid and some sort of linkage about Obama and borrowing against the dollar. I see that you must have been reading my posts because prior I believe you were one of the individuals talking about the stimilas reallocating your money.

I say this.

Family X can't pay it's huge mortgage and most of the kids won't work.

Dad is way in debt already but takes out an even bigger loan and puts the kids on salary to do busywork.

That sound like a long term plan to you?

WSS

[smalls1129]

Can we try to have a real conversation here. Everyone just throws names out there, and then links everyone together, like every Conservative thought that EVERYTHING George Bush did was perfect. That's just stupid, perfection does not exist and even like minded people will never agree on everything.

That being said, I have one simple question for those espousing Socialism: What has OUR government ever ran effectively enough that you guys think they could handle far reaching socialist agendas? To me, I don't have faith in anything our government has EVER done to give me confidence in this system. And if this is truly the route that we want to go, lets have an honest conversation about the Constitution; b/c Socialism and Constitutionality do not go hand in hand.

2nd Health Care is not a right. It's just not, it is a logical fallacy to call something a right that depends on the existence of another person. IE, you can't have a right to health care b/c it would DEPEND on one of your neighbors being a doctor. Inalienable rights flow from God, not from the skills of another human being.

[osusev]

Steve the um social security surplus IS NOT TIED TO wallstreet, you really dont understand the social security trust fund and how it works do you?

The surplus GENERATED FROM THE EXCESS OF CONTRIBTIONS VERSUS PAYOUTS IN THE SS TRUST FUND. it was not projected but actual funds applied in 2000, Bush pulled those EXTRA contributions into the ss trustfund due to his increased budget and spending.

As for Obama and his defecit spending in the first two months of office facing a economic catastophe, honestly you must not understand macro economics at all. We dont have any choices right now. its either borrow against ourselve to invest in ourselves or face a free fall into a full blown depression.

Bush did not face that in anyway, bringing up 9-11 only illustrates how he mishandled a criminal act.

Your problem you qouted IS NOT THE PROBLEM WITH OUR ECONOMY, that is a irresponsible situation that many people are in. The problem stems from how money and insurance instruments are managed on wallstreet reflecting backwards on banks and other financial industries loss and profit columns. Those industries invested heavily because of the enormous gains and to stay competitive. This is a massive correction need to restore balance.

Money and credit flowing out to those industries START at the Federal lending level then to the banking level. Banks because of how they invested heavily in over aggressive financial instruments that were tied to collateral in huge packages (meaning mortgages) are now burdened with toxic collateral they cant unload back to the market. IN order to keep enough cash on hand to handle day to day activities they have killed credit to EVERYONE. Our economy is based on credit so that creates a feedback loop to further send the market crashing. Meaning jobs are lost due to contraction from no to little credit to buy inventory/material/marketing etc. That leads to sell offs and low investments INTO the market creating the Bear market.

This move by the feds to help banks not necessarily the individuals (we all benefit as a byproduct of correcting the system) ease lending back into the market meaning businesses can borrow to market/produce HIRE etc and also stem foreclosures to stop free falling values which affect the banks value on collateral as well as finaincing borrowing etc (new construction/rehab etc)

The ONLY organization large enough to move the entire market is the government because the problem is systemic and a self feeding cycle that spirals only downward. That is our system because it is based on credit and confidence in future possible gains.

Partisan people like you that dont understand the economics or the reality of the larger system should take your own advice and (STFU) about things that you obviouusly dont understand.

I dont like this spending and it does bother me that we have to borrow so much to pull out of this. Unfortunately at this point it is the only option or face a free falling economy.

[Kosar_For_President]

@osusev said:

Steve the um social security surplus IS NOT TIED TO wallstreet, you really dont understand the social security trust fund and how it works do you?

The surplus GENERATED FROM THE EXCESS OF CONTRIBTIONS VERSUS PAYOUTS IN THE SS TRUST FUND. it was not projected but actual funds applied in 2000, Bush pulled those EXTRA contributions into the ss trustfund due to his increased budget and spending.

As for Obama and his defecit spending in the first two months of office facing a economic catastophe, honestly you must not understand macro economics at all. We dont have any choices right now. its either borrow against ourselve to invest in ourselves or face a free fall into a full blown depression.

Bush did not face that in anyway, bringing up 9-11 only illustrates how he mishandled a criminal act.

Your problem you qouted IS NOT THE PROBLEM WITH OUR ECONOMY, that is a irresponsible situation that many people are in. The problem stems from how money and insurance instruments are managed on wallstreet reflecting backwards on banks and other financial industries loss and profit columns. Those industries invested heavily because of the enormous gains and to stay competitive. This is a massive correction need to restore balance.

Money and credit flowing out to those industries START at the Federal lending level then to the banking level. Banks because of how they invested heavily in over aggressive financial instruments that were tied to collateral in huge packages (meaning mortgages) are now burdened with toxic collateral they cant unload back to the market. IN order to keep enough cash on hand to handle day to day activities they have killed credit to EVERYONE. Our economy is based on credit so that creates a feedback loop to further send the market crashing. Meaning jobs are lost due to contraction from no to little credit to buy inventory/material/marketing etc. That leads to sell offs and low investments INTO the market creating the Bear market.

This move by the feds to help banks not necessarily the individuals (we all benefit as a byproduct of correcting the system) ease lending back into the market meaning businesses can borrow to market/produce HIRE etc and also stem foreclosures to stop free falling values which affect the banks value on collateral as well as finaincing borrowing etc (new construction/rehab etc)

The ONLY organization large enough to move the entire market is the government because the problem is systemic and a self feeding cycle that spirals only downward. That is our system because it is based on credit and confidence in future possible gains.

Partisan people like you that dont understand the economics or the reality of the larger system should take your own advice and (STFU) about things that you obviouusly dont understand.

I dont like this spending and it does bother me that we have to borrow so much to pull out of this. Unfortunately at this point it is the only option or face a free falling economy.

WOW. I couldn't (I know I couldn't) of said it better myself. Bravo.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

@kosar_for_president said:

No way man, we should be focusing on Obama smoking weed 20 years ago. That was a joke.

Bush's stimulus gave billions to banks that are sitting on it.

The Stimulus plan that Obama recommended he sign, correct? Obammy was all for the supposed "Bush" stimulus plan. And Obama smoking weed is an issue, he is in the highest public office. He should set an example. Not a joke, only to fools like you.