If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   "Without exaggeration, the single biggest impediment to a stronger economic recovery has been the years of dysfunction in Washington and the policies that have emerged"   (nytimes.com) divider line 114
    More: Sad, killer, economic recovery, debt ceiling crisis, sexual dysfunction, Big Dig, Macroeconomic Advisers, obstacles, Moody's Analytics  
•       •       •

1155 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Oct 2013 at 12:12 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-24 11:45:06 AM
The obvious tag was shut-down also
 
2013-10-24 12:12:51 PM
Let me guess. both sides are bad?
 
2013-10-24 12:13:42 PM
youdontsay.jpg
 
2013-10-24 12:15:11 PM
Guy didn't say that the GOP was solely responsible, must be some kind of apologist.
 
2013-10-24 12:16:35 PM
The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, the best gauge of establishment right-wing thinking in the nation, blames the anemic recovery on "regulation and ObamaCare." They got one thing right: The recovery is anemic. In fact, it's the worst recovery on record. When you consider how far the economy fell in 2008 and 2009..., the slow pace of growth is even more startling. But it has nothing to do with regulation or Obamacare. Businesses expand and hire only if they have more customers. Yet American consumers, who account for 70 percent of all economic activity, can't spend more. The median household is poorer now than it was in 2009. Over 95 percent of all the gains since then have gone to the top 1 percent. And, of course, most Americans can no longer borrow as they did before the Great Recession, to make up for flat or declining wages. Get it? The underlying economic problem is America's surging inequality. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page won't point this out. The interesting question is why the mainstream media won't, either. Nor will any prominent politician, from the President on down.

--Robert Reich
 
2013-10-24 12:17:16 PM
No, no. Gridlock is great. It's awesome when we can't even get basic housekeeping bills passed without a frantic battle of wills that costs of billions of dollars.

I know this because I've read a lot of bumper stickers about those clowns in Congress.
 
2013-10-24 12:17:40 PM
So vote Republican.
 
2013-10-24 12:17:45 PM

Biff_Steel: Let me guess. both sides are bad?


The short answer is yes.

The long answer is yeeeeeesssssssss.

If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.
 
2013-10-24 12:18:10 PM
This is their plan.  Rich people are still getting richer.  They are just serving the people they are beholden to.
 
2013-10-24 12:20:03 PM
All these big business leaders shouldn't support republicans if you want some level of stability. Your loss of profit is all on you.
 
2013-10-24 12:20:17 PM
Yeah I'm sure it has nothing to do with wide spread wage stagnation since the 70s.
 
2013-10-24 12:20:19 PM

Savage Belief: Biff_Steel: Let me guess. both sides are bad?

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is yeeeeeesssssssss.

If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.


So vote... greenbertarian?
 
2013-10-24 12:21:37 PM
Wait, so lurching along from one disaster to the next and the constant threat of doom related to said disasters isn't good for stability? I'm glad I read that article or I'd have been completely oblivious to that fact.
 
2013-10-24 12:21:54 PM
No shiat.  You can't sell shiat to people with the toilet water swirling.  They need to be able to see the corn
 
2013-10-24 12:23:01 PM

super_grass: greenbertarian?


What a green bert might look like

laughingsquid.com
 
2013-10-24 12:23:07 PM

super_grass: Savage Belief: Biff_Steel: Let me guess. both sides are bad?

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is yeeeeeesssssssss.

If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

So vote... greenbertarian?


Vote for Pedro.
 
2013-10-24 12:25:54 PM

Trivia Jockey: The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, the best gauge of establishment right-wing thinking in the nation, blames the anemic recovery on "regulation and ObamaCare." They got one thing right: The recovery is anemic. In fact, it's the worst recovery on record. When you consider how far the economy fell in 2008 and 2009..., the slow pace of growth is even more startling. But it has nothing to do with regulation or Obamacare. Businesses expand and hire only if they have more customers. Yet American consumers, who account for 70 percent of all economic activity, can't spend more. The median household is poorer now than it was in 2009. Over 95 percent of all the gains since then have gone to the top 1 percent. And, of course, most Americans can no longer borrow as they did before the Great Recession, to make up for flat or declining wages. Get it? The underlying economic problem is America's surging inequality. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page won't point this out. The interesting question is why the mainstream media won't, either. Nor will any prominent politician, from the President on down.

--Robert Reich


It's too late.  Death spiral initiated, and it won't stop until neo-liberalism is dead in the US.
 
2013-10-24 12:25:56 PM

Trivia Jockey: The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, the best gauge of establishment right-wing thinking in the nation, blames the anemic recovery on "regulation and ObamaCare." They got one thing right: The recovery is anemic. In fact, it's the worst recovery on record. When you consider how far the economy fell in 2008 and 2009..., the slow pace of growth is even more startling. But it has nothing to do with regulation or Obamacare. Businesses expand and hire only if they have more customers. Yet American consumers, who account for 70 percent of all economic activity, can't spend more. The median household is poorer now than it was in 2009. Over 95 percent of all the gains since then have gone to the top 1 percent. And, of course, most Americans can no longer borrow as they did before the Great Recession, to make up for flat or declining wages. Get it? The underlying economic problem is America's surging inequality. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page won't point this out. The interesting question is why the mainstream media won't, either. Nor will any prominent politician, from the President on down.

--Robert Reich


This.
 
2013-10-24 12:25:58 PM

Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.


Ah yes, the false equivalency.
 
2013-10-24 12:26:23 PM
History is pretty clear that this kind of thing, if it goes on too long, tends to make people start wanting a dictator or strongman who can cut through the crap and restore order and prosperity.
 
2013-10-24 12:26:36 PM

Savage Belief: Biff_Steel: Let me guess. both sides are bad?

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is yeeeeeesssssssss.

If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.


I dunno, "my side" was able to get my sister insurance because of her pre-existing condition.  The other side doesn't care that my sister was raped several years ago.
 
2013-10-24 12:28:16 PM

Savage Belief: Biff_Steel: Let me guess. both sides are bad?

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is yeeeeeesssssssss.

If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.


wrong
 
2013-10-24 12:28:20 PM

super_grass: Savage Belief: Biff_Steel: Let me guess. both sides are bad?

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is yeeeeeesssssssss.

If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

So vote... greenbertarian?


Green-Beret-arian?

They could go to washington and kick some ass.
 
2013-10-24 12:28:51 PM

Savage Belief: Biff_Steel: Let me guess. both sides are bad?

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is yeeeeeesssssssss.

If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.


With regard to Economics, yes.  With regard to literally anything else in the whole world? HA! no.
 
2013-10-24 12:29:44 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, I've been to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and I can say without hyperbole that this is a million times worse than all of them put together.
 
2013-10-24 12:30:32 PM

Trivia Jockey: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

Ah yes, the false equivalency.


So you vote for your side and not their side because they have the right letter behind their name?
 
2013-10-24 12:32:26 PM

Skeptos: History is pretty clear that this kind of thing, if it goes on too long, tends to make people start wanting a dictator or strongman who can cut through the crap and restore order and prosperity.


*shrug* maybe it's our time.  We have some pretty serious structural defects at this point, and under the current governing structure only some of those have ANY hope of getting fixed.  We may keep rattling along, but the increasing inequality gap, more than perhaps any other single factor, is going to bite us one day.
 
2013-10-24 12:32:38 PM
So the lesson learned would be?

If you win and control all branches of government but see that there is a very real liklihood of losing one or more branch in the next election, it is a terrible idea to force through an enormous extremely partisan law that is loathed by the other side in the middle of the night right before you lose power.

Because that kind of douchebaggery always leads to warm fuzzy feelings, happiness and rainbows.  But hey, with logical arguments like 'we won' and 'you have to pass the bill to see what's in it', it is pretty clear that you have no intention of ever being bi-partisan.
 
2013-10-24 12:33:54 PM

Tricky Chicken: So the lesson learned would be?

If you win and control all branches of government but see that there is a very real liklihood of losing one or more branch in the next election, it is a terrible idea to force through an enormous extremely partisan law that is loathed by the other side in the middle of the night right before you lose power.

Because that kind of douchebaggery always leads to warm fuzzy feelings, happiness and rainbows.  But hey, with logical arguments like 'we won' and 'you have to pass the bill to see what's in it', it is pretty clear that you have no intention of ever being bi-partisan.



Know how I can tell you're infromed?
 
2013-10-24 12:34:28 PM

Tricky Chicken: So the lesson learned would be?

If you win and control all branches of government but see that there is a very real liklihood of losing one or more branch in the next election, it is a terrible idea to force through an enormous  extremely partisan law that is loathed by the other side in the middle of the night right before you lose power.


The extremely partisan law created by the Heritage Foundation and enacted by a Republican governor? That one?
 
2013-10-24 12:35:07 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-24 12:36:18 PM

Savage Belief: Trivia Jockey: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

Ah yes, the false equivalency.

So you vote for your side and not their side because they have the right letter behind their name?



I would assume one votes for the stated positions of the political party that uses the initial, and not the initial itself.

Here is the 2012 Democratic Party Platform.
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Here is the 2012 GOP Platform.
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
 
2013-10-24 12:37:08 PM

Savage Belief: Trivia Jockey: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

Ah yes, the false equivalency.

So you vote for your side and not their side because they have the right letter behind their name?


No, I vote for the party with the better platform.  Both parties may be corrupt bastards that don't give a fark about the little guy, but as long as there are differences between the party platforms it makes sense to vote for the guys that have the platform I think is better.  The only way for both parties to be equally bad is if both parties had the same platform.

One party is working towards policies I like and the other party isn't.  Just because they are both corrupt farkheads doesn't mean one isn't clearly the preferable option.
 
2013-10-24 12:37:16 PM

Savage Belief: Trivia Jockey: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

Ah yes, the false equivalency.

So you vote for your side and not their side because they have the right letter behind their name?


So what you're saying is that Democrats are just as bad as Republicans?

Seriously?
 
2013-10-24 12:38:06 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Savage Belief: Trivia Jockey: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

Ah yes, the false equivalency.

So you vote for your side and not their side because they have the right letter behind their name?


I would assume one votes for the stated positions of the political party that uses the initial, and not the initial itself.

Here is the 2012 Democratic Party Platform.
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Here is the 2012 GOP Platform.
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/


Funny how the Democrats use .org and the GOP uses .com.
 
2013-10-24 12:38:35 PM

Lord_Baull: Tricky Chicken: So the lesson learned would be?

If you win and control all branches of government but see that there is a very real liklihood of losing one or more branch in the next election, it is a terrible idea to force through an enormous extremely partisan law that is loathed by the other side in the middle of the night right before you lose power.

Because that kind of douchebaggery always leads to warm fuzzy feelings, happiness and rainbows.  But hey, with logical arguments like 'we won' and 'you have to pass the bill to see what's in it', it is pretty clear that you have no intention of ever being bi-partisan.


Know how I can tell you're infromed?


How many idiots still believe this talking point?
 
2013-10-24 12:39:20 PM

Tricky Chicken: So the lesson learned would be?

If you win and control all branches of government but see that there is a very real liklihood of losing one or more branch in the next election, it is a terrible idea to force through an enormous extremely partisan law that is loathed by the other side in the middle of the night right before you lose power.

Because that kind of douchebaggery always leads to warm fuzzy feelings, happiness and rainbows.  But hey, with logical arguments like 'we won' and 'you have to pass the bill to see what's in it', it is pretty clear that you have no intention of ever being bi-partisan.


The whole ACA was an exercise in bipartisan compromise, having been built on a model put forward by Republicans (but you knew that).

The lesson learned would be that the GOP as a rule does not negotiate in good faith in the new Tea-tinged political climate, so you might as well tell them to suck it and let them continue to let them dismantle the party through infighting while alienating emerging voters with hateful and often cartoonishly villainous rhetoric.
 
2013-10-24 12:39:57 PM

Savage Belief: So you vote for your side and not their side because they have the right letter behind their name?


As long as one letter's side only has the interests of the 1% in mind and the other letter's side doesn't, yes.
 
2013-10-24 12:39:58 PM

llortcM_yllort: Savage Belief: Trivia Jockey: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

Ah yes, the false equivalency.

So you vote for your side and not their side because they have the right letter behind their name?

No, I vote for the party with the better platform.  Both parties may be corrupt bastards that don't give a fark about the little guy, but as long as there are differences between the party platforms it makes sense to vote for the guys that have the platform I think is better.  The only way for both parties to be equally bad is if both parties had the same platform.

One party is working towards policies I like and the other party isn't.  Just because they are both corrupt farkheads doesn't mean one isn't clearly the preferable option.


So you vote for the party that has a better sounding line of BS.
 
2013-10-24 12:40:21 PM

Savage Belief: Biff_Steel: Let me guess. both sides are bad?

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is yeeeeeesssssssss.

If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.


Riiiiiight. Tell a woman that both sides are exactly the same and see if your nose remains unbroken.
 
2013-10-24 12:40:33 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Tricky Chicken: So the lesson learned would be?

If you win and control all branches of government but see that there is a very real liklihood of losing one or more branch in the next election, it is a terrible idea to force through an enormous extremely partisan law that is loathed by the other side in the middle of the night right before you lose power.

Because that kind of douchebaggery always leads to warm fuzzy feelings, happiness and rainbows.  But hey, with logical arguments like 'we won' and 'you have to pass the bill to see what's in it', it is pretty clear that you have no intention of ever being bi-partisan.

The whole ACA was an exercise in bipartisan compromise, having been built on a model put forward by Republicans (but you knew that).

The lesson learned would be that the GOP as a rule does not negotiate in good faith in the new Tea-tinged political climate, so you might as well tell them to suck it and continue to let them dismantle the party through infighting while alienating emerging voters with hateful and often cartoonishly villainous rhetoric.


FTFM
 
2013-10-24 12:40:41 PM
But at least we've taken wiretapping and death by drone to new levels of WTF.
 
2013-10-24 12:41:07 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: Cubicle Jockey: Savage Belief: Trivia Jockey: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

Ah yes, the false equivalency.

So you vote for your side and not their side because they have the right letter behind their name?


I would assume one votes for the stated positions of the political party that uses the initial, and not the initial itself.

Here is the 2012 Democratic Party Platform.
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Here is the 2012 GOP Platform.
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

Funny how the Democrats use .org and the GOP uses .com.


Article this week that says that they just secured ".gop".  So it will soon be www.(insert whatever).gop
 
2013-10-24 12:42:11 PM

Tricky Chicken: So the lesson learned would be?

If you win and control

of one house of the government and immediatly drive it into deadlock by not appointing individuals to a joint budgetary meeting between the house and senate so you can vote 42 times to defund a law and than biatch and moan about the budget when you sabotaged it from the get go all branches of government but see that there is a very real liklihood of losing one or more branch in the next election, it is a terrible idea to force through an enormous extremely partisan law that is loathed by the other side in the middle of the night right before you lose power.

Because that kind of douchebaggery always leads to warm fuzzy feelings, happiness and rainbows.  But hey, with logical arguments like 'we won' and 'you have to pass the bill to see what's in it',
it is pretty clear that you have no intention of ever being bi-partisan.


Fixed for accuracy
 
2013-10-24 12:42:31 PM

Lord_Baull: Tricky Chicken: So the lesson learned would be?

If you win and control all branches of government but see that there is a very real liklihood of losing one or more branch in the next election, it is a terrible idea to force through an enormous extremely partisan law that is loathed by the other side in the middle of the night right before you lose power.

Because that kind of douchebaggery always leads to warm fuzzy feelings, happiness and rainbows.  But hey, with logical arguments like 'we won' and 'you have to pass the bill to see what's in it', it is pretty clear that you have no intention of ever being bi-partisan.


Know how I can tell you're infromed?


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1 &c ad=rja&ved=0CCwQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D hV-05TLiiLU&ei=ck1pUraAFMm1kQewwYFY&usg=AFQjCNFdaMKBsQ5vyd05kPXgHSKI10 MNjg&sig2=v-in__siQwCnQXgebd_AmA

Know how I can tell you aren't? Or you don't understand the difference betseen ' and ".
 
2013-10-24 12:42:41 PM

mrshowrules: Almost Everybody Poops: Cubicle Jockey: Savage Belief: Trivia Jockey: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

Ah yes, the false equivalency.

So you vote for your side and not their side because they have the right letter behind their name?


I would assume one votes for the stated positions of the political party that uses the initial, and not the initial itself.

Here is the 2012 Democratic Party Platform.
http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Here is the 2012 GOP Platform.
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

Funny how the Democrats use .org and the GOP uses .com.

Article this week that says that they just secured ".gop".  So it will soon be www.(insert whatever).gop


Aw, crud. I was hoping they'd use .derp.
 
2013-10-24 12:43:44 PM

Tricky Chicken: So the lesson learned would be?

If you win and control all branches of government but see that there is a very real liklihood of losing one or more branch in the next election, it is a terrible idea to force through an enormous extremely partisan law that is loathed by the other side in the middle of the night right before you lose power.

Because that kind of douchebaggery always leads to warm fuzzy feelings, happiness and rainbows.  But hey, with logical arguments like 'we won' and 'you have to pass the bill to see what's in it', it is pretty clear that you have no intention of ever being bi-partisan.


Blame John Adams. He started it by appointing William Marbury and those other guys on his last day in office.
 
2013-10-24 12:44:00 PM

Savage Belief: llortcM_yllort: Savage Belief: Trivia Jockey: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

Ah yes, the false equivalency.

So you vote for your side and not their side because they have the right letter behind their name?

No, I vote for the party with the better platform.  Both parties may be corrupt bastards that don't give a fark about the little guy, but as long as there are differences between the party platforms it makes sense to vote for the guys that have the platform I think is better.  The only way for both parties to be equally bad is if both parties had the same platform.

One party is working towards policies I like and the other party isn't.  Just because they are both corrupt farkheads doesn't mean one isn't clearly the preferable option.

So you vote for the party that has a better sounding line of BS.


Do you think both parties are the same?
 
2013-10-24 12:44:21 PM

Savage Belief: So you vote for the party that has a better sounding line of BS.


Yeah, even the BS coming from politicians is a false equivalency these days.  For example.  Find me an example of this level of debunked talking points derp from a liberal.
 
2013-10-24 12:46:18 PM
Without exaggeration, the single biggest impediment to a stronger economic recovery has been the years of dysfunction in Washington and the policies that have emerged. Republican Party.

ftfy
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report