♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 20, 2010 21:23:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 20, 2010 22:21:41 GMT
Looks like a HUGE upgrade over Ted Kennedy. Congrats to the people of Massachusetts. It's been a long time coming but they've finally gotten it right.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 20, 2010 22:29:05 GMT
Looks like a HUGE upgrade over Ted Kennedy. Congrats to the people of Massachusetts. It's been a long time coming but they've finally gotten it right. The people of Massachusetts are probably getting sick of "PC and liberalism" and having their children forced to read homosexual fairy tales in school.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 20, 2010 23:13:29 GMT
Here's another jolt for them courtesy of the tax and spend Democrats:
Democrats propose $1.9T increase in debt limit
WASHINGTON (January 20, 2010) – Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would permit the national debt to reach $14.3 trillion.
The unpopular legislation is needed to allow the federal government to issue bonds to fund programs and prevent a first-time default on obligations. It promises to be a challenging debate for Democrats who, as the party in power, hold the responsibility for passing the legislation.
The record increase in the so-called debt limit is required because the budget deficit has spiraled out of control in the wake of a recession that cut tax revenues, the Wall Street bailout, and increased spending by the Democratic-controlled Congress. Last year's deficit hit a phenomenal $1.4 trillion, and the current year's deficit promises to be as high or higher.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Jan 21, 2010 13:59:46 GMT
Before the Right wing starts popping the champaign corks, they should remember that their hero, Ronald Reagan, got hammered in 1982 with a bad (and worsening) economy and lost 26 HoR seats. Your'e still a long way off from reaching your plutocratic nirvana.
What we saw in Mass was a truly horrid Dem candidate, a charismatic GOP candidate, an off-year special election in ugly January weather and everybody, Dem and GOP alike, is acting as if the GOP just took back both houses of Congress.
Well I guess it feels like a big victory for those who think they are have more freedom when they can pay for poor people's emergency-room-only healthcare through private insurance companies with a 30% markup, rather than pay for it at doctor's office rates without markups through a single-payer system.
It's still a wealth transfer, just not a very efficient one. Instead of the government stealing your money and giving it to poor people, it's insurance companies stealing your money and giving some of it to poor people through the indirect subsidy of hospitals and doctors write-off work. I guess that's what passes, among the tea-bagger brigades, as the difference between liberty and Stalinism.
Massachusetts has universal health insurance, a more complete version of the current Obama plan. Everybody has insurance. The poorest of those without group coverage get subsidies. Others can buy from a low-cost pool. But everybody has to have health insurance. And btw, Brown, as a state senator, voted for it.
And since it is a better, more comprehensive law than Obama's current proposal, nobody in Mass had any incentive to vote for Coakley for the sake of health insurance. In fact slight disincentive even for liberals, since they are already paying for a universal mandatory system in Mass and would have to pay a bit more in taxes to support the federal subsidies presumably none of which would be coming back into Mass.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 21, 2010 14:49:38 GMT
He's only one US Senator but he's a very important one because he takes away the crucial 60 member majority the Dems need to force through legislation. These are the same voters who elected Ted Kennedy, arguably the worst Senator in American history, every time he came up for reelection. This is a breath of fresh air because it proves that those voters aren't all brain damaged after all. What a surprise that is.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 21, 2010 14:53:14 GMT
Well, Kennedy was someone I've always hated.
By all accounts Brown seems like quite a good bloke.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 21, 2010 23:09:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 21, 2010 23:41:29 GMT
Well, let's see. Maybe - just maybe - Democrats don't like her for the same reason Republicans don't like Michael Moore.
Could it just be that both of them have egoes in inverse relation to their talent?
Could it just be that both are big on soundbites and short on content?
Most of the tirade from Coulter (yes, I did read it all!) consisted of a mixture of badly-directed invective (Ted Kennedy might just be considered a 'moral monster' but how Martha Coakley is remotely in his league is a bit hard to see), assumptions, statements of opinion without any attempt to back them up, and meaningless swipes at scarecrows.
It's very sad that the level of political debate in America is so low that poseurs like Moore and Coulter can be considered as some sort of serious media pundits.
My God, they make OUR clowns look like geniuses in comparison!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 22, 2010 14:33:11 GMT
Here's another jolt for them courtesy of the tax and spend Democrats: Democrats propose $1.9T increase in debt limit WASHINGTON (January 20, 2010) – Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would permit the national debt to reach $14.3 trillion. The unpopular legislation is needed to allow the federal government to issue bonds to fund programs and prevent a first-time default on obligations. It promises to be a challenging debate for Democrats who, as the party in power, hold the responsibility for passing the legislation. The record increase in the so-called debt limit is required because the budget deficit has spiraled out of control in the wake of a recession that cut tax revenues, the Wall Street bailout, and increased spending by the Democratic-controlled Congress. Last year's deficit hit a phenomenal $1.4 trillion, and the current year's deficit promises to be as high or higher. of course, the FACT is that it is SOLELY due to dumbya's tripling the deficit to begin with. obviously, had he not bankrupted the government, EVERYTHING that the democrats wish to pass would not have raised it to a trillion dollars
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 22, 2010 14:36:46 GMT
He's only one US Senator but he's a very important one because he takes away the crucial 60 member majority the Dems need to force through legislation. These are the same voters who elected Ted Kennedy, arguably the worst Senator in American history, every time he came up for reelection. This is a breath of fresh air because it proves that those voters aren't all brain damaged after all. What a surprise that is. you mean that he's the vote the obstructionists need to continue thwarting the will of the people in their endeavor to make it possible to achieve the american dream
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 22, 2010 14:38:07 GMT
Before the Right wing starts popping the champaign corks, they should remember that their hero, Ronald Reagan, got hammered in 1982 with a bad (and worsening) economy and lost 26 HoR seats. Your'e still a long way off from reaching your plutocratic nirvana. What we saw in Mass was a truly horrid Dem candidate, a charismatic GOP candidate, an off-year special election in ugly January weather and everybody, Dem and GOP alike, is acting as if the GOP just took back both houses of Congress. Well I guess it feels like a big victory for those who think they are have more freedom when they can pay for poor people's emergency-room-only healthcare through private insurance companies with a 30% markup, rather than pay for it at doctor's office rates without markups through a single-payer system. It's still a wealth transfer, just not a very efficient one. Instead of the government stealing your money and giving it to poor people, it's insurance companies stealing your money and giving some of it to poor people through the indirect subsidy of hospitals and doctors write-off work. I guess that's what passes, among the tea-bagger brigades, as the difference between liberty and Stalinism. Massachusetts has universal health insurance, a more complete version of the current Obama plan. Everybody has insurance. The poorest of those without group coverage get subsidies. Others can buy from a low-cost pool. But everybody has to have health insurance. And btw, Brown, as a state senator, voted for it. And since it is a better, more comprehensive law than Obama's current proposal, nobody in Mass had any incentive to vote for Coakley for the sake of health insurance. In fact slight disincentive even for liberals, since they are already paying for a universal mandatory system in Mass and would have to pay a bit more in taxes to support the federal subsidies presumably none of which would be coming back into Mass. of course, you're a thousand percent correct all the way around
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 22, 2010 14:40:10 GMT
correction lad. all RATIONAL people dislike ann because she so seldom has anything remotely close to intelligent to say
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 22, 2010 14:43:25 GMT
Well, let's see. Maybe - just maybe - Democrats don't like her for the same reason Republicans don't like Michael Moore. Could it just be that both of them have egoes in inverse relation to their talent? Could it just be that both are big on soundbites and short on content? Most of the tirade from Coulter (yes, I did read it all!) consisted of a mixture of badly-directed invective (Ted Kennedy might just be considered a 'moral monster' but how Martha Coakley is remotely in his league is a bit hard to see), assumptions, statements of opinion without any attempt to back them up, and meaningless swipes at scarecrows. It's very sad that the level of political debate in America is so low that poseurs like Moore and Coulter can be considered as some sort of serious media pundits. My God, they make OUR clowns look like geniuses in comparison! there is a HUGE difference between moore and coulter. although moore does have a tendency to exagerate things, the REALITY is that he is usually right, as opposed to coulter being right perhaps 3% of the time, and ONLY on crime and gun issues
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 23, 2010 0:22:46 GMT
C'mon Jumbo. Stop it with the nonsense. Coulter is razor sharp with her satire. Moore is just bozo. He has nothing going for him. Nada, zilch, zero. The guy is a total loser. He looks the part of a moron because he is a moron.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Jan 24, 2010 17:10:02 GMT
Moore is an entertaining and very successful film maker; Coulter is a cliche spouting worthless tool devoid of any value (and was a very mediocre law student at the UofM) who profits from hatred and ignorance.
The Senate super majority rule is not a safeguard against "ramming through" legislation (it's called voting, btw), it's a special rule that Republicans have abused (used almost twice as much last year as any year before). And the Democrats never had 60 seats, because that would count Liberman (R-CT) among them. the real travesty is that a group of senators who represent only 11% of the population have control over the entire legislative process.
That said, the Democrats are inept, a bunch of floundering buffoons who couldn't organize a piss out at a beer brewery. Their only redeeming quality, it seems, is that they are not Republican.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 27, 2010 17:28:33 GMT
@ clemiethedog - Well we disagree on that. Democrats hate Coulter because she has their number and she gives them zero wiggle room. Her satire is some of the best ever.
Michael Moore brings the term 'buffoon' to life. His movies are truth distortion and propaganda taken to the extreme. Chairman Mao would be proud of him. He's not alone though. There are quite a few buffoon propagandists on the left. Keith Olbermann comes to mind as does Rachel Madow. Ditto for most of the NY Times editorial writers.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Jan 28, 2010 17:42:48 GMT
Keith Olbermann is a flamed out idiot and a tool; Maddow, oth, is quite bright and well informed.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 28, 2010 23:27:17 GMT
Clemie - If Maddow was quite bright and well informed she would be a Republican. There are no other possibilities.
:-)
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 29, 2010 3:58:30 GMT
Have you ever watched Rachel's show, das? She's really very good. If I have other things to do, I'll take care not to click on that channel while she's on because she's interesting enough to drag me in and keep me there too long. Give her a look and try to set aside the uber partisan attitude long enough to be fair. You could be surprised.
|
|