Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

1158 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Oct 2013 at 12:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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
 
2013-10-24 12:47:26 PM  

Tricky Chicken: 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



BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!
Quick, tell me the context she was using when she said that. You are approaching James O'keefe levels of derp.
 
2013-10-24 12:51:39 PM  

odinsposse: 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?


Yes, that extremely partisan law.  Can you remember how many republicans or independants voted for it in the house or senate?
 
2013-10-24 12:52:14 PM  

Headso: super_grass: greenbertarian?

What a green bert might look like

[laughingsquid.com image 640x1152]


I'll take two please
 
2013-10-24 12:54:33 PM  

llortcM_yllort: 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?


In some ways. Neither party has altruistic motives.
 
2013-10-24 12:56:08 PM  
We aren't hitler isn't good enough, or even a selling point at all really.
 
2013-10-24 12:57:14 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Yes, that extremely partisan law.  Can you remember how many republicans or independants voted for it in the house or senate?



So, a law is extremely partisan because the opposition party didn't vote for it, rather than the opposition didn't vote for it because they were extremely partisan and have obstructed ever bit of legislation that has come their way.
You deserve the dark grey color I'm giving you because you're either a mindless sheep or just a really, really sad little troll. Good day.
 
2013-10-24 12:58:17 PM  

Tricky Chicken: odinsposse: 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?

Yes, that extremely partisan law.  Can you remember how many republicans or independants voted for it in the house or senate?


No Republicans voted for the law, because work only gets done  in spite of the GOP.
 
2013-10-24 12:59:03 PM  

Savage Belief: llortcM_yllort: Do you think both parties are the same?

In some ways. Neither party has altruistic motives.



When the republican party treats the 1st amendment with the same reverence they do the 2nd, I'll agree with your assessment.
 
2013-10-24 12:59:23 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


A big ol' bowl of THIS.

Our economy runs on consumption. That means the more we impoverish the majority of the citizenry the weaker our economy will be - so slower growth and more anemic recovery after economic downturns. A properly functioning market-based economy requires wealth to stay in motion, flowing from one place to another, getting work done each time it flows. Instead, our wealth pool is increasingly stagnant.

I've yet to hear a Republican who either has any idea what to do about this OR who even honestly seems to acknowledge that it's a real problem for our economy. In general the GOP attitude to our ridiculous wealth inequality seems to be summed up in one word: "Good."

And that's what's so dangerous about GOP economic policies/POV. If they're either unwilling or unable to process the basic logic of this dangerous problem then their plans will only be harmful to the country.
 
2013-10-24 01:00:03 PM  

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


If you can't see a difference you're stupid.
 
2013-10-24 01:01:14 PM  

mongbiohazard: Instead, our wealth pool is increasingly stagnant.


And what's especially sad or ironic or whatever about this is the wealthy would do better with a smaller share of a faster growing economy as opposed to a larger share of the slow growing economy we have now.
 
2013-10-24 01:01:27 PM  

Lord_Baull: Tricky Chicken: Yes, that extremely partisan law.  Can you remember how many republicans or independants voted for it in the house or senate?


So, a law is extremely partisan because the opposition party didn't vote for it, rather than the opposition didn't vote for it because they were extremely partisan and have obstructed ever bit of legislation that has come their way.
You deserve the dark grey color I'm giving you because you're either a mindless sheep or just a really, really sad little troll. Good day.


Well bye.

Or a law is extremely partisan because you know the other party doesn't want anything to do with it, but you know you have just barely enough votes to force it through, so you don't even try to work with the other side.  That kind of partisanship.
 
2013-10-24 01:04:19 PM  

JesusJuice: Tricky Chicken: odinsposse: 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?

Yes, that extremely partisan law.  Can you remember how many republicans or independants voted for it in the house or senate?

No Republicans voted for the law, because work only gets done  in spite of the GOP.


How many republicans voted for Bill Clinton's balanced budgets?
 
2013-10-24 01:04:48 PM  

Without Fail: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

If you can't see a difference you're stupid.


Brand-new Libertarian, emerging from the chrysalis.
 
2013-10-24 01:04:49 PM  

mongbiohazard: Trivia Jockey: 

Our economy runs on consumption. That means the more we impoverish the majority of the citizenry the weaker our economy will be - so slower growth and more anemic recovery after economic downturns. A properly functioning market-based economy requires wealth to stay in motion, flowing from one place to another, getting work done each time it flows. Instead, our wealth pool is increasingly stagnant.



Case in point: The ACA is designed so more people can be covered at reasonable costs to the country with the goal being a significant percentage of the population no longer bankrupted due to injury or illness. The end result? These same people can instead participate in the economy. A rising tide lifts all boats, people.

This language is total GOPspeak but, for some reason (cough*beagainsteverythingObama*cough), they turn a deaf ear to this fact.
 
2013-10-24 01:05:50 PM  

Tricky Chicken: so you don't even try to work with the other side


Very infromed. I said Good day!
 
2013-10-24 01:06:16 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.


So vote Rebuplican...amiright?
 
2013-10-24 01:08:18 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.


One side was cheering the nation racing toward default and the other was trying to prevent it.

THEY'RE LIKE EXACTLY THE SAME AND STUFF
 
2013-10-24 01:09:20 PM  

Wadded Beef: Case in point: The ACA is designed so more people can be covered at reasonable costs to the country with the goal being a significant percentage of the population no longer bankrupted due to injury or illness. The end result? These same people can instead participate in the economy. A rising tide lifts all boats, people.


BOOM.  Fact hammer laid down. +1
 
2013-10-24 01:10:35 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Yes, that extremely partisan law.  Can you remember how many republicans or independants voted for it in the house or senate?


It could just be that Republicans are incredibly partisan and rejected a moderate plan for partisan reasons. Since the GOP just shut down the government for no reason other than partisanship, and since the Obama administration publicly went through policy change things to get enough moderates so they had a filibuster-proof vote in the Senate, that seems more likely than the idea that it was rammed it through without discussion.
 
2013-10-24 01:11:21 PM  

Without Fail: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

If you can't see a difference you're stupid.


If you think being different is by itself sufficient post your bank info and I'll just withdraw $30 instead of nicking your wallet.

See, this way you get the wallet itself and any wallet photos you have in there. No sitting on the phone for hours canceling cards. No trip to the DMV for a new license. On potential accidental butt touching when I pick your pocket.

Its unarguably better.
 
2013-10-24 01:12:21 PM  

DrD'isInfotainment: 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 Rebuplican...amiright?


Not really, no.
 
2013-10-24 01:13:50 PM  

odinsposse: Tricky Chicken: Yes, that extremely partisan law.  Can you remember how many republicans or independants voted for it in the house or senate?

It could just be that Republicans are incredibly partisan and rejected a moderate plan for partisan reasons. Since the GOP just shut down the government for no reason other than partisanship, and since the Obama administration publicly went through policy change things to get enough moderates so they had a filibuster-proof vote in the Senate, that seems more likely than the idea that it was rammed it through without discussion.


Were you in a coma a couple years ago?  They locked the republicans out of the process altogether.

Lord_Baull: Tricky Chicken: so you don't even try to work with the other side

Very

infromed. I said Good day!

Yeah, I wirte all the signs for Tea-Party rallies. So what.
 
2013-10-24 01:15:10 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Lord_Baull: Tricky Chicken: Yes, that extremely partisan law.  Can you remember how many republicans or independants voted for it in the house or senate?


So, a law is extremely partisan because the opposition party didn't vote for it, rather than the opposition didn't vote for it because they were extremely partisan and have obstructed ever bit of legislation that has come their way.
You deserve the dark grey color I'm giving you because you're either a mindless sheep or just a really, really sad little troll. Good day.

Well bye.

Or a law is extremely partisan because you know the other party doesn't want anything to do with it, but you know you have just barely enough votes to force it through, so you don't even try to work with the other side.  That kind of partisanship.


Actually, the Democrats actually worked with Republicans putting in their amendments and suggestions (except for poison pills) into the ACA. The fact that no Republican voted in the house for it was more of a coordinated FU to Obama than objection to the merits of the law. After all as mentioned before it was a conservative model used in Mass that Romney himself supported as a national model.

Rember it was not a democrat that said "Our goal is to make him a one term President"
 
2013-10-24 01:15:50 PM  
The biggest issue for a stronger economy is to stop the Federal Reserve from issuing the Public Currency as a loan with interest that can never be paid off but just increases the pool of money(causing inflation) and debt.  They are effectively taking a mafia like cut on every transaction in world done through US currency.  Until this is changed we forever be caught in a cycle of artificial boom and bust, and ever increasing debt.  People who use money to make more money without producing a product or service are parasites on the working people and should be locked in jail with all the extremely high penalties of the Drug War.  If you confiscated the counterfitted wealth of these usurous scum, we could fund every school, hospital, and fire department in the Nation.
 
2013-10-24 01:16:41 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Were you in a coma a couple years ago?  They locked the republicans out of the process altogether.


I said moderates, not Republicans.
 
2013-10-24 01:18:43 PM  

flynn80: Until this is changed we forever be caught in a cycle of artificial boom and bust,


Because before the Fed there was no "boom and bust" cycle.
 
2013-10-24 01:18:58 PM  
Savage Belief:
In some ways. Neither party has altruistic motives.

But not in all ways, right?  They're different enough where Democrats will try to enact certain policies while Republicans will try to enact different policies.  Isn't that what's important?  Isn't that enough to form a preference.

Neither party has altruistic motives?  No shiat sherlock.  Even if both suck, one can still be preferable to the other.  I hate to resort to insults, but I have to ask; are you a teenager, ignorant or just plain stupid?
 
2013-10-24 01:20:55 PM  
Oh some chicken is about to get told.
 
2013-10-24 01:21:29 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Were you in a coma a couple years ago?  They locked the republicans out of the process altogether.


It was rather shameful.  My only wish is that the Republicans had won the White House and Congress to pass their own version of health care reform but that has never happened in modern history.  If only they had been given that chance!


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-10-24 01:22:25 PM  

Tricky Chicken: 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 ".


So you don't understand that the Senate version is what she was referring to which needed to be passed before the House could reconcile. It's OK lots of rubes still don't understand how the process works.
 
2013-10-24 01:26:52 PM  

flynn80: The biggest issue for a stronger economy is to stop the Federal Reserve from issuing the Public Currency as a loan with interest that can never be paid off but just increases the pool of money(causing inflation) and debt.  They are effectively taking a mafia like cut on every transaction in world done through US currency.  Until this is changed we forever be caught in a cycle of artificial boom and bust, and ever increasing debt.  People who use money to make more money without producing a product or service are parasites on the working people and should be locked in jail with all the extremely high penalties of the Drug War.  If you confiscated the counterfitted wealth of these usurous scum, we could fund every school, hospital, and fire department in the Nation.


Are you asking for a gold standard return, or what? Aside from 'I hate banks' you haven't really made any points at all.
 
2013-10-24 01:38:46 PM  

Fart_Machine: So you don't understand that the Senate version is what she was referring to which needed to be passed before the House could reconcile. It's OK lots of rubes still don't understand how the process works.


Not only that, but the statement was made later that was that it has to pass before "you," the American people, can see the changes. They mentioned the exchange, but the lowered rates would be impossible to calculate before implementation of the law. Also, while they could say the 85-15 rule for corporate profits, it's all academic until the bill passes so people can actually see what effect it has on their own premiums. So yes, for the American people to see what was in it, it had to be passed first.
 
2013-10-24 01:41:27 PM  

icallhimgamblor: This is their plan.  Rich people are still getting richer.  They are just serving the people they are beholden to themselves.


For you, I fixed it.
 
2013-10-24 01:45:39 PM  

Fart_Machine: Tricky Chicken: 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 ".

So you don't understand that the Senate version is what she was referring to which needed to be passed before the House could reconcile. It's OK lots of rubes still don't understand how the process works.


What difference does it make, at this time what she was referring to?  She was in a rush to jam the legislation through before they lost the house.  She was responding to repeated calls for more time so people could actually go through the legislation before a vote.  But you know most of us rubes don't even know how to read so it probably wouldn't have helped.
 
2013-10-24 01:47:09 PM  
Doesn't this all trace back to the Mitch McConnell statement of we will do everything we can to make sure Obama is a one-term POTUS? Then
John Boehner comes out and says the GOP will be "laser focused" on creating jobs then does not introduce a single bill that can be construed as job creating.

Almost seems as if the GOP had intentionally hampered economic growth in the hopes of running on a "are you better off today?" platform.
 
2013-10-24 01:51:02 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.


Another Big Lie spreader.
 
2013-10-24 01:55:24 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Fart_Machine: Tricky Chicken: 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 ".

So you don't understand that the Senate version is what she was referring to which needed to be passed before the House could reconcile. It's OK lots of rubes still don't understand how the process works.

What difference does it make, at this time what she was referring to?  She was in a rush to jam the legislation through before they lost the house.  She was responding to repeated calls for more time so people could actually go through the legislation before a vote.  But you know most of us rubes don't even know how to read so it probably wouldn't have helped.


By jamming through you must have been asleep for the years worth of wrangling and town hall meetings before the bill was actually passed. During which time you had Teabaggers screaming that there would be death panels and mandatory abortions. So reality and context isn't your strong point.
 
2013-10-24 01:58:05 PM  

Without Fail: Savage Belief: If you seriously believe "your side" cares more about you than "their side" you're delusional and part of the problem.

If you can't see a difference you're stupid.


Of course he's stupid.

Cynicism is just a cheap, posturing, lazy attempt to project a false and baseless veneer of wisdom.

Therefore, stupid people flock to it like flies on shiat.

"You mean I don't have to actually know anything and I get to act all sage and worldly and be condescending to people who actually DO know things??? Sign me up!"
 
2013-10-24 02:03:11 PM  

Headso: super_grass: greenbertarian?

What a green bert might look like

[laughingsquid.com image 640x1152]


Is that Connie?
 
2013-10-24 02:07:10 PM  

monoski: Doesn't this all trace back to the Mitch McConnell statement of we will do everything we can to make sure Obama is a one-term POTUS? Then
John Boehner comes out and says the GOP will be "laser focused" on creating jobs then does not introduce a single bill that can be construed as job creating.

Almost seems as if the GOP had intentionally hampered economic growth in the hopes of running on a "are you better off today?" platform.



That's exactly what it is.

It's not "gridlock." It's not concern with debt or deficits. It's not polarization. It's not commitment to ideology.

It's the deliberate sabotage of our economy by the GOP for the sake of partisan self-preservation.

They went into 2008 having destroyed the world economy and with the entire planet looking at George W. Bush as quite likely "the worst president ever."

The whole point of whipping the Tea Party together post haste was to give angry Republicans a place to sit and stew and blow off steam and take cover while preventing them from actually getting out from under GOP control.

The past 5 years has been an exercise in damage control for the GOP... and they have gone about it by trying to make sure that NOTHING gets fixed, for fear of Democrats getting credit for it.

Anyone who can't see that is a moron. Anyone who couldn't predict it 5 years ago is a moron.
 
2013-10-24 02:14:56 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.


Yep. Both sides are bad, just like a hang nail and a brain tumor are both bad.
 
2013-10-24 02:16:58 PM  

Evil High Priest: 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.

Yep. Both sides are bad, just like a hang nail and a brain tumor are both bad.


Or jaywalking and genocide are both crimes.  Both are bad.
 
2013-10-24 02:21:41 PM  

Tricky Chicken: you don't even try to work with the other side.


Well, bye.
 
2013-10-24 02:27:15 PM  

Ned Stark: If you think being different is by itself sufficient post your bank info and I'll just withdraw $30 instead of nicking your wallet.

See, this way you get the wallet itself and any wallet photos you have in there. No sitting on the phone for hours canceling cards. No trip to the DMV for a new license. On potential accidental butt touching when I pick your pocket.

Its unarguably better.


Or you could just blow guys in an alley for $30 a pop.
 
2013-10-24 02:28:29 PM  

Tricky Chicken: JesusJuice: Tricky Chicken: odinsposse: 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?

Yes, that extremely partisan law.  Can you remember how many republicans or independants voted for it in the house or senate?

No Republicans voted for the law, because work only gets done  in spite of the GOP.

How many republicans voted for Bill Clinton's balanced budgets?


How many Democrats voted for Bush's Medicare part D, Or the Iraq war(they shouldn't have), Patriot act, or the many many times they didn't shut down the government, or not allow a vote on raising the debt ceiling.

This "extremely partisan bill" you speak of was originally a republican idea, and had an extreme amount of input from the republicans, and still none of those a-holes voted for it, because the the republican leader of the senate made it his stated goal to have Obama be a 1 term president, be his "waterloo".  The Repubs have voted "no", used the filibuster, more than any other time in history.

So give me a break with your crap.
 
2013-10-24 02:30:56 PM  

Alphax: Evil High Priest: 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.

Yep. Both sides are bad, just like a hang nail and a brain tumor are both bad.

Or jaywalking and genocide are both crimes.  Both are bad.



Look man, whether you vote for Hitler or you vote for NIxon, they're both dbags... So, what's the difference?

They both got caught doing bad stuff. Ain't neither one of them perfect. So, if you want to kid yourself sittin' up on your high horse because you're voting for Nixon, then you're just another one of the suckers, rootin' for your "side" and kidding yourself into believing they give a crap about you..
 
2013-10-24 02:37:59 PM  

RisaTravelAgent: Tricky Chicken: JesusJuice: Tricky Chicken: odinsposse: Tricky Chicken:

How many republicans voted for Bill Clinton's balanced budgets?

How many Democrats voted for Bush's Medicare part D, Or the Iraq war(they shouldn't have), Patriot act, or the many many times they didn't shut down the government, or not allow a vote on raising the debt ceiling.

So give me a break with your crap.


I always find it amusing when people miss the connection between these two.  Because the last time Newt shut down the government, he shoved the idea of a balanced budget down Clinton's throat.  Then the revisionists forgot that part and praised Clinton for balancing the budget albiet against his will and in the same breath vilified Newt for balancing the budget.

And Obama was against raising the debt ceiling before he was for it. Do you need me to pull his quotes as a Senator for you?
 
2013-10-24 02:43:08 PM  

Tricky Chicken: I always find it amusing when people miss the connection between these two.  Because the last time Newt shut down the government, he shoved the idea of a balanced budget down Clinton's throat.  Then the revisionists forgot that part and praised Clinton for balancing the budget albiet against his will and in the same breath vilified Newt for balancing the budget.


Dafuq?
 
2013-10-24 02:47:09 PM  
Has anyone pointed out to modern Teabaggers that the original Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with reducing taxes? It was over a lack of representation in Parliament.
 
2013-10-24 02:51:16 PM  

Tricky Chicken: And Obama was against raising the debt ceiling before he was for it.


He was a Senator before he was President. And this only proves yet again that the debt limit is arbitrary and used only as a partisan hammer when the other party is in charge. It should be abolished.
 
2013-10-24 02:52:48 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Because the last time Newt shut down the government, he shoved the idea of a balanced budget down Clinton's throat. Then the revisionists forgot that part and praised Clinton for balancing the budget albiet against his will and in the same breath vilified Newt for balancing the budget.


Wow... Really... Believing Newts campaign speeches. I mean do you even bother to look these things up.  The Budget done in 1993, with Newt's intense opposition did most of the the heavy lifting in regards to balancing the budget. And that was even before the balance budget act. Newt was ahead of his time you could say. He was against balancing the budget before he was for it.
 
2013-10-24 02:53:36 PM  

Tricky Chicken: And Obama was against raising the debt ceiling before he was for it. Do you need me to pull his quotes as a Senator for you?


Oh, for fark's sake.

If you actually understand the context of Obama's remarks, it's quite clear that the "lack of leadership" line refers to the fact that the Republicans had no mechanism in place to pay for their new spending (notably Medicare Part D) and instead chose to put it on the credit card.
 
2013-10-24 03:15:30 PM  

jst3p: flynn80: Until this is changed we forever be caught in a cycle of artificial boom and bust,

Because before the Fed there was no "boom and bust" cycle.


There was.  But it was a *natural* boom and bust cycle, and all things natural are unicorns and rainbows.
 
2013-10-24 03:16:00 PM  

Tricky Chicken: JesusJuice: Tricky Chicken: odinsposse: 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?

Yes, that extremely partisan law.  Can you remember how many republicans or independants voted for it in the house or senate?

No Republicans voted for the law, because work only gets done  in spite of the GOP.

How many republicans voted for Bill Clinton's balanced budgets?


Bill Clinton is white.
 
2013-10-24 03:39:16 PM  
Y'alls in a troll thread, but keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-10-24 04:09:35 PM  
it's just amazing that america only has two political parties and one them thinks that there shouldn't be a government at all!
 
2013-10-24 04:09:58 PM  

SurfaceTension: Has anyone pointed out to modern Teabaggers that the original Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with reducing taxes? It was over a lack of representation in Parliament.


Point out facts to the Tea Party?  Historical facts from centuries ago?  Slow down there buddy, they think the 2008 economic collapse was Obama's fault.  Let's not overreach.

First let's convince them that the death panels are not real and the UN and Sharia law isn't taking over the country.  Baby steps.
 
2013-10-24 06:14:36 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


The problem is that both parties have no interest in changing this. The Democrats because they fear if that they do, they'll be seen as anti-business by the Republicans. Thus lose elections, which seems to be the most important concern in Washington all the time. Winning elections, not doing what is best for the American people. Also because some Democrats if not most Democrats are fine with the current system, after all about half of congress are millionaires and millionaires overwhelmingly believe in not going against their own interests.

Who'd of thunk it.

The mainstream media wont save us. They're part of the problem because guess what, they're corporations ran by millionaires too.

Which is why the people need to step up, even if a third party can't get elected if there is a unified and clear message such a party could still be of some use in steering us in the right direction. Winning elections isn't everything after all. Of course that would require the American people to come together and agree on something. Which is troublesome because we don't agree on the role of government as a whole. What is clear is that a house divided among it self cannot stand.

Still, I'll take a stab on some things that both sides could possibly agree on.

1: No more spying on Americans, just no.

2: There needs to be some accountability in this country, we cannot allow people to crash the economy or do harm to the American people and get away with it. It isn't anti-business to make sure greed and stupidity doesn't destroy this country.

3: We need to take all the steps necessary to make our education system is competitive. At the moment we spend more money per student than anyone else in the world, and yet a majority of high school students graduate without the skills needed for college. If they graduate at all. Its simple: If we don't have an sufficiently educated population, the nation it self wont stay competitive.

4: There has to be immigration reform. There has to be. Not only for those who come here legally, because its a pain in the arse for them to do so legally but also addressing the problem of illegal immigration. Mostly because everyone I think agrees that illegal immigrants have helped depress wages. So eh.

Anyway, I'm just tired of this shiat. I'm tired of greed and insanity being the two most prevalent ideas of how to run this country.
 
2013-10-24 06:17:03 PM  

super_grass: Guy didn't say that the GOP was solely responsible, must be some kind of apologist.


It wouldn't be accurate to say the GOP is solely responsible, just almost entirely (say +/-97%) and they actively continue to try to make it worse.  Fark 'em. They need to be removed by the voters.
 
2013-10-24 06:32:53 PM  
Consumerism doesnt work without Consumers?

Say it aint so!
 
2013-10-24 07:01:58 PM  

bbfreak: The problem is that both parties have no interest in changing this. The Democrats because they fear if that they do, they'll be seen as anti-business by the Republicans. Thus lose elections, which seems to be the most important concern in Washington all the time. Winning elections, not doing what is best for the American people. Also because some Democrats if not most Democrats are fine with the current system, after all about half of congress are millionaires and millionaires overwhelmingly believe in not going against their own interests.

Who'd of thunk it.


This is the only valid BSAB argument. In this case, it really is true. Millionaires just aren't that into you and me.
 
2013-10-24 10:48:09 PM  
On one hand, the Republicans took hostages and threatened the stability of the United States government. On the other, the Democrats didn't even let them kill just ONE little hostage; how is that fair?

I am still undecided.
 
2013-10-24 11:26:32 PM  

Evil High Priest: bbfreak: The problem is that both parties have no interest in changing this. The Democrats because they fear if that they do, they'll be seen as anti-business by the Republicans. Thus lose elections, which seems to be the most important concern in Washington all the time. Winning elections, not doing what is best for the American people. Also because some Democrats if not most Democrats are fine with the current system, after all about half of congress are millionaires and millionaires overwhelmingly believe in not going against their own interests.

Who'd of thunk it.

This is the only valid BSAB argument. In this case, it really is true. Millionaires just aren't that into you and me.


True, but not all millionaires were born millionaires.  Some of them actually understood what it was like to be poor, or at least could relate to the blight of folks that aren't as well off as them.

You know... people with morals.
 
Displayed 114 of 114 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report