Looks like the Pugs are conceding defeat

[Awryly]

DeMint has gone. His beverage-addicted colleagues will no doubt soon follow.

Almost all commentators are picking the Pugs will fold on higher taxes. They might as well. If they go over the cliff, they will rise anyway.

They will rend their shirts over massive cuts to the military and groan endlessly that the poor are not sacrificed sufficiently to their Mammon.

Meanwhile, Obama will legislate a balanced plan that includes billions of extra expenditure on stuff that will grow the economy. In 2014, the Dems will take back the House. Netanyahu will be distraught. Obama will revisit his insistence that Israel negotiates a two-state solution on 1967 boundaries with swaps. There is a good prospect that the Israelis will dump Netanyahu and concede.

[Peter1469]

Vote present and let the Dems own the coming currency collapse.
That is what the mal- educated public voted for. I say give it to them deep and hard.

[Awryly]

Vote present and let the Dems own the coming currency collapse.
That is what the mal- educated public voted for. I say give it to them deep and hard.


More likely they will own the next economic boom.

Hilary's prospects are looking good.

[Peter1469]

More likely they will own the next economic boom.

Hilary's prospects are looking good.

That would be historic. You really don't understand economics - do you? You and your ilk want to raise taxes in a faltering economy. Have fun. After the crash don't come near me. I will put a .45 cal bullet in your head.

[Awryly]

That would be historic. You really don't understand economics - do you? You and your ilk want to raise taxes in a faltering economy. Have fun. After the crash don't come near me. I will put a .45 cal bullet in your head.

What's "faltering" about an economy that's already growing?

Oh, you mean all those rich people who hoard their money anyway (to the tune of 2 trillion dollars), and pretend against all the evidence that "trickle down" economics work, will continue not to invest?

[Peter1469]

The economy is not growing. It is about to collapse.

[Awryly]

The economy is not growing. It is about to collapse.

Then perhaps the bullet you propose for me would be better employed in your own head.

[Captain Obvious]

Then perhaps the bullet you propose for me would be better employed in your own head.

zing

[ptif219]

DeMint has gone. His beverage-addicted colleagues will no doubt soon follow.

Almost all commentators are picking the Pugs will fold on higher taxes. They might as well. If they go over the cliff, they will rise anyway.

They will rend their shirts over massive cuts to the military and groan endlessly that the poor are not sacrificed sufficiently to their Mammon.

Meanwhile, Obama will legislate a balanced plan that includes billions of extra expenditure on stuff that will grow the economy. In 2014, the Dems will take back the House. Netanyahu will be distraught. Obama will revisit his insistence that Israel negotiates a two-state solution on 1967 boundaries with swaps. There is a good prospect that the Israelis will dump Netanyahu and concede.


You mean Obama will have no budget and waste more money on programs that fail as he did the last 4 years.

[ptif219]

More likely they will own the next economic boom.

Hilary's prospects are looking good.

Their will be no economic boom under Obama

[ptif219]

What's "faltering" about an economy that's already growing?

Oh, you mean all those rich people who hoard their money anyway (to the tune of 2 trillion dollars), and pretend against all the evidence that "trickle down" economics work, will continue not to invest?

Growing economy? Is that what you call 300,000 more that have given up finding a job?

[GrumpyDog]

It seems the left thing to do, given that the right thing to do, was to do nothing but cut those portions of the Fed. Budget, not affecting the wealthy, or the military based corporate profits resulting from Government they say is spending too much.

Primitive, Prehistoric human (roots of Conservatism) principles:

1. Austerity measures are necessary and should be applied first to those who can least afford them. Resources should be secured by the most able, by force of arms if necessary, then guarded, and distributed, in hierarchial order, to those deemed most fit, worthy, while restricted, in descending order, according to those deemed less able.

2. "To those who have been given much, more is given, while from those who have little, what little they have is taken away". (Interpretation of a quote from Jesus of Nazareth, as advocating such a condition as an ideal economic principle.) Follows Old Book idea of "no work, no eat" principle (irrespective of whether there is abundance of food available or not).

3. The needs of the one, or the few, outweigh the needs of the many. The "One" who is strongest of all, being infallible, deserves not only his needs met first, and in abundance, but should be worshipped, as "Lord". He (Father no less) , is given authority (by himself, to himself) to kill other humans at will. And in turn, "His Will" is also confered among some of "the few" whom he chooses, who also may kill at will.

4. Only the strongest are meant to survive, while the weakest, by Darwinian law, should perish.

5. Except for no. 4, Darwin is wrong, and Creationism followed by Intelligent Design Theory, (in that order), are the correct explanation for the origin of man, earth (only 6000 +/- 3000 yrs old), and the universe (also, not older than earth).

Given these kinds of principles, which apparently, for some reason, have become conservative principles, thanks to Tea Party and Evangelical Looney Wing, is it any wonder that the more pragmatic conservatives would be suffering some degree of anxiety?

[Chris]

Awryly, you don't even present a good liberal argument.

Grumpy, you're at least good at cartoonish caricature.

[Captain Obvious]

Growing economy? Is that what you call 300,000 more that have given up finding a job?

350k more.

... just sayin.

[Chris]

The economy is growing but at a lackluster pace lagging way behind previous recoveries. See The Numbers Game -- The Economic Recovery (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/7219-The-Numbers-Game-The-Economic-Recovery).

[Awryly]

The economy is growing but at a lackluster pace lagging way behind previous recoveries. See The Numbers Game -- The Economic Recovery (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/7219-The-Numbers-Game-The-Economic-Recovery).

So, it's part of the conservative fantasy that all recoveries should mimic the recovery before it?

[Captain Obvious]

Ah, morning in the Shire.

Did you treat yourself to an egg McKiwimuffin this morning?

[Peter1469]

So, it's part of the conservative fantasy that all recoveries should mimic the recovery before it?

You can look at the data for yourself. Recoveries tend to be much better than this one.

[Mister D]

I guess Awrwly's frequent employment of straw men makes sense. After all, he comes from an agricultural society. :grin:

[Chris]

So, it's part of the conservative fantasy that all recoveries should mimic the recovery before it?

Where'd I say that? Why do you make up lies like that?

What I said was, based on data, this recovery is slow compared to others.

Did you have an actual argument with that?

[Awryly]

You can look at the data for yourself. Recovers tend to be much better than this one.

And recessions have never better been worse. Do you detect a correlation?

[Awryly]

Where'd I say that? Why do you make up lies like that?

What I said was, based on data, this recovery is slow compared to others.

Did you have an actual argument with that?

What did your "data" say about the depth of the recession?

[Peter1469]

And recessions have never better been worse. Do you detect a correlation?

Not true. The US has had several recessions on par with this one.

[GrumpyDog]

Awryly, you don't even present a good liberal argument.

Grumpy, you're at least good at cartoonish caricature.

Then we need you Chris, to switch parties, and be the voice of reason for Democrats. You can remain conservative on fiscal policy, but will have to abandon those archaic social stigma constructs, and just let the gay people marry, not worry about the alligators, and keep Church and State separated by a solid wall.

[Awryly]

Not true. The US has had several recessions on par with this one.

Where American households lost 40% of their wealth? Where the auto industry and all your major banks were on the verge of bankruptcy? Where unemployment rose over 10%? Where JP Morgan had to pay millions to the NYPD to suppress protesters? Where millions lost their homes and retirement savings? Where your government had to spend nearly a trillion dollars to save Wall St? And so on, and on, and on.

And the assessment of experts in the area of US recessions/depressions are wrong?


The world’s largest economy contracted 1.9 percent from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the last three months of 2008, compared with the 0.8 percent drop previously on the books, the Commerce Department said yesterday in Washington. Gross domestic product has shrunk 3.9 percent in the past year, the report said, indicating the worst slump since the Great Depression.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aNivTjr852TI

And that assessment was made before the full effects were clear.
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aNivTjr852TI)

[Mister D]

Then we need you Chris, to switch parties, and be the voice of reason for Democrats. You can remain conservative on fiscal policy, but will have to abandon those archaic social stigma constructs, and just let the gay people marry, not worry about the alligators, and keep Church and State separated by a solid wall.

He's never had them. Who are you arguing with?

[Peter1469]

Where American households lost 40% of their wealth? Where the auto industry and all your major banks were on the verge of bankruptcy? Where unemployment rose over 10%? Where JP Morgan had to pay millions to the NYPD to suppress protesters? Where millions lost their homes and retirement savings? Where your government had to spend nearly a trillion dollars to save Wall St? And so on, and on, and on.

And the assessment of experts in the area of US recessions are wrong?



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aNivTjr852TI

Black Friday in 1987 America lost a comparable amount of wealth. The big issue with 2008-09 was two crashes happening at once. (Because of the repeal of Glass Steagal). Several recessions pre-Great Depression were worse (but very short lived).

[GrumpyDog]

Where American households lost 40% of their wealth? Where the auto industry and all your major banks were on the verge of bankruptcy? Where unemployment rose over 10%? Where JP Morgan had to pay millions to the NYPD to suppress protesters? Where millions lost their homes and retirement savings? Where your government had to spend nearly a trillion dollars to save Wall St? And so on, and on, and on.

And the assessment of experts in the area of US recessions are wrong?



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aNivTjr852TI


You meant the Bush Depression of 2001-2008, which took 4 more years just to avert crashing the plane and killing all the passengers, after which the newly elected pilot gets blamed for being drunk because he had to land the plane upside down.

[Awryly]

Then we need you Chris, to switch parties, and be the voice of reason for Democrats. You can remain conservative on fiscal policy, but will have to abandon those archaic social stigma constructs, and just let the gay people marry, not worry about the alligators, and keep Church and State separated by a solid wall.

I am not sure his brain could deal with such heretical notions.

[Awryly]

You meant the Bush Depression of 2001-2008, which took 4 more years just to avert crashing the plane and killing all the passengers, after which the newly elected pilot gets blamed for being drunk because he had to land the plane upside down.

Fortunately, the original pilot was killed in the crash.

Though I see his co-pilot is still rambling on in media land about he could have saved the plane. And made money out of it.

[Peter1469]

You meant the Bush Depression of 2001-2008, which took 4 more years just to avert crashing the plane and killing all the passengers, after which the newly elected pilot gets blamed for being drunk because he had to land the plane upside down.

You are telling what your mother would describe as a lie.

The Bush economy was doing well after we pulled out of the Clinton recession up until the mortgage crisis and the fiscal crash of 2008-09.

Bush had record low unemployment rates. Even unemployable people were getting jobs (not that that is a good thing).

[Awryly]

You are telling what your mother would describe as a lie.

The Bush economy was doing well after we pulled out of the Clinton recession up until the mortgage crisis and the fiscal crash of 2008-09.

Bush had record low unemployment rates. Even unemployable people were getting jobs (not that that is a good thing).

Even if that were true, which it is highly unlikely to be, should those people also revere him for crashing the economy?

[GrumpyDog]

You are telling what your mother would describe as a lie.

The Bush economy was doing well after we pulled out of the Clinton recession up until the mortgage crisis and the fiscal crash of 2008-09.

Bush had record low unemployment rates. Even unemployable people were getting jobs (not that that is a good thing).

You must have been exiled on that lost island during the Bush economy. Did you miss the War on Terror also?

[Awryly]

Black Friday in 1987 America lost a comparable amount of wealth. The big issue with 2008-09 was two crashes happening at once. (Because of the repeal of Glass Steagal). Several recessions pre-Great Depression were worse (but very short lived).

Black Friday was just an overblown stock market affair. Affecting only those with looney investments.

[Peter1469]

Even if that were true, which it is highly unlikely to be, should those people also revere him for crashing the economy?

Who reveres Bush? He was a liberal.

[Peter1469]

Black Friday was just an overblown stock market affair. Affecting only those with looney investments.

Inaccurate.

[Awryly]

Who reveres Bush? He was a liberal.

Of course he's a "liberal". Now.

He has to be or else how could he have failed so dismally?

[Awryly]

Inaccurate.

Tell me how. It was a dot.com piece of nonsense, no more.

[Peter1469]

What are you talking about? Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. That is code for big government. Liberal.

[GrumpyDog]

Black Friday was just an overblown stock market affair. Affecting only those with looney investments.

In 1987, Reagan...uh.. oh.. but that a Conservative president.. so
Next... uh, another recession.. Bush Uno... but no.. he conservative too.. so

Clinton = 22 million jobs, balanced Fed budget, yearly surplus on avg of 114 B/yr, and nothing added to the already 5 Trillion National debt from Reagan/Bush. NOPE. Clinton Liberal, so not count as reality.

Next.. Bush Dos XX....911, Shock n Awe (really just "Shuck n Jive" as renowned TP Queen Palin might say), War on Terror, (means terrorize citizens with fear of unknown phantom menace), run up National Debt another 5 Trillion, and almost crash into more towers, metaphorically speaking, before handing big plate of steaming @#$% economy to Obama.

[Awryly]

In 1987, Reagan...uh.. oh.. but that a Conservative president.. so
Next... uh, another recession.. Bush Uno... but no.. he conservative too.. so

Clinton = 22 million jobs, balanced Fed budget, yearly surplus on avg of 114 B/yr, and nothing added to the already 5 Trillion National debt from Reagan/Bush. NOPE. Clinton Liberal, so not count as reality.

Next.. Bush Dos XX....911, Shock n Awe (really just "Shuck n Jive" as renowned TP Queen Palin might say), War on Terror, (means terrorize citizens with fear of unknown phantom menace), run up National Debt another 5 Trillion, and almost crash into more towers, metaphorically speaking, before handing big plate of steaming @#$% economy to Obama.

Pretty much sums it up.

I like sums.

But I have this Mormon guy at the door trying to sell me BoA credit default swaps. Should I buy?

[Peter1469]

You libs are completely in the dark.

Enjoy your concepts of economics.

[Awryly]

You libs are completely in the dark.

Enjoy your concepts of economics.

They work.

And we will.

Thank you for your blessing. You too, Roots.

[Chris]

Then we need you Chris, to switch parties, and be the voice of reason for Democrats. You can remain conservative on fiscal policy, but will have to abandon those archaic social stigma constructs, and just let the gay people marry, not worry about the alligators, and keep Church and State separated by a solid wall.

I don't belong nor vote Republican. We need you to deal with reality instead of making things up.

[Chris]

Of course he's a "liberal". Now.

He has to be or else how could he have failed so dismally?

He was liberal in office. I think you confuse party with principle. Then again, you're a foreigner who thinks he knows it all.

[Cigar]

They work.

And we will.

Thank you for your blessing. You too, Roots.


This is great entertainment that will last a lifetime.

Persoanlly ... I can't wait for the next Republican Primary Circus.

[Awryly]

This is great entertainment that will last a lifetime.

Persoanlly ... I can't wait for the next Republican Primary Circus.

Whereupon we will be entertained to a herd of new elephants trumpeting the age-old mantras locked into their collective conscience. (I use the word "conscience" loosely.)

[Chris]

Whereupon we will be entertained to a herd of new elephants trumpeting the age-old mantras locked into their collective conscience. (I use the word "conscience" loosely.)

Again, proving liberals, ever the socialists, always think in terms of herds, mantras and collectives. See John Haidt on this.

[Awryly]

Again, proving liberals, ever the socialists, always think in terms of herds, mantras and collectives. See John Haidt on this.

Being naturalists, we observe what we observe. If you don't like being observed, use camouflage.

But expect us to notice that you look like twigs and lichen.

[Chris]

Being naturalists, we observe what we observe. If you don't like being observed, use camouflage.

But expect us to notice that you look like twigs and lichen.

Liberals aren't naturalists, they're idealists who abandon man's biological and traditional roots. A naturalist would advocate natural law, not posited law.

[Awryly]

Liberals aren't naturalists, they're idealists who abandon man's biological and traditional roots. A naturalist would advocate natural law, not posited law.

Ah, naturalist would advocate survival of the fittest?

Which makes me wonder how .........................:rollseyes:

[Chris]

(A) Ah, naturalist would advocate survival of the fittest?

(B) Which makes me wonder how .........................:rollseyes:

No, survival of the fittest is another scientistic misconception of liberals. It's part and parcel the scientistic notion that evolution is progressive.

Part of your problem, awryly, is you make assumptions with no basis in reality like (A), but then go on to draw from those assumptions conclusions like (B).

[Awryly]

No, survival of the fittest is another scientistic misconception of liberals. It's part and parcel the scientistic notion that evolution is progressive.

Part of your problem, awryly, is you make assumptions with no basis in reality like (A), but then go on to draw from those assumptions conclusions like (B).

A being the Pugs lost? B being wealthy Americans will have to pay higher taxes?

Yes, I understand.

[Chris]

A being the Pugs lost? B being wealthy Americans will have to pay higher taxes?

Yes, I understand.


B being wealthy Americans will have to pay higher taxes?

Under Obama that goes without saying. We're already doing that.

[Awryly]

Under Obama that goes without saying. We're already doing that.

Excellent.

How are you going to subvert the One who represents the American people?

[GrumpyDog]

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/10/mitt romney money.jpg

Caption: Who said you can't fool all the people all the time?

[Chris]

Excellent.

How are you going to subvert the One who represents the American people?

So you think paying higher taxes "Excellent"?

Who said anything about subversion?

[Awryly]

So you think paying higher taxes "Excellent"?

Who said anything about subversion?I would suspect you might be asked to pay your fair share to keep your dopey society going.

But I also suspect you don't earn much. And live mainly off food stamps provided by a government you want to overthrow.

Your logic just lost me.
.