As long as we get same-sex marriage and legal pot...most Americans won't care. Oh, and more sex on CSI.

Who is John Galt?

Oooga booga booga?

Blaming government bureaucrats? Someone has to be completely bereft of ideas to play that card.

I love when bureaucrats get blamed. That's like driving your car off a cliff and blaming your engine.

Rev.K: Blaming government bureaucrats? Someone has to be completely bereft of ideas to play that card.

I love when bureaucrats get blamed. That's like driving your car off a cliff and blaming your engine.

It's like knocking up your wife and blaming the sperm.

/This could be fun...

Rev.K: Blaming government bureaucrats? Someone has to be completely bereft of ideas to play that card.

For the record, we are, actually out to enslave the world, kill your puppies, steal your property, and make you get gay married to a welfare queen in a black helicopter owned by the UN. So don't say I didn't warn you.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: For the record, we are, actually out to enslave the world, kill your puppies, steal your property, and make you get gay married to a welfare queen in a black helicopter owned by the UN. So don't say I didn't warn you.

Keep it down or you won't be invited to the next meeting.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Rev.K: Blaming government bureaucrats? Someone has to be completely bereft of ideas to play that card.

For the record, we are, actually out to enslave the world, kill your puppies, steal your property, and make you get gay married to a welfare queen in a black helicopter owned by the UN. So don't say I didn't warn you.

Nah, I don't think it's that nefarious, but I do question whether or not the government taking on a larger and larger portion of the GDP in terms of both the budget and the budget deficit, along with plans to turn the government loose on health care, which in the next decade will swell to roughly 20% of the GDP in and of itself is good for a free enterprise system. IIRC, the CBO's problem with the Obama budget over the next decade was that if economic growth didn't match the Administration's optimistic projections (which differed from the CBO's), was that the deficit alone could comprise upwards of 5% (I think - it's been a while since I looked at the report) of the annual GDP, a level it considered very dangerous. That's what I am concerned about.

EvilEgg: Keep it down or you won't be invited to the next meeting.

Uh... I mean, we're here to help.

FTA: The president is seeking to change the whole relationship between the government and the free-enterprise private sector.

Because that relationship apparently has been working oh so well for the past 10+ years.

AFTA: The Thatcher Revolution is being repealed over there. Unless current trends are reversed, the Reagan Revolution will be repealed over here.

Because both revolutions allowed unfettered financial institutions to grow and take untenable risks with their respective nation's money. The Brits were just smart enough to start veering from their disastrous course earlier than we did, and as such the impact to their economy has not been as severe as the impact to ours.

"We are witnessing a triumph of government bureaucrats over entrepreneurs, investors, and small businesses."

Bzzzt.

Wrong.

We've already witnessed a triumph over the entrepreneur. No longer does a guy go out and open up a shop, hoping to make enough money that he can raise a family comfortably. He doesn't work day in and day out so that one day his son might be able to inherit that company, and keep the family tradition alive. No, the modern entrepreneur couldn't be more different. He is instead some 20-something working nights on his computer, trying to come up with the 'next big thing', which he in turn just hopes to sell off to Google or Microsoft or Amazon or whoever else before getting squashed by them. The entrepreneur, the small business owner - he was killed off long ago, and not because of 'socialism'. He was killed off because the cheap workers he would have employed here now live in Mexico and China. He was killed off because the lax anti-trust regulation gave rise to megacorporations. He was killed off because tax laws give breaks to big business over small business. He was killed off because he couldn't compete - and the government just turned a blind eye. So now, he, too, is just another corporate slave for some multinational because he wants to have a decent life for himself and his family. Cos being a 'self-made man' in this country means being Joe the Plumber: Uneducated, blue collar, and lower middle class. It's not worth the trouble.

Neoliberalism has had a lot worse long-term impact for our nation than socialism ever could. It's a race to mediocrity.

capitalism and democracy are not inherently linked. just look at china, they have authoritative capitalism.

matter of fact, i think a lot of republicans would love it there. they are more free market than us... they just don't really have any civil liberties.

Nabb1

I don't think it's that nefarious, but I do question whether or not the government taking on a larger and larger portion of the GDP in terms of both the budget and the budget deficit, along with plans to turn the government loose on health care, which in the next decade will swell to roughly 20% of the GDP in and of itself is good for a free enterprise system.

A few years back I questioned whether or not the government cutting taxes, de-regulating everything it could and backing off from enforcing every single regulation it could not, launching two wars and domestically putting the foxes in charge of the chicken coop was good for a free enterprise system. My question is now answered, quite definitively.

Here's hoping yours is not answered with quite so many exclamation points driven into your brain.

Yeah, as we've seen the entrepeneurs and investors do a GREAT job of keeping our country in tip-top shape.

/except for the ones begging for gov't assistance, of course.

Gotta love that arguement. IF the President is doing this, then AHHH OMG SCARY! Repubs have lost all touch with reality.

When you take away the money that one person has earned, and give that money to another person who hasn't earned it, you have essentially removed both of their reasons for working.

"We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only 'litmus test' of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty." He continued, "As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement."

That is Saint Ronnie talking there. With those views, even Reagan wouldn't be allowed in the Republican party, and the Limbaugh crowd would throw him to the wolves.

For any of the right wingers out there: THAT clearly illustrates how far gone your party is: Even Ronnie's views aren't accepted any more.

Nabb1: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Rev.K: Blaming government bureaucrats? Someone has to be completely bereft of ideas to play that card.

For the record, we are, actually out to enslave the world, kill your puppies, steal your property, and make you get gay married to a welfare queen in a black helicopter owned by the UN. So don't say I didn't warn you.

Nah, I don't think it's that nefarious, but I do question whether or not the government taking on a larger and larger portion of the GDP in terms of both the budget and the budget deficit, along with plans to turn the government loose on health care, which in the next decade will swell to roughly 20% of the GDP in and of itself is good for a free enterprise system. IIRC, the CBO's problem with the Obama budget over the next decade was that if economic growth didn't match the Administration's optimistic projections (which differed from the CBO's), was that the deficit alone could comprise upwards of 5% (I think - it's been a while since I looked at the report) of the annual GDP, a level it considered very dangerous. That's what I am concerned about.

I think this is the first time I've heard you clearly and tactfully express your views without invoking partisan crap. That's actually a pretty good reason to worry. However, if we don't do the things Obama plans we may be worse off.

America is just as isolationist as it was before WWII, only now it's isolationist in it's refusal to see outside it's nationalistic pride. We refuse to entertain the notion that we AREN'T the greatest country on the planet, that our ideas and ways of life and business aren't the best, that they can actually be harmful. We refuse to see the hand writing on the wall and see how other countries have taken our ideas of protecting the people and providing for everyone and ACTUALLY DONE IT. And you know what, for the most part it works.

We keep acting and believing that we are the most important and that our word should be heard and followed above all others, but that's not the case. We have to change our economy and social structure dramatically to survive in the world. By creating a service based economy built on the back of massive nation hubris we became useless in manufacturing and production. Other than movies and software (which the japanese still crush us on from time to time) we have nothing to really offer. We are a nation of burger flippers that think we're kings.

Obama is trying to push us to meet with the rest of the world. Now, i don't know if it will work, but I do know that continuing to play the petulant child that thinks they deserve to be recognized above everyone else on the playground will crush us faster than anything else.

HAMMERTOE: When you take away the money that one person has earned, and give that money to another person who hasn't earned it, you have essentially removed both of their reasons for working.

It's amazing how many people don't understand such a simple concept. But, the man who robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.

This really helps dispel the idea that RCP is just a Republican polling outfit.

remember when all the banks lost all their money and destroyed the world economy as a result of handing over control of the government to entrepreneurs, investors, and huge global businessmen? No?

Well then part of the blame lies with capitalism for being so greedy and short sided they farked up the world economy and opened the door for it to happen.

TRIUMPH!

Larry Kudlow? For reals? This Larry Kudlow? Forgive me for not immediately repudiating my vote.

Also, a former Reagan economic policy advisor pimping Saitn Reagan's economic policies that he helped write in the first paragraph? Gold.

Nabb1: Nah, I don't think it's that nefarious, but I do question whether or not the government taking on a larger and larger portion of the GDP in terms of both the budget and the budget deficit, along with plans to turn the government loose on health care, which in the next decade will swell to roughly 20% of the GDP in and of itself is good for a free enterprise system. IIRC, the CBO's problem with the Obama budget over the next decade was that if economic growth didn't match the Administration's optimistic projections (which differed from the CBO's), was that the deficit alone could comprise upwards of 5% (I think - it's been a while since I looked at the report) of the annual GDP, a level it considered very dangerous. That's what I am concerned about.

In the man's defense, let me say this: Nobody and I mean nobody ever thought we'd see the wholesale nationalization-in-all-but-name of our "leading" financial institutions coupled with the Guv taking such a huge stake in 2/3 of the auto industry. These two things, I believe, were realities before the man took office.

also, ACORNS. acorns, man. acorns.

Cat Food Sandwiches: HAMMERTOE: When you take away the money that one person has earned, and give that money to another person who hasn't earned it, you have essentially removed both of their reasons for working.

It's amazing how many people don't understand such a simple concept. But, the man who robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.

Do we do that? I mean, the Rich get just as many public services as the poor, they just make enough that they don't have to worry about welfare and similar programs.

"Obama is steering the country away from democratic capitalism and toward his big-government command-and-control vision. We are witnessing a triumph of government bureaucrats over entrepreneurs, investors, and small businesses"

Yea, pretty much sums it. Big Gov't.


and to echo the earlier comment,
"the man who robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul."

HAMMERTOE: When you take away the money that one person has earned, and give that money to another person who hasn't earned it, you have essentially removed both of their reasons for working.

You should tell that to Bernie Madoff.

No we're not. We're nowhere near the command and control economy of the 60s and 70s, nor has Obama expressed any willingness to go there, nor is anyone advocating that.


What exactly does this hyperbole buy? Rubes?

"Obama is steering the country away from democratic capitalism and toward his big-government command-and-control vision. We are witnessing a triumph of government bureaucrats over entrepreneurs, investors, and small businesses that has been in the works since our constitution was writtent to allow taxes and tariffs."

Clarified tfy.

DarnoKonrad: No we're not. We're nowhere near the command and control economy of the 60s and 70s, nor has Obama expressed any willingness to go there, nor is anyone advocating that.


What exactly does this hyperbole buy? Rubes?

netcentric, for one. So, yes. Rubes.

HAMMERTOE: When you take away the money that one person has earned, and give that money to another person who hasn't earned it, you have essentially removed both of their reasons for working.

Yeah, I mean, what are you going to do with a national defense, clean water, police, roads, firefighters, clean air, public health or sanitation anyway?

40yoVirgin: Oooga booga booga?

When your taxes climb to pay for all this spending are you still going to post such a witty comment?


Can't spend like this forever people...

mediablitz: "We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only 'litmus test' of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty." He continued, "As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement."

That is Saint Ronnie talking there. With those views, even Reagan wouldn't be allowed in the Republican party, and the Limbaugh crowd would throw him to the wolves.

For any of the right wingers out there: THAT clearly illustrates how far gone your party is: Even Ronnie's views aren't accepted any more.

Great post.

GWB was totally against every one of Reagan's points you listed there, except the tax part.


Obama is just continuing his predecessor's fine work.

adamgreeney: Nabb1: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Rev.K: Blaming government bureaucrats? Someone has to be completely bereft of ideas to play that card.

For the record, we are, actually out to enslave the world, kill your puppies, steal your property, and make you get gay married to a welfare queen in a black helicopter owned by the UN. So don't say I didn't warn you.

Nah, I don't think it's that nefarious, but I do question whether or not the government taking on a larger and larger portion of the GDP in terms of both the budget and the budget deficit, along with plans to turn the government loose on health care, which in the next decade will swell to roughly 20% of the GDP in and of itself is good for a free enterprise system. IIRC, the CBO's problem with the Obama budget over the next decade was that if economic growth didn't match the Administration's optimistic projections (which differed from the CBO's), was that the deficit alone could comprise upwards of 5% (I think - it's been a while since I looked at the report) of the annual GDP, a level it considered very dangerous. That's what I am concerned about.

I think this is the first time I've heard you clearly and tactfully express your views without invoking partisan crap. That's actually a pretty good reason to worry. However, if we don't do the things Obama plans we may be worse off.

America is just as isolationist as it was before WWII, only now it's isolationist in it's refusal to see outside it's nationalistic pride. We refuse to entertain the notion that we AREN'T the greatest country on the planet, that our ideas and ways of life and business aren't the best, that they can actually be harmful. We refuse to see the hand writing on the wall and see how other countries have taken our ideas of protecting the people and providing for everyone and ACTUALLY DONE IT. And you know what, for the most part it works.

We keep acting and believing that we are the most important and that our word should be heard and followed above all others, but that's not the case. We have to change our economy and social structure dramatically to survive in the world. By creating a service based economy built on the back of massive nation hubris we became useless in manufacturing and production. Other than movies and software (which the japanese still crush us on from time to time) we have nothing to really offer. We are a nation of burger flippers that think we're kings.

Obama is trying to push us to meet with the rest of the world. Now, i don't know if it will work, but I do know that continuing to play the petulant child that thinks they deserve to be recognized above everyone else on the playground will crush us faster than anything else.

"Obama is steering the country away from democratic capitalism and toward his big-government command-and-control vision. We are witnessing a triumph of government bureaucrats over entrepreneurs, investors, and small businesses"

...while giving huge bailouts to corporations with little or no oversight on what they do with the money. If Obama wanted to take over he would let them all fail and replace them with 100% government controlled facilities. This argument is really stupid. The worst thing about Obama is the fact his is not doing enough to force the hand of these idiots that are begging for the money in the first place.

You ask for government money, you go by government rules. Nobody is forcing them to take the bailout funds.

I have a problem with RCP. Shouldn't it either be "Really Clear Politics", or "Real, Clear Politics"? Pick one, assholes!

We are witnessing a temporary return to normalcy after decades of ass-rape by corporate interests.

I wonder who has done the most to screw the entrepreneurs, investors, and small businesses into the ground...

1 - The Markets, and especially small companies, perform better under the Democrats.

This was proven in a study by two finance professors at the University of California at Los Angeles, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov. The report is titled "The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market", and you can see it here (.PDF format).



Using data since 1927, we find that the average excess return of the value-weighted CRSP index over the three-month Treasury bill rate has been about 2 percent under Republican and 11 percent under Democratic presidents: a striking difference of 9 percent per year! This difference is economically and statistically significant. A decomposition of excess returns reveals that the difference is due to real market returns being higher under Democrats by more than 5 percent, as well as to real interest rates being almost 4 percent lower under Democrats.

The results are even more impressive for the equal-weighted portfolio, where the difference in excess returns between Republicans and Democrats reaches 16 percent. Moreover, we observe an absolute monotonicity in the difference between size-decile portfolios under the two political regimes: From 7 percent for the largest firms to about 22 percent for the smallest firms.

Entrepreneurs and small businesses do better with Dems in charge. Not opinion. Fact, based on the historical data.

2 - if you had $10,000 to invest, and you only invested it in the S&P, and you only invested it when one particular Party was in the White House, which would fare better? Investing in Dems or the GOP?



Well, over the last 80 years (with an almost even split) we see the $10,000 grew to over $300,000 under the Dems. And it only grew by less than $2,000 under the Republicans. With inflation, you threw your money away. Even without Hoover in the picture, you were still wiser to bet on Democrats.

Investors do better with Dems in charge. Not opinion. Fact, based on the historical data.

I'm sorry: what was this asshat Kudlow talking about? I thought he was meant to be some sort of economist. Let's look at more of what he has said...

Kudlow firmly denied that US would enter a recession (in 2007) or that the US was in recession (in early and mid 2008). In December, 2007 he wrote: "The recession debate is over. It's not gonna happen. Time to move on. At a bare minimum, we are looking at Goldilocks 2.0. (And that's a minimum). The Bush boom is alive and well. It's finishing up its sixth splendid year with many more years to come". In May, 2008 he wrote:"President George W. Bush may turn out to be the top economic forecaster in the country" in his "R" is for "Right".

And you conservatives wonder why you keep on losing. Isn't 80 YEARS of evidence enough for you to stop trying to destroy what makes America great?

Code_Archeologist...
Because both revolutions allowed unfettered financial institutions to grow and take untenable risks with their respective nation's money. ...

Except for the inconvenient truth that the changes to the banking laws which allowed the risks to be taken happened during the Clinton administration.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: HAMMERTOE: When you take away the money that one person has earned, and give that money to another person who hasn't earned it, you have essentially removed both of their reasons for working.

Yeah, I mean, what are you going to do with a national defense, clean water, police, roads, firefighters, clean air, public health or sanitation anyway?

The difference with everything you named is that they belong to the common good. Once you start spending money on programs that target only specific individuals or groups, you move away from common good. And then your taking money from one person or group and giving it to another. This is theft.

xtragrind: an't spend like this forever people...

We may be able to spend like this and put off repayment until the economy recovers. Then the bill will come due, reducing economic growth for years.

adamgreeney: We keep acting and believing that we are the most important and that our word should be heard and followed above all others, but that's not the case. We have to change our economy and social structure dramatically to survive in the world. By creating a service based economy built on the back of massive nation hubris we became useless in manufacturing and production. Other than movies and software (which the japanese still crush us on from time to time) we have nothing to really offer. We are a nation of burger flippers that think we're kings.

You don't seem to understand. We have the richest people in the world, running their corporations overseas, and we have to have people to serve them their steaks. Sure, the wealth gap may be widening, but average income has never been higher! This is progress man, the new way. We want a class of ultra-wealthy and a class of wage slaves. Otherwise we wouldn't keep voting for more of it.

Nuke the gay baby whales for Jesus and save the USA.

Mark my words - in 7 years time, GOP presidential candidates will be claiming "Obama was the most Republican president we've had in recent history" in a desperate attempt to rebrand his successes as their own.

Well, we'd previously just witnessed the collapse of the republican style of big-business capitalism, so something's gonna happen in reaction.

It boils down to - domino effect of failing companies wipes out most of the wealth and jobs in America and we all live like in Dark Angel for a while, or Government steps in for a bit to keep things wheezing along asthmatically?

Well, maybe not that dramatic, but while I don't like the government running a lot of things (because it's full of farking crazies like Michelle Bachmann and Virginia Foxx, and I wouldn't trust them to run a lemonade stand), I agree 100% with them stepping in to prop up companies whose collapse would turn our financial sector into a wasteland or wipe out, say, 123,000 jobs in NA alone. It's for situations like this that we HAVE a government.

The trick is now going to be, once everything stabilizes, getting those companies profitable and having them buy themselves back from the government, and working out some smart, minimally-stifling regulations to prevent them from farking up again.

I don't know that I actually trust a lot of the idiots in Congress to get that right. I certainly don't trust most of the Republicans in congress to get that right - they've never to my knowledge done anything except let business run roughshod over employees and consumers.

Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the neutron bomb
Its nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home

The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight

Gonna
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor tonight

Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rates gone
Feel free again
O lifes a dream with you, miss lily white
Jane fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals its okay
So lets get dressed and dance away the night

Jackpot777: Well, over the last 80 years (with an almost even split) we see the $10,000 grew to over $300,000 under the Dems. And it only grew by less than $2,000 under the Republicans.

throw out your outliers.

Without hoover and clinton (both outliers, in my book - especially hoover) you have a much different story.