John Fund’s latest column for the Wall Street Journal argues that while John McCain is not doomed to lose to Barack Obama… but:
This election reminds some of the 1980 race, when voters were clearly looking for a reason to vote the incumbent party out of the White House. Even so, Jimmy Carter kept even with Ronald Reagan well into October by painting him as risky and out of the mainstream. Then, in the home stretch, Reagan finally convinced voters he was sensible and trustworthy, and wound up winning by double digits.
Barack Obama is roughly in the same position as Reagan was back then. He is untested in foreign policy. His record in office clearly leans left, with the nonpartisan National Journal rating him the most liberal U.S. senator. When asked this month by ABC News when he had ever broken with liberal orthodoxy and taken risks with his base – as Bill Clinton did on trade, culture and welfare – Mr. Obama had little to say. At a meeting of Obama voters I attended this week, some bemoaned the fact that many of their friends backed him solely because of his cool “name brand” and vague message of change.
This might seem like a tempting analogy at first glance.  Over a year ago, the Obama campaign cited Reagan as an inspiration for their run against Hillary Clinton. Obama himself cited Reagan as a model in January, in contrast to the “incremental†politics of the Clinton era.
However, earlier this month, when Patrick Buchanan and Bob Beckel invoked 1980 as an analogy, RCP’s Blake Dvorak laid out its weaknesses:
[T]he reason the example gives Obama too much credit is because Reagan, even in 1980, was a known commodity. He was 68 years old, a two-term governor of California and, before that, a Hollywood celebrity very much involved in politics. For all the so-called “risk” Americans were taking with Reagan, it wasn’t really a blind risk. Moreover, Reagan was very clear on the kind of change he was offering. Obama? He still disputes being called a liberal.
One thing’s for sure: This campaign will certainly be about Obama and whether enough Reagan Democrats are willing to trust him with the presidency. They weren’t willing to do so in the primary — and it’s hard to be like Reagan if you can’t capture Reagan’s voters.
It will be even harder for Obama to capture Reagan’s voters because he tries to project Reagan’s optimism with his vague generalities about Hope and Change, but ends up echoing Carter on issues like energy and Iran.  That is one reason why I have maintained that Obama is much better off if this cycle plays out more like 1976. That’s the election Carter won.
Give it up Reagan sucked. He won by slick marketing just like you guys are accusing Obama of. Slick marketing and photo ops, now you are just pissed Obama has perfected it and is using it against you. At least when Obama gets elected he won’t consider ketchup a vegetable, but they both will legalize millions of new Democrat voters from south of the border.
Not so fast maybe. There is something very Private Benjamin about this Baracky I think.
Great, you’ve just ruined the rest of my Goldie Hawn fantasies and I’ve been saving some.
At least when Obama gets elected he won’t consider ketchup a vegetable, but they both will legalize millions of new Democrat voters from south of the border.
Is that how O! gets 57 states in the union?
Even if he said 57 states at least he will remember which one he lives in unlike Reagan.
John Fund, like so many talking heads, tries to find a “hook” for a column and winds up making himself look like an idiot. Imagine Reagan as a first generation Russian-American, born of Communist parents, who’d worked as a left-wing community organizer, declared America a flawed nation, and whose friends included unrepentant terrorists, not to mention he went to a “hate America” church for 20 years and was married by the pastor who also baptized his children. Once the 2008 campaign really heats up, blue-color Reagan Democrats will flee this stuff like it was ballet.
SaltLick get over yourself. By November only people that will care about those issues are people who were not going to vote for Obama anyway, mainly racists or Republicans, but I repeat myself. Also those are all distractions from the real issues, such as gas prices, the war in Iraq, bush, the economy, the collapsed housing market, bush, and our dependance on foreign Oil.
crap! he’s running again?
bush, lower-case. I think he’s talking about his body-pierced girls, again.
Even if he said 57 states at least he will remember which one he lives in unlike Reagan.
First, he needs to remember what city he’s in! Souix Falls?
Well, Reagan has an excuse: he’s dead. We’ll quiz you after you’ve been dead for a few years and see how your memory measures up, eh?
He introduced massive deficits just so the rich could get richer, his fiscal policies resulted in a stratospheric rise in homelessness, his war on drugs created insanely overcrowded prisons and led to high crime rates, he created the myth of the Welfare Mommy army who suck away mountains of the public’s money, he helped mold our society into one that intrisically hates the government unless it’s killing people or depriving them of their civil rights, he associated with and supported dictatorial scum such as Saddam Hussein, the Iran-Contra scandal was worse than Watergate and should have resulted in his impeachment, and the claim that he contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union is utter bullshit. The Soviet Union imploded free of any outside influence, because its system was seriously flawed. Just as any system run by a laissez-faire plutocrat like Reagan will. It’s sad when anyone has to live with something like Alzheimer’s for ten years, but that doesn’t change the fact that Ronald Reagan would have done the world a favor by keeping himself out of Washington, D.C.
well, considering your recent prediction on the Heller decision, i suppose I can breathe a sigh of relief.
I’d want a cite on his motivations. Plus, he did have a crucial leg up from Congress, and the HR was majority D, if you’ll recall.
You do have the left-threaded wingnut talking points down pretty well, I admit.
I copied and pasted that one slart, I think it was a quote from Howard Dean. Just type in Reagan was a horrible president on google, it is like the third one down.
Oh. I suggest you make your own arguments from now on, so that you can at least support them. Otherwise, you’re just a waste of clock cycles. A NOP collection, if you will.
Froggie Hero seems to have an impecable grasp of Leftist talking points for every topic. It is like a Leftist comment generator. Proof of AI ?
Slart, cut and paste is progg argument. Teh narrative, you know.
YEEEEAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!
And you can quote me on that.
Ya gots to love a proggie who needs to cut and paste … wait for it … Howard Dean to make points for it.
I anxiously await the Rosie O’Donnell and Maxine Waters cuts and pastes!
I should have just not told anyone that it was a cut and paste job. Would have been much more entertaining.
We speak Google, too, Progg. Also, we speak English.
How am I a parody if I admitted to cutting and pasting? Howard Dean is the leader of the DNC I think that would qualify him as a man of influence. I was citing him.
*cackle*
Even you people should admit he was a bad president, he gave them amnesty for god sakes.
He also sold those “axis of evil” terrorist supporting Iranians weapons. Wow what a man of principle.
The worst progressives don’t pass the Turing test. It would be a good insult if they knew what the Turing test was.
What I can’t believe is that you left out the last part: “0b1knob lurks around the restrooms near playgrounds so he can steal children’s shit and eat it.”
Who’s your statesman now, bitches? Dean-O ’12!
– Not to put a crimp in Fogheros usual attemp to turn a thread into another “I suck it for Obama” screed, we return you to our regularly scheduled topic.
– Karl, if there was an Election that I would find that most doesn’t fit this years cycle in any important regard that I can divine it would have to be 1976. About the only similarities I can think of is neither Candidate had a really good idea of “self placement”, or the issues, and Carter was the sole candidate from either party who went hard after the early primary caucases. Thats about it.
– America was just coming off all the turmult of the Nixon years and VietNam, and just wanted peace and quiet, the economy was in the duldrums, Ford had swallow the Nam disaster, and mitigated the problem by pardoning Nixon, On top of that he was a default president, not duly elected, which basically made him a lame duck the day he took office and gave him no help as the incumbent.
– If all that wasn’t enough he had an even worse public persona than McCain, which is already bad enough. Carter basically won by default, and only then by a bare margin of a little over 2%.
– Without going through it book and verse, this election couldn’t be more different if it tried. It well would be to Obama’s advantage if he could muster a Carter like run, but with the political atmosphere of today, the existing hasty pudding nature of the electorate, and the personalities of the candidates, it isn’t going to happen.
– The Democrats always had the problem of setting a historic precedent of winning the White House in a time of war, something that has never happened before. Thats why they done everything but lay down in freeway traffic to try to get us out of Iraq. They don’t give a fuck about Iraq, or the WOT, they just want to win. That was the reason for the entire Bush demonization campaign from 2001 onward. They were doing pretty good, galvanizing their base and confusing the rest of the electorate, and then this oil mess popped up, and that coupled with the steadily improving Iraq situation has put the ball back in play.
– Whichever candidate sucks it up and comes out with a strong clear proposal that utilizes ALL of our home resources to turn around the oil issue and stop the economic bleeding of the middle class will win this election.
Proggy,
Don’t eat the mucilage, cut and paste boy.
But, judging your age, you certainly may Google it.
“Who’s your statesman now, bitches? Dean-O ‘12!”
Who could possibly forget Howard_Dean’s immortal followup post entitled 06/05/04: Anyone notice how 0b1knob has no honor and sucks dick?. They don’t make ’em like Howard_Dean anymore.
I put you in touch with the most brilliant progressive mind of the 21st Century, Howard_Dean, and I get repaid in insults? You people have no gratitude I tell you.
ProggHero, you need to watch out. You were marveling at Semanticleo not long ago. If you don’t start being more careful, she’s your future.
Yes, Semanticleo is female, and she’s well-known. Her most important characteristic is that she doesn’t process input. Between her external sensorium (eyes, ears) and her processing facilities lies an impenetrable layer of hatefully bigoted stereotyping held together by a thick mat of preconceptions and “talking points”. When something comes in from outside, it triggers canned responses from that layer, and it’s those voices in her head that she responds to. She can’t address an argument because she never hears one.
Let’s take a couple of examples.
Visualize a statistical distribution of wealth. If you move the median to the right — everybody gets a little richer — inevitably the “wings” of the distribution move also, and the several-sigmas at the right-hand end move more because they’re multipliers. The ratio between right-hand (richest) and left-hand (poorest) extremes thus gets larger. Now, which is more important — that everybody’s a little better off, or that the rich:poor ratio is larger?
And yet you, and your party, have been screaming for the last five years that the only right way to do it is diplomatic engagement. Reagan, and Bush I, were following precisely that advice. Excoriating people for villainy because they were doing precisely what you claim is the Only Righteous Procedure™ doesn’t impress anybody who thinks.
Semanticleo can occasionally be valuable and interesting because she isn’t sane — free association often turns up useful juxtapositions. You haven’t got nearly that far yet, but cut-and-paste without considering the underlying reasoning will inevitably lead you there.
Note that I’ve been exactly where you are. In 1976 I was nearly as strong an advocate of Jimmy Carter as you are of Obama now, and had there been an Internet at that time I would probably have prefigured your responses almost completely. You might ponder for a moment the concept of “buyer’s remorse”.
Regards,
Ric
Seeing as all spending bills originate in the House, I would have to point out that the soaring deficits of the Reagen era were the responsibility of the Democrat-dominated house and not with the Executive, as you would suggest.
Howard Dean couldn’t even win his own party’s nomination! Yeah, he’s a fucking genius.
I am glad ProgHero has come to my replacement. Maybe a bit more articulate and spell-checked. Good on you, PH!
alas, I have to add that Bill Clinton, who I detested for his center-right Democratic policies did one thing right: He raised taxes on the wealthy a bit more than Reagan did and as a result there was nearly 8 years of positive growth for the middle class. Reagan massively cut taxes on the well-off and during his term we had three recessions. Admittedly a bubble was formed in both Reagan’s and Clinton’s eras. When GWBush started running down the economy while he was campaigning for his first term, the internet speculative bubble (and Enron!!_) came to being. And remember Clinton had to deal with a contract on America bunch that forced through the creative anti regulatory financial cycle that has led to commodity speculation upending productive investment with little or no transparency. Bush then used 9/11 as an excuse to cut even more taxes for those most able to afford them and then Poof!! the Middle class has suffered ever since.
Rightwingers are right! There is no recession for the upper income (non-earners). Taxes are low for them as they don’t have to pay as much for social security as the working people do. And their oil futures are bring in Big Bucks right now.
I repeat: No Recession.
It’s a myth!
Let the millionaires buy as much time on public air waves to tell us there is not a recession.
Really, there isn’t any problem in the Reagan/Bush world is there?
Remember, Republicans still have a hefty leadership in party financing and a filibuster and a overwhelmingly Republican judiciary. To try to blame Democrats for anything in the last 8 years is a stretch.
good luck, ProgHero. Argument here boils down to this: if you make points, you’ll not get respect but instead ad hominem attacks and digressive dismissals suggesting personal failings. So it’s a chore but enjoy the exercise.
…the most brilliant progressive mind of the 21st Century, Howard_Dean.
OK, y’all are right — it’s Jeff.
– Deans high crime was in being for the war before he was against it, and Lurch beat him out by reversing his position on Iraq mere days before Dean. Timing in life is everything.
– Unfortunately resumes matter, and the boy toy Senator of the Ketchup slut, the daughter of a Mozambique FREELIMO Communist party leader no less, eventually found out its hard to win the White house with a dishonorable discharge hanging over your head.
– FrogHero, some free advice. Stop making a complete ass of yourself. We’ve heard it all before – Old news.
Why is it Pres. Clinton never gets credit for the ‘peace dividend’? Y’know, that one time fiscal change that corresponded one-to-one to those magnificent surpluses during his regnancy?
banned
I repeat: No Recession.
It’s a myth!
Do you know what the definition of a recession is? It certainly doesn’t include growth in the GDP, which is what we have now.
EG tell that to someone making under 50 grand when he is filling up his gas tank.
It isn’t polite to try to change the subject in order to avoid having to admit error. It’s what children do. Retarded children who like to fling their shit.
Yeah, just bring back the Misery Index, and Jimmah Cahter!
Well, I make under 50 Grand and I believe it. What, am I a ‘prole’, mr ‘ProggHero’? Sure my tank is expensive to fill up. Ok, I’ll just drive less or get a job closer to home.
Which I did.
“EG tell that to someone making under 50 grand when he is filling up his gas tank.”
– We won’t have to tell “them” FrogHero. A few more weeks of this oil driven mess with the Dems standing proudly in front of any possible progress, completely belieing the idea of “Progresiveness”, will make it clear to every working American soon enough.
– Good luck, and I’ll try to get the license plate of the Mac truck when it hits you and your candidate flush in the ass.
Also, no recession (despite what the media is saying). The figures do not support it. Perhaps what is making some people sad is that their particular industry is having problems, like, er, the newspaper industry. Or maybe they just want continuous blistering growth and call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance it don’t work like that.
?
Cite?
Can I bring a dictionary to the gas station? Or maybe have the definition or “recession” printed on business cards?
“Karl, if there was an Election that I would find that most doesn’t fit this years cycle in any important regard that I can divine it would have to be 1976.”
BBH;
How’z ’bout 1932?
Nominee Franklin D. Roosevelt Herbert Hoover
Party Democratic Republican
Home state New York California
Running mate John Nance Garner Charles Curtis
Electoral vote 472 59
States carried 42 6
Popular vote 22,821,277 15,761,254
Percentage 57.4% 39.7%
It was almost a recession, better luck next time. PH, make sure to wash your hands before eating.
“Comment by ProggHero on 6/27 @ 7:38 am #
He introduced massive deficits just so the rich could get richer, his fiscal policies resulted in a stratospheric rise in homelessness, his war on drugs created insanely overcrowded prisons and led to high crime rates, he created the myth of the Welfare Mommy army who suck away mountains of the public’s money, he helped mold our society into one that intrisically hates the government unless it’s killing people or depriving them of their civil rights, he associated with and supported dictatorial scum such as Saddam Hussein, the Iran-Contra scandal was worse than Watergate and should have resulted in his impeachment, and the claim that he contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union is utter bullshit. The Soviet Union imploded free of any outside influence, because its system was seriously flawed. Just as any system run by a laissez-faire plutocrat like Reagan will. It’s sad when anyone has to live with something like Alzheimer’s for ten years, but that doesn’t change the fact that Ronald Reagan would have done the world a favor by keeping himself out of Washington, D.C.”
Don’t make me laugh, you babbling moron.
Thr progg manifesto: “FUCK THE FACTS! WE KNOW BETTER!”
“Don’t make me laugh, you babbling moron.”
yupp, see what I mean. Prog. made points, conservative just spouts hate.
You made a point banned, and when it was pointed out that you were incorrect you ignored it. Should I label that behavior as liberal in nature?
I have noticed this. While we post reasoned, thought out, non stereotyping, logical, non-straw arguments, they respond with hate.
According to every poll I read now, most people think we are in a recession. If that is not the case, why are all these people so wrong in your opinion? Are they slinging feces too?
By which you mean cut and pasting some internet cranks comments and pretending that the Chairman of the DNC posted them, correct? That’s not hate you’re seeing, dipshit. It’s scorn and derision.
Give it up Reagan sucked. He won by slick marketing just like you guys are accusing Obama of. Slick marketing and photo ops, now you are just pissed Obama has perfected it and is using it against you. At least when Obama gets elected he won’t consider ketchup a vegetable, but they both will legalize millions of new Democrat voters from south of the border.
Even if he said 57 states at least he will remember which one he lives in unlike Reagan.
Even if he said 57 states at least he will remember which one he lives in unlike Reagan.
These were PH’s first two points
Give it up Reagan sucked. He won by slick marketing just like you guys are accusing Obama of. Slick marketing and photo ops, now you are just pissed Obama has perfected it and is using it against you. At least when Obama gets elected he won’t consider ketchup a vegetable, but they both will legalize millions of new Democrat voters from south of the border.
Even if he said 57 states at least he will remember which one he lives in unlike Reagan..
Even if he said 57 states at least he will remember which one he lives in unlike Reagan.These were PH’s first two points
Because we haven’t had the requisite 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. Because we haven’t even had one such quarter.
According to every poll I read in 2003, virtually everyone thought Saddam was up to his blowhole in WMD’s. Your point?
Well what is your point roboc?
While we post reasoned, thought out, non stereotyping, logical, non-straw arguments, they respond with hate.
-Google Hero
According to every poll I read now, most people think we are in a recession. If that is not the case, why are all these people so wrong in your opinion? Are they slinging feces too?
Words have meaning PH. Simply trying to change the definitions when the facts don’t meet your needs is also called lying. You shouldn’t do that.
Is your point that if enough people BELIEVE a manifest falsehood they may then create a self-fulfilling prophesy, Proggy?
No I was asking you why you can say that we are not in a recession when by definition we are not. Most people believe we are in one, why? That is all I said. I was not changing the guys argument I was making my own.
Wow, between Proggie Boy and “banned” spewing their barking moonbat drivel here today, it feels like the average IQ has dropped about 20 points.
Both are either utterly clueless about history, economics, etc, etc, or are profligate liars who are actually dumb enough to think no one here, of all places, will notice their lies.
Proggy, man, that is almost entirely impenetrable. Try again. What is your argument?
Because people believe what they want to believe. When has it been any different? If it is being reported how bad things are – which in some ways they always are – people may believe that a recession is here or is coming whether or not it really is. Since there is an objective definition of recession (2 quarter decline in GDP, I believe) we can say that public opinion is wrong on this one. As for why, I watched NBC Nightly the other night and heard continual harping about how bad things are for everyone, rising costs, where’s the oil, global warming is gonna kill us, etc. Even with their declining influence these programs still inform people’s opinions, usually in terms of mood more than policy.
No I was asking you why you can say that we are not in a recession when by definition we are not.
Uhmmm, because we are not?
(5% of the posters here think you are an idiot. It must be true.
(5=95
well, a majority of commenters here think PH is a joke. sooooo, why doesn’t he believe it as well?
I heart feeeeeeelings
That was a little overly clueful, Progg. Best to maintain the mystery.
How’z ’bout 1932?
– Much closer cleo, ‘cept for at least 4 major differences:
– FDR was about as far right as you could get and still be called a Democrat, his WPA, and other social programs, mainly aimed at pulling us out of the depression notwithstanding.
– A full blown 25%+ unemployment depression in all its glory, coupled with Hoover/Congressional economic “do nothing” politics, that sat and watched the economy hit bottom after the ’29 stock market crash. Actually the depression had two stages, the second in 38-39, but FDR avoided most of the blame with the gathering storm clouds of war in Europe.
– A widely despised incumbent in Hoover. So disliked that FDR won by an 18% margin, with the Republicans managing only 5 states in the Electoral college.
– No ongoing hostilities.
– So yes, a few parallels, but still significant differences. You’d probably have to go back a lot further to find anything like an example similar to this cycle.
Slart if some people still need clues then I could hit them on the head with a 2by4 and they wouldn’t get it.
Most people believe we are in one, why?
I don’t know PH, and I also don’t know that what you assert about “most people believing” is true. So let’s start there. Show me that most people believe that and then I’ll speculate as to why.
Bush is fairly widely despised, to be fair; nearly as widely despised as Congress.
Well, you were about to clue in Semanticleo, which means you’re being a lot less subtle than you could be.
While ProggHero is clearly a parody, riffing off this comment is useful:
When you tell people something often enough, loudly enough, and stifle any competing information, they’ll tend to take it as the truth. A rational look at the economy, using the facts says we’re not in a recession — there’s still positive growth.
Are the pollsters still asking the “how do you feel about your personal economic position” type questions? Or have they abandoned them after realizing how bad it looks when they contrast people’s assessment of their own conditions versus the over-all economy? In the past, such polls have shown people OK with their own condition, but worried about that of others. In other words, the evidence of their own eyes and checkbooks said things were going OK, but they kept hearing how bad things were for everyone else, and believed it.
A recession means backward movement. What we’re in is a slump, a slowdown. It just feels really bad because people have gotten so used to the boom times.
I know that when I’m tooling along the interstate at 70 mph, and I suddenly have to slow down to 30 mph to get around an accident scene, it seems like I’m barely crawling along. Fact is, I’m still moving forward.
We’ll get around this accident soon, and people will speed up to 60 mph, if not 70. And this so-called recession will be identified for what it really was: a slowdown.
If I could figure out how to post a link I would EG. Google cnn most americans believe recession, it will be the first link.
As a parody, could it be that ProggHero is suggesting that we muse on the downsides of democracy as such? Or is that just too counter-intuitive?
PH
That Poll was in March 2008, when we had experienced a big one quarter drop in GDP. If it had continued into the next quarter it would have been a recession. It didn’t. So, my guess is that the people polled were speculating that GDP would continue to decrease. Which wasn’t a bad guess, it just turned out to be wrong.
PH: At one point, most people believed the earth was flat; that, too, was inacccurate.
Are you saying the earth isn’t flat? Getouttahere!
In a couple a hundred years people will laugh at our belief that the world was formed by some god.
I happen to know that not only is the Earth flat, but I’m at the very center of it.
True fact!
Plenty of people laugh about that now. With so many people returning to religion, I think the balance won’t change all that much.
Clew for you, PH: Lies are not “arguments”.
That’s a lie. Factories and other means of production have to be built, and that takes money. Rich people have money; they use it to build means of production so they can make more. Reagan, like any sensible person, wanted more means of production so we could all get richer. Contrast Obama, who promised out-of-work Pennsylvanians that under his administration nobody would ever have enough money to build a factory again. Yay!
A flat-out lie. What created “a stratospheric rise in homelessness” was expanded definitions of “homelessness” concocted by Democrats.
You won’t find many strong advocates of the “war on drugs here”, but the truth is the “war” began on Carter’s watch — and that despite newspaper stories and Talking Points, crime rates have been falling.
“Myth”, eh? Tell you what: look up the statistics. The upper half of the income distribution pays almost all the taxes. The lower half lives almost entirely on Government handouts.
Which is to say, the historically correct American attitude
Whereas it’s so preferable that Americans should be killed, and that “hate speech” and “family friendly” laws should throw due process and free speech in the dumper in the interest of “fairness”
And yet the constant refrain is that we should, must, concentrate on diplomacy to resolve disputes. Excoriating people for villainy because they are doing precisely what you demand doesn’t impress.
Again, we keep hearing about using Special Forces, spies, and diplomacy rather than military force. Iran-Contra engaged the Iranians in world affairs and weakened enemies of the United States, and somebody else paid for it.
It’s odd that American Democrats are the only people in the world who make that assertion. The Russians themselves call it a lie, and did at the time — I knew some socially, and heard a lot of bitterness about it. So does every leftover Leninist and Stalinist on the planet, from Red Ken Livingstone to the Chinese apparatchiks.
Strange. The US ran on laissez-faire for two centuries, in the process going from a minor agricultural country with near-zero influence to the biggest economy in the world, and it’s only after the gigantic rise of Government intervention and regulation that people start crying about “recession” when the economy’s still growing.
Stay classy, Democrats.
Regards,
Ric
– FrogHero. Your party is in the minority, so you have no choice but to base your ideas on “perceptions”. Thats why you were in such a hurry to get out front of the truth with the statement you’re the “reality based community”. You are exactly not that, and you have no real choice.
– Which is fine, but why lie about it.
– As far as a recession, the economy overall is not in a recession. What is going on is an overlay of high gas prices, pushing necessities higher also, to where what was an acceptable wage level 1 year ago is np longer that. Its your party, standing in the way of any home grown expansion of a single energy resource for the past 215 years that has put us in this position. So what the fuck exactly are you arguing, and which part of that are you the most proud of?
– Make that 15 years, even you idiots aren’t that effective at obstruction. lol
“Comment by ProggHero on 6/27 @ 9:28 am #
No I was asking you why you can say that we are not in a recession when by definition we are not. Most people believe we are in one, why? That is all I said. I was not changing the guys argument I was making my own.”
Most children believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa, how they react when you tell them otherwise is the difference between a child that will continue to be a child or grow up and be a conservative….
I am really off to Utah. In a moment.
now, Prog. let’s give ’em the benefit of the doubt. We are not in a recession, but income insecurity has hit Depression levels, 80 percent say the countries going to hell in a hand basket (not my expression, but sounds good), speculative exploitation of monopolies such as oil and mortgages have driven up most people’s fixed costs, and still we’re not in a recession. Why are people so distressed???? (but not in Utah which is the height of miasmatic govt. supported corporate welfare thanks to Republicans sending many weapons contracts their way and the usual pie in the sky pyramid scheming like at NuSkin etc….and herbal supplements, etc._)
I’ve suggested an increasing income inequality model that makes sense but they choose to ignore it. So, righties, What’s good about Increasing Income Inequality as that is the model that is allowing a recession-less downsizing of most American’s income security?
just something to ponder. Don’t work too hard on it as I am going. But work on the argument so that other’s can share ideas on it.
later, someday.
“Comment by banned in colorado on 6/27 @ 9:12 am #
“Don’t make me laugh, you babbling moron.â€Â
yupp, see what I mean. Prog. made points, conservative just spouts hate.”
Hate? I think it’s more like derision for people who ignore reality and live in their own heads, thinking that it’s my job to take care of YOU and any other idiot who refuses to be responsible for themselves.
Who knows? Maybe some day you will grow up and understand that America is about personal responsibility, and always has been, until the last 40 or so years.
If you don’t want responsibility, fine. But don’t expect me to take care of you and your fantasies. It’s enough of a grind just trying to take care of myself and my family, without some childish idiot saying that I am selfish and hateful. I don’t hate anyone, but I do resent little children in adult’s bodies – like you. Like most on the left, you are spoiled rotten, and have an “in-built” short circuit when it comes to reality.
I think you need to return to the circle jerk at Kos.
– BTW – The Hillery supporters are not giving up as I suspected they would not. New orgs are popping up all over the country, such as ex-Hillery Dems starting a “Democrats for McCain” movement in NH.
– Denver is shaping up to be a veddy interesting event indeed. PUMA rears its troublesome head. Well troublesome if you’re an Obama sycophant.
I prefer my circles at DU or FireDogLake thank you.
In a couple a hundred years people will laugh at our belief that the world was formed by some god.
They do say that every couple of centuries. Fortunately, nobody lives long enough anymore to have to be around for that prediction to fail.
Make that -their- prediction to fail. Well, whatever.
Though, seriously. Progghero, you must be a parody. You’re too much of a caricature … Caric.. ature?
I’ve said enough!
income insecurity
You know, Donald Trump has a great deal of income insecurity, but he’s filthy f’in rich. RISK increases income insecurity without necessarily decreasing … you know, income. Also if you increase the PERCEPTION of RISK you will increase the FEELING OF INSECURITY.
But of course, this was the idea to begin with, so, natch, I guess.
datadave is one of the sockpuppeteers.
Are these clowns parodies of a comedy, satire of a tragedy, parody of a satircal look at a comedy?
fixed that for ya.
* It’s not rightists who absolutely refuse to consider development of any home-grown energy resources, thus requiring dependence on others and ensuring that all the money goes somewhere else;
* It’s not rightists who demand that any scrap of capital that might be used to increase production in the United States be immediately confiscated in the interests of Fairness™, thus reducing US employment and, again, sending all the money offshore;
* It’s not rightists who demand that twenty-five million new workers be added to the economy in one chunk, thus holding down wages and sending costs through the stratosphere;
* It’s not rightists who kill opportunities for American goods to be sold abroad in the holy name of Protecting the Workers;
* It’s not rightists who demand that every aspect of American life be encumbered with pettifogging regulations, pricing our goods out of the world market; and
* It’s not rightists who insist that every opportunity for employment or economic advance be denied in favor of Protecting the Polar Bears.
Rightists don’t assert that income inequality is a particularly good thing. What we disagree very strongly with is that anything you propose will do anything to correct it — in fact, in our view everything you suggest will either accomplish nothing or make it worse. Increasing income inequality is an inevitable byproduct of economic expansion — when everybody gets richer, the rich do too, and concentrating on jealousy accomplishes nothing but an increase in hate and discontent.
It is possible that you correctly identify a problem (we don’t think so, but the proposition is arguable.) Your proposed solutions to the problem are full of s*t, even if the problem exists as such.
Regards,
Ric
It’s all about the class warfare I guess. I don’t have as much as the rich guys, so we should tax the rich out of existence, removing a huge chunk of capital from the market, thus decreasing growth and increasing unemployment, which means even more people will be poorer. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.
Someone once averred that if it weren’t for the trolls, PW comment threads would be boring.
Only trouble with that notion is, arguing with a NOP cycle isn’t much better than being one.
” and the claim that he contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union is utter bullshit. The Soviet Union imploded free of any outside influence, because its system was seriously flawed.”
And it was Ronald Reagan who did it.
What are you gonna do when they put Reagan’s likeness up on Mt. Rushmore, ReactionaryZero?
“How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
– Ronald Reagan
“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
– Ronald Reagan
“It’s always good to remember that most of those face-pierced, self-proclaimed revolutionaries marching with giant puppets and painting Hitler mustaches on George W. Bush are really the shock troops of ideological kitsch.”
-Jonah Goldberg
It’s fascinating how quickly folks like banned are able to move from one talking point to another. So, ok, maybe it’s not a recession, but [insert other prediction of sky falling here]. Even more interesting is the solution is always the same, more democrats. I marvel at the simplicity of it all.
It’s fascinating how quickly folks like banned are able to move from one talking point to another. So, ok, maybe it’s not a recession, but [insert other prediction of sky falling here]. Even more interesting is the solution is always the same, more democrats. I marvel at the simplicity of it all.
Yes, you wouldn’t even need a full-blown Turing machine to model one of them. A simple DFA would suffice.
“Even more interesting is the solution is always the same, more democrats. I marvel at the simplicity of it all.”
Well, more democrats, more taxes and more government.
All the usual fascsit bromides.
I think the 1976 election is a lot more reasonable comparison but at this point I just don’t see McCain losing.
I had complained earler that the troll quality had undergone significant degradation recently. This latest example shows much work needs to be done yet.
However, the PARODY part has been elegantly filled by PH, so there’s that.
BBH,
It’s really like Bizzaro-1976, in which Carter ’80 pretends he’s Reagan ’80. It’s the 16-year cycle I keep mentioning. it’s a lot of things, but mostly variations on 1976. Ford was an incumbent, but not a true incumbent. An unpopular war, a lackluster economy (which actually improved through Ford’s term, ironically). And the difference in the election was really about 5600 votes apiece in two of the following: Delaware, Ohio and Hawaii.
No I was asking you why you can say that we are not in a recession when by definition we are not. Most people believe we are in one, why? That is all I said. I was not changing the guys argument I was making my own.
If cars ran on stupid, ProggHero would be the $300 million battery.