More bad economic news

[Yukon Cornelius]

really? I wonder what the standard of living in china is like compared with what it was 25 years ago. somehow I'm thinking it doesn't do your argument any favors. here's what wikipedia says...

 

 

 

gee, look at that.

really. do we need to get into this pissing match. industry runs china, no regs on labor, pollution , building , imminent domain ,pirating etc.. but what ever.....

Edited October 29, 2010 by Yukon Cornelius

[Deathpig]

The stupidity is that there were models that said doing absolutely nothing would have us in a better position than we are currently in. So this becomes an 'expert witness' fight where we throw 'models' at each other while proving nothing.

 

How about someone provide a line by line accounting of each funded stimulus project and how that project helped stave off the next Great Depression? The projects that were 'supposed' to do that are the least funded aspects of the stimulus (the 'shovel ready' jobs that were the big talking point the last year or so). I suppose changing hospital light bulbs, union bailouts, and grants for studying African penis hygiene really saved the day! The left is trying to prove a negative... let's see some proof, and not 'some models suggest' as a line of defense.

 

 

As for being obstructionist I actually agree that towards the middle to the end of this year the Republicans crossed the line from reasonable contention to outright dickery, but maybe you crazy revisionist historians forget where the shrill, partisan Good Day, Sunshinetery started? Anyone remember the beginning of the stimulus legislation? Remember when Democrats went crazy putting together legislation, and when Republicans said 'hey how about some tax cuts and relief for homeowners' they got the 'we don't want to listen to the failed policies of the past' rhetoric in response? The entire stimulus was crafted with ZERO Republican input, and the Republicans said 'if we don't get input, we're not voting for it' and the Dems replied with 'we don't need you'. Sure enough, the Dems couldn't even pass the thing on party lines and after finally browbeating a couple RINOs got the thing to pass.

 

The media takeaway? Was it 'New President shuts out minority party in staggering partisan display after running on a platform of bi-partisan cooperation'? NO! It was 'Obstructionist Republicans try to deny needy Americans from stimulus aid'.

 

The same damn thing happened with health care, with the same stupid media takeaway. Both times they got shut out of the proceedings, both times said they weren't going to vote for it if they didn't have a hand in crafting it, both times they were thrown crumbs and effectively ordered to take them, and both times when they held up their stated objection on voting the media calls only them out for partisan hackery.

 

As soon as it seemed like they were getting some good reaction from their base for standing up to the majority party they took it way too far and made saying no the default point of view, which is pretty stupid. However, the two main things they get hell for saying no to they had every right to hold their stance because they weren't given any room to help craft the legislation in question. And no, going in saying 'we want to address A, B, and C' and being told 'you can come to the table, but we aren't going to negotiate at all on A, B, or C' isn't being given room.

[Azazello1313]

no wonder democrats are failing to "communicate" their awesome successes...they are trying like hell to avoid the issue entirely

 

2010 Features Similar Rates of Negativity, But Dems More Likely to Attack Personally

Dems and Reps are Similar in Proportion of Negative Ads, but Dem Strategy Likely Driven by Desire to Draw Attention Away from the Policy Environment

 

more here

 

As you watch this year's ads -- and I've been watching all too many lately -- you'll notice a striking difference between Democratic and Republican attack ads: Democrats are attacking over personal issues, Republicans are attacking over policy.

 

There are, of course, many exceptions, but the overall trend is clear. Democrats are hitting their Republican opponents over past legal transgressions, shady business deals and even speeding tickets. Republicans are hammering Democrats over "Obamacare," Nancy Pelosi and the economy.

 

aqua buddha!

[caddyman]

And models project it would have been much worse without the stimulus. I won't pretend to be an economic expert like you, but I've heard there are other indicators besides the unemployment rate, that are also worth considering, especially in a severe economic downturn such as this one. None of us here live on another planet, it's just obvious that the desperately stupid blind partisan hackery from some of you guys comes across as tiresome and pathetic to everyone else not married to the far right.

 

And how was it that Reagan did not need a stimulus to bring the economy back in the 80s. Thruth is you have no idea if it worked or not. It may have...but it may have either masde no differnce or could have possibly made things recover slower than they would have anyway.

[Yukon Cornelius]

And how was it that Reagan did not need a stimulus to bring the economy back in the 80s. .

ah he spent like crazy and cut programs .

[Yukon Cornelius]

The stupidity is that there were models that said doing absolutely nothing would have us in a better position than we are currently in. So this becomes an 'expert witness' fight where we throw 'models' at each other while proving nothing.

 

How about someone provide a line by line accounting of each funded stimulus project and how that project helped stave off the next Great Depression? The projects that were 'supposed' to do that are the least funded aspects of the stimulus (the 'shovel ready' jobs that were the big talking point the last year or so). I suppose changing hospital light bulbs, union bailouts, and grants for studying African penis hygiene really saved the day! The left is trying to prove a negative... let's see some proof, and not 'some models suggest' as a line of defense.

 

 

As for being obstructionist I actually agree that towards the middle to the end of this year the Republicans crossed the line from reasonable contention to outright dickery, but maybe you crazy revisionist historians forget where the shrill, partisan Good Day, Sunshinetery started? Anyone remember the beginning of the stimulus legislation? Remember when Democrats went crazy putting together legislation, and when Republicans said 'hey how about some tax cuts and relief for homeowners' they got the 'we don't want to listen to the failed policies of the past' rhetoric in response? The entire stimulus was crafted with ZERO Republican input, and the Republicans said 'if we don't get input, we're not voting for it' and the Dems replied with 'we don't need you'. Sure enough, the Dems couldn't even pass the thing on party lines and after finally browbeating a couple RINOs got the thing to pass.

 

The media takeaway? Was it 'New President shuts out minority party in staggering partisan display after running on a platform of bi-partisan cooperation'? NO! It was 'Obstructionist Republicans try to deny needy Americans from stimulus aid'.

 

The same damn thing happened with health care, with the same stupid media takeaway. Both times they got shut out of the proceedings, both times said they weren't going to vote for it if they didn't have a hand in crafting it, both times they were thrown crumbs and effectively ordered to take them, and both times when they held up their stated objection on voting the media calls only them out for partisan hackery.

 

As soon as it seemed like they were getting some good reaction from their base for standing up to the majority party they took it way too far and made saying no the default point of view, which is pretty stupid. However, the two main things they get hell for saying no to they had every right to hold their stance because they weren't given any room to help craft the legislation in question. And no, going in saying 'we want to address A, B, and C' and being told 'you can come to the table, but we aren't going to negotiate at all on A, B, or C' isn't being given room.

Gheys ,guns and baby killa's unite

[Jimmy Neutron]

Hogwash.

 

This presidency has lacked the ability to implement it's agenda. Why? Obstruction from the right

 

That's horse diaper dirt, Clubby and you know it. As they proved with health care, the dems have the votes to pass whatever the hell they want. They have simply lacked the political will and coordination to do it. I think they are also acutely aware that a good chunk of what they want to do will cost them votes. The "They'll like it once we pass it," idea isn't really flying with a lot of voters.

 

It will be interesting to see how quickly the repubs turn the "the party of no" mantra onto the dems once they control the House and can't get anything done.

[caddyman]

That's horse diaper dirt, Clubby and you know it. As they proved with health care, the dems have the votes to pass whatever the hell they want. They have simply lacked the political will and coordination to do it. I think they are also acutely aware that a good chunk of what they want to do will cost them votes. The "They'll like it once we pass it," idea isn't really flying with a lot of voters.

 

It will be interesting to see how quickly the repubs turn the "the party of no" mantra onto the dems once they control the House and can't get anything done.

 

It will be more intersting to see how all of these democrats suddenly want to work with the repubs. Lets see how much of the repub stuff is supported when needed.

[Deathpig]

Republicans can make gains in Congress, but I don't think they can generate a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Even if they could, they can't generate the majority necessary to overturn a Presidential veto.

 

So basically, if Republicans make any gains they guarantee that nothing is going to happen for the next couple of years because the thought of getting both parties together to meaningfully discuss anything after the last year of hardcore partisan sabre-rattling seems like a complete pipe-dream. Worse, I fear both parties are going to prefer sabre-rattling and posturing for the next Presidential election more than doing their damn jobs. I'm sure there are small issues (volume of cable channel commercials!) that they can agree on, but nothing major is going to take place without some kind of MAJOR emergency to force them.

 

The only exception I can see is if Republicans get a big enough majority, they could push legislation forcing Obama to veto (hypothetically putting the 'no' onus on him, except the media will report it as 'Hero Obama saves American people from Republican legislation').

 

What I don't know is if the utter inaction after this election pumps up the anti-incumbent fire more (we didn't do enough last time!) or quenches it significantly (we tried and nothing changed, it's hopeless!).

[Azazello1313]

Republicans can make gains in Congress, but I don't think they can generate a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Even if they could, they can't generate the majority necessary to overturn a Presidential veto.

 

I don't think there are even enough seats open for the republicans to get 60 in the senate. best they could possibly hope for is 51 or 52.

 

So basically, if Republicans make any gains they guarantee that nothing is going to happen for the next couple of years because the thought of getting both parties together to meaningfully discuss anything after the last year of hardcore partisan sabre-rattling seems like a complete pipe-dream.

 

I kinda disagree, I actually think some stuff might get done. but it mostly depends on whether obama is willing to move to the middle like clinton did, or he wants to dig in his heels. it will be interesting to watch play out. unfortunately, the 2012 drama may begin playing out almost immediately.

[Pope Flick]

I don't think there are even enough seats open for the republicans to get 60 in the senate. best they could possibly hope for is 51 or 52.

 

 

 

I kinda disagree, I actually think some stuff might get done. but it mostly depends on whether obama is willing to move to the middle like clinton did, or he wants to dig in his heels. it will be interesting to watch play out. unfortunately, the 2012 drama may begin playing out almost immediately.

 

 

you can bet your az on that.

[Clubfoothead]

I kinda disagree, I actually think some stuff might get done. but it mostly depends on whether obama is willing to move to the middle like clinton did, or he wants to dig in his heels. it will be interesting to watch play out. unfortunately, the 2012 drama may begin playing out almost immediately.

 

Define "the middle."

[Jimmy Neutron]

I'd be surprised if the repubs take the senate too. Some of the key house races are tightening up...

 

As always, it depends on who shows up to vote.

[evil_gop_liars]

Define "the middle."

 

Please.

[Ursa Majoris]

Define "the middle."

That was my first thought too. And is Obama the only one required to do any moving?

[bpwallace49]

That was my first thought too. And is Obama the only one required to do any moving?

 

Well . . . the new normal of "middle ground" in politics is still right of center. So the "middle" means you have to move to the Republicans, cause they aint moving an inch.

 

But considering that the United States as a whole is mainly a center-right country, that isnt that bad. The issue will be if Obama moves to the center right, and the Republicans get pissed becasue he hasent gone all the way to the deep end with the rest of them.

 

so we can look forward to 2 more years of inactivity from Congress, cause the pissing matches between the left and right has moved very far away from cordial discourse into blood feuds and eliminating the possibility for compromise.

[Ursa Majoris]

But considering that the United States as a whole is mainly a center-right country

This is why Obama gets misidentified as a socialist (well, that and it makes for good propaganda to feed the stupid and the fearful, who also vote).

[bpwallace49]

This is why Obama gets misidentified as a socialist (well, that and it makes for good propaganda to feed the stupid and the fearful, who also vote).

 

That (along with he is a m00slim and from Kenya) consists of the greatest successes the Republicans have acheived the last two years.

 

Misinformation and magician-style sleight of hand.

 

I am still at a loss of why bother? It isnt like the country doesnt have legit things to complain about Obama . . . so why invent stupid lies and consipracy theories?

[gbpfan1231]

Define "the middle."

1 2 3 4 5

[Yukon Cornelius]

I kinda disagree, I actually think some stuff might get done. but it mostly depends on whether obama is willing to move to the middle like clinton did, or he wants to dig in his heels. it will be interesting to watch play out. unfortunately, the 2012 drama may begin playing out almost immediately.

[bushwacked]

the middle...

[evil_gop_liars]

1 2 3 4 5

 

Republican middle

 

1.......................234......................4.75...5

[Azazello1313]

 

[Azazello1313]

I would say democratic senator evan bayh defines "the middle" pretty well...

 

“It’s why moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren’t buying our message,” he said. “They just don’t believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems. That’s something that has to be corrected.”

Bayh pointed that it’s not just Massachusetts. Independents also rejected Democratic gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia in November.

“ The only we are able to govern successfully in this country is by liberals and progressives making common cause with independents and moderates,” Bayh said. “Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country -- that’s not going to work too well.”

 

in 2008, the democrats won independents by 8 points. now, according to some polls they are going republican by 20. that's a whole lot of "middle" that democrats have distanced themselves from. this fairly tale about obama trying so hard to move to the middle but those darn republicans just won't meet him halfway....the only people that believe that bunk are those who were firmly in his camp all along and are just looking for excuses and spin.

[bushwacked]

Republican middle

 

1.......................234......................4.75...5