It’s more’n a hundred, you could call it many if you like.
But why quibble over such a minor point when the big stinkin’ elephant in the room is this ridiculous nonce-phrase ‘Bush-Obama Plan’… as if the two presidents were sitting in a smoky back room together and forming economic strategies in unison… you’d think the Bush tax cuts would have remained indefinitely if this was the case, yes? Tax cuts being, according to many on the right, the most effective way of stimulating the economy?
That is why Newt belongs in the Pit.
We shouldn’t be distracted by the tiresome quibbling over the meaning of an inconsequential assertion about who believes what.
I’m so tired of seeing the same old play run by many Republicans whereby a Big Huge Honkin’ Lie gets lost in the discussion over minutia… DNFTM.
Take a vow for the new revolution? And get on my knees and pray? Been there, done that, and still doing it.
Obama is not lefty enough for me, he’s a centrist just a bit to the left of the triangulated Clintons, may chiggers infest their hosiery. Not a messiah, just a smart and capable man with a progressive inclination. After the rot and horror of these last years, I am glad of it. Oh, and he’s smarter than me, but I’ve managed to forgive that.
But “same” as the old boss? Oh, no. Not by a long shot, Og be praised.
No, you are. You are acting just as the scum who called me a traitor were. You are acting as if it is our annointed right to do whatever we want to, and those who oppose us are biased and despicable and untrustworthy.
Now, we won. We can do whatever we want. But for Pete’s sake, argue against our opponents as if they were equally as concerned about the future of the country as we are, argue as if they, though sadly mistaken and confused, have as equally valid a right to voice their opinions as we do. Don’t just dismiss them as biased and despicable and untrustworthy. Otherwise, we’ve turned into the them of the last eight years. I’ll remind you what happened to them.
So long as a few Republican senators are willing to break ranks to allow legislation to pass, yes. If the party as a whole swings further right, they will get buried even worse in the next mid-term elections.
Except a lot of them aren’t. Limbaugh has said several times now that he wants Obama to fail, and any Republican figure who disagrees with Limbaugh’s comments on anything publicly had better apologize and damn fast, or he’s in a world of hurt. There are one hell of a lot of people out there who aren’t interested in figuring out the best plan, they just want to fight for their plan and against everyone else’s.
Wasn’t addressed to me, but since I did Unleash the Snark…
It is inevitable that political fortune will turn.
Let’s assume that all our wildest dreams come true–that health care reforms take a significant weight from the liabilities of the business community at large… that this in turn leads to an increase in employment numbers, allowing individuals to both increase their spending and, suitably chastened by the events of the recent past, become more mindful of their expenditures (I’ll give you 10:1). Let’s assume that the deficit run up through this emergency spending is mitigated by the increased tax revenue from a more prosperous citizenry, the peace dividend from one war being ceased, and through careful monitoring of government spending. And, just for the lulz, let’s say that the new cannabis industry (due to the Frank-Franken Legalization Bill of 2011) happened to be just the X-factor needed to provide that one little extra bit of oomph to juice the economy to 2004 levels (was gonna say 90s but let’s not go nuts here).
I’ll wager that there will still be a vocal Republican opposition that will point to these events as failures and/or attempt to minimize their importance. Because they want to win elections.
And it will, at some point, work.
Therefore, I am reticent to be swayed by the argument that giving those who deserve it a taste of their own. Otherwise, many may come to the erroneous conclusion that both sides are the same (my cite is the last sixteen years).
I agree that there is no need to attack patriotism–let the facts bear that out where warranted–but where someone is biased in your view, or untrustworthy… call it out!
Again, political fortunes will change. 'Tis the nature of the beast.
But the way to not allow less savory and truly un-American elements the ability to hide under partisan cover is to, when necessary, point out their shameful actions so that the greater body of those who disagree with us will excise that element from their midst. I worry that being jaded by the actions of a discredited administration will lead the current administration too far into acquiescence, and allow elements from that shameful group to rise again in the future.
Thank you for your personal critique. I’ll take it under due consideration. OK, that’s done. By no stretch of the imagination am I remotely comparable to them. You’re entirely welcome to your opinion. And if you think **Strato **has behaved himself in an exemplary and praiseworthy fashion, you’re welcome to that opinion as well, though it escapes me. Frankly.
This is truly pathetic. This is the hill you want to die on? You’re right because 300 economists isn’t “many, many”? What is it? “A whole bunch”? “A shitload”? “A bushel and a peck”?
What a stand-up guy you are if you can’t concede this self-evident point. You huffed and puffed, got on your soapbox and dished out insults, and in the end, you were wrong. But better not cede any point, no sir. Again, pathetic.
Actually, it was meant for the two posts above yours; slipping in a fast comment isn’t always as easy as elucidator makes it appear to be.
The part of your post I snipped made sense. And so does this. My particular problem with this thread (and what drew me back in after we’d passed off Gulfport) is with certain posters acting as though no legitimate, respected economist could possibly oppose the Democratic plan. This is, simply, not so.
So, you know how every one of those 22,000 feels on the topic. That’s great. You won’t mind if I ask for a cite, right? That’s all the rage in this thread.
Anyway, keep trying. Maybe if repeated enough, it’ll take on the aura of truth.
Oh, piffle. Have a nice cup chamomile tea, maybe a chill pill. Such drama.
You tried to accomplish with suggestion and innuendo what could not be supported with fact. You got busted for it, and went ahead acting like a dickosaurus. You are hardly in a position to snivel about “insults”, when you’ve been flinging poo with both hands.
elucidator provided the cite… I’d simply ask if you have a counter-cite.
You’re arguing against associate counsel when you’ve got a claim backed up with evidence already on the table from the lead attorney. Hamilton Burger, I have found your clone!
OK, time out. Who are these posters? Did they actually say that, or is that the inference you drew? And if no one actually said that, then aren’t we permitted to think that your inference may be mistaken?
Nope, won’t work. Nice try though. I am not affected at all by the poo flung by folks like you in these threads whenever someone has the temerity to disagree with you. Really. Won’t lose sleep, no drama required or possible. I will, however, call a spade a spade.
That you continue to act as if it’s innuendo to state that there are conflicting economic viewpoints is–well, it’s breathtaking in its dishonesty. You behaved like a jerkoff, got your ass handed to you, and now you’re attempting the old redirect strategy in a vain attempt to not come off as the complete douche bag you behaved like in this thread.
He provided a cite showing that 99% of the registered economists support the stimulus, believe the New Deal was effective and that Keynes was the bee’s knees? Wow, I missed it. Really. Can you help me find it?