Republicans argue that an unemployment rate higher than it has been in more than a quarter of a century is evidence that the Democratic agenda isn't putting Americans back to work. They say the situation will be made worse if Congress and President Obama enact a health care overhaul that will require $1 trillion in tax hikes and entitlement cuts to expand insurance coverage.
"Ten-point-two now makes it hard for the majority to sell their agenda," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
"All I know is that Speaker Pelosi is trying to force her members to vote for a bill that the American people have soundly rejected," added House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Democrats counter that their agenda has kick-started a recovery on Wall Street, even if it hasn't trickled down to the job market yet, and that Republicans are putting what they've begun at risk.
Whoever said that achieved the spectacular feat of making Michael Steele look like a master political strategist.
Well, this is very confusing. I'm used to mocking "trickle-down economics" as a product of the evil Republican cabal but apparently it's now to be a hallmark of the bold progressive future of our country.
Ah well, lack of consistency & logic in the progressive worldview hasn't bothered anyone so far, I don't know why it would start now!
Are you saying that the Democrats' statement is wrong? If feel it is, what would you have done differently?
Is the solution to the economic crisis that has cost 6.5 million Americans their job to force them to purchase expensive health insurance?
If Rahm Emanuel has his way. Hopefully you understand why all the DFH's dislike him so.
Easy. Obama should have accepted the billions Bush already spent as a reason not dole out more. Instead he should have had the Congress repeal all corporate taxes for the last 6 months of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 (to help the job market) and cut capital gains taxes for the first quarter of 2009 (to loosen the credit crunch and lure foreign cash).
But if you are a believer in big government, there's no fun in that. Instead, let's just borrow a big pile of money and dole it out to the politically connected.
Incidentally, some Congressmen and Senators suggested this on October 2008, but Sen Harry Reid declared such ideas were dead on arrival. Bush could not have done this, but Obama *could* have.
They're all wrong: the Dems, the GOP, and McArdle and the other Randroid loons. All have little concern for U.S. workers and are simply trying to gain power and money or, in some cases, trying to advance their aberrant ideologies.
Despite millions of Americans being out of work, the Dem and GOP leadership isn't calling for increased imm. enforcement in order to free up jobs for Americans. The latest Tea Party wonder candidate even supported massive immigration.
Here's a statistic that should make everyone's blood boil: since the stimulus started, hundreds of thousands more foreign citizens got work permits in the U.S. than the number of jobs that were "saved or created". Mull that for a bit, and then take a look at those who are on the wrong side: the GOP/Dem leaderships, the tea partiers, all major pundits and bloggers, the Randroid loons like our host, and others.
Yes, because jobs are zero-sum. America was founded with a couple million workers, and 200+ years of immigration has left us with exactly the same number of jobs and 95% unemployment. Right?
Thank you for showing just how little patriotism libertarians have. At the present time, jobs are indeed "zero-sum": if a million illegal aliens left tomorrow, Americans could be filling most of those same jobs the next day. Of course, they might require higher safety standards and the like; libertarians and the Dem and GOP leadership are perfectly happy to have an expendable foreign workforce that works with minimal safety standards (passing the costs on to everyone else), but that's not exactly the American way.
And, by freeing up jobs for Americans, we'd reduce the number of Americans on unemployment, thereby saving us money. It would be a net financial gain, but some people don't want it to happen because they're taking a taste or because their ideology doesn't allow for patriotism.
Yes, tomorrow they would be. And in six months, they'd all be on the streets again, because with a couple million less customers, layoffs are inevitable. Brilliant long-term planning, I must say.
If it isn't old 48behind with his blind links and insults again.
There's no "blind link" in my comment; most people should be able to tell from simply mousing over it that it goes to my site - a site that's been online since 2002 in one form or other including being previously hosted at a site I started in 1996 - and that the title of the link matches the text of the link.
When someone follows me around and says things like you do, it indicates that they're someone who I beat in a debate when they were using a different name. I'm sorry you lost, but following me around like this isn't the way to do things; consider trying to understand why your argument was faulty. Also consider telling us who you are so we can help you.
Stan, what we have here is an example of how something can be both arguably right, and incredibly stupid.
Megan - link to the original article please? I don't want to play Google the quote to find it.
Is this the Politico article you are quoting?
http://mobile.politico.com/story.cfm?id=29237&cat=topnews
Clever: set Republicans up as the fall guy for the inevitable market correction that will follow, once the Fed's QE is throttled back and torrents of cheap money aren't inflating risky assets.
Yup. If this isn't a bubble I don't know what is. At some point Ben Bernanke or Tim Geithner, or both, will gain the nickname "Mr. Bubble."
Inflation, thy name is Dow Jones...
If Steele is stupid enough to let the schrapnel catch him in the butt when this bubble bursts, he gets what he deserves.
"Yup. If this isn't a bubble I don't know what is. At some point Ben Bernanke or Tim Geithner, or both, will gain the nickname "Mr. Bubble."
You got it -- a liquidity-fueled echo bubble.
Glad I picked up some DIA puts yesterday, when the market was happy. Also glad I started adding short positions a month or so ago, via an Altman Z-Score screener.
Worst.Commentary.Ever.
Republicans are quoted directly, and Democrats are paraphrased, you don't provide a link, but tell us Worst.Talking Point.Ever? Laughable.
Seriously. Megan, what do you expect them to say? "Yeah, we suck. Don't vote for us in a year." And hasn't this "talking point" been Republican economic policy for almost thirty years now?
Megan, no one "said that." It's a paraphrase with no direct quote supporting it in the Politico article.
Let's just say, hypothetically, that the reporters did a poor job paraphrasing and that the unknown Dem or Dems they interviewed were claiming credit for saving the financial system from collapse. Is that a bad talking point?
I am anxious to see how the Dems will spin the roll back (next year) of the Bush tax cuts as good for employment.
Right. Because those tax cuts really created a lot of jobs.
I'm assuming that you agree that unemployment was better (lower) during the Last administration.
That doesn't mean the tax cuts were responsible.
Brian - Hey, No Problem.
I guess you just like paying taxes.
I like good governance for my taxes.
Brian -
Hey - good governance vs employment
I'm with you Man!
"Brian Despain
I like good governance for my taxes."
Because nothing makes government better than a couple extra hundred billion $ a year, and 2 extra points of unemployment.
Interesting let me ask this. Of this year's deficit number, how much is Obama responsible for and how much is GWB responsible for? This is a trick question since I know the answer. Let's see if you know.
You think you know the answer, but you are just internalizing Democrat talking points.
Try this: compare the 2001 recession to the 2009 recession.
President Bush was handed a recession by President Clinton. 9/11 made it worse. Instead of complaining, President Bush fixed the problem. Tax cuts created confidence that people would receive the benefit of working harder, so they worked harder/more.
The economy slowed when Democrats took control of congress in 2006 and threatened to roll back the Bush tax cuts. That fear caused the economy to contract. Then Democrats compounded the problem by attempting social engineering through sloppy credit lending rules.
President Obama inherited an economy weakened by Democrat Congress actions, although President Bush's approval of TARP was a mistake and didn't help...
But everything President Obama has done since taking office has helped his political supporters and made the economy worse.
NOW you know the answer, but I expect you'll reject it in favor of your ideology.
Brian - This is a trick question since I know the answer.
Economists don't 'know the answer' with certainty. If you'd like to make an argument for your beliefs, go right ahead.
Megan: who are the "Democrats" who "said" this? You ought to provide a link or source. What you have instead is a somewhat bizarre, free-floating unattributed claim about what unspecified Democrats supposedly opined.
" ... a somewhat bizarre, free-floating unattributed claim ... "
Megan's blog REALLY needs someone good at blog animation to help us visualize these ideas.
Any takers? My guess is that she will Front Page you with attribution if you give it a try.
So, the vague "experts say" is now verboten? "Republican sources said ..." no longer operative?
Hmmm ... when the liberal media wants to mischaracterize and misquote unnamed Republicans, I don't hear you people bitching much.
How you like us now?
Once Megan actually concern-trolls a Republican or conservative, I'll bitch about her mischaracterization then, believe me.
But speculative reasoning sure is awesome, isn't it?
Hoyer admits Pelosi doesn't have the votes to pass health care reform.
Vote delayed:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/health-care-vote-may-be-delayed-in-house-2009-11-06
Um...OK.
Levi Johnston impostor on Twitter:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2009/11/05/moos.levi.fake.twitter.cnn
Chicago Tribune reports:
Jobs "created or saved" faked by Obama
"More than $4.7 million in federal stimulus aid so far has been funneled to schools in North Chicago, and state and federal officials say that money has saved the jobs of 473 teachers Problem is, the district employs only 290 teachers.
"That other number, I don't know where that came from," said Lauri Hakanen, superintendent of North Chicago Community Unit Schools District 187."
But I'm sure the Chicago Tribune is only concern-trolling here. Judge for yourself.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/chi-education-stimulus-04-nov04,0,4659134.story
When she's criticizing Dems for a talking point but there are no actual words coming out of any Dems' mouths, then yes, she's being beyond lame.
She's not doing it, she's pointing out that the press is starting to do it ... you know ... just like they used to do to Republicans.
That's called: turnabout.
It's fair play.
Related YouTube Video:
Obama offers shout outs to his home boys before announcing mass murder of US servicemen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYldhOp1p34
From a political standpoint, I don’t disagree with Megan. At a time when “Wall Street” remains deeply unpopular, it seems a bit foolish of Democrats to boast that their agenda is lining the pockets of Goldman Sachs... but don’t worry, it’s only a matter of time before the benefits start tricking down to unemployed Americans.
Wasn’t “trickle-down economics” a Republican concept? Ironic.
But putting aside politics, I think the Democrats are right about the fundamentals. Stocks have almost always recovered (strongly) a good six months or more before the overall economy has begun to show signs of real improvement… and jobs tend to lag the overall economy. So if I were a Democratic policymaker looking for reasons to be optimistic about the economy, I would be heartened by what the stock market has done since March. It’s a very good sign, 'cause the midterms are a year away. A lot can happen in a year.
The problem, of course, is communicating this to voters. Listening to the populist rhetoric of the past couple of years (coming from both the right and the left) has made me realize how little people understand about the critical importance of finance to the overall economy. Saying that Wall Street as a whole must somehow be punished for the benefit of ordinary Americans (and you'll hear this sentiment on both Fox and MSNBC) is like saying that a patient should be bled out for the benefit of the internal organs. It’s ludicrous. Finance is the lifeblood of the economy.
Sweaterhogan -"Wasn’t “trickle-down economics” a Republican concept? Ironic."
"The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."
William Penn Adair "Will" Rogers (November 4, 1879 – August 15, 1935) was a Cherokee-American cowboy, comedian, humorist, social commentator, vaudeville performer and actor.
He was a Democrat
More accurately, he wasn't a member of an organized political party - he was a Democrat.
Thank You.
I sit corrected.
Finance is the lifeblood of the economy.
No one is claiming that Finance is unimportant. It's its size in relation to the rest of the economy.
sweaterhogan Says:
"But putting aside politics, I think the Democrats are right about the fundamentals. Stocks have almost always recovered (strongly) a good six months or more before the overall economy has begun to show signs of real improvement… and jobs tend to lag the overall economy"
Herbert Hoover couldn't have said it better.
"Stocks have almost always recovered (strongly) a good six months or more before the overall economy has begun to show signs of real improvement… and jobs tend to lag the overall economy."
So no matter what the government does, sweaterhogan, the economy will recover? Like France?
Oh, dear. A non-linked text citing the opinions of an amorphous mass of anonymous Democrats. And to think I was complaining about standards of evidence for claims in the latest Awful Statistics post...
Politico article is linked above in the comments. Yes, no attribution, but come on. It's written by a journalist. What do you expect? They include unattributed quotes and material all the time.
Journalists have absolute moral certitude.
If they say Democrats suck, then Democrats suck.
So journalists are not expected to source their quotes (or their paraphrases)?
Besides, this is the first time I ever heard of any Democrat representative saying such a thing, let alone "Democrats". It's political suicide.
From the same article, this is what identified Democrats said:
Tax credit, stimulus, new highway. No mention of Wall Street trickle down. Megan decided to stop the cited text just before these sourced quotes. A bit sloppy on her part.
If only it were just sloppy. "Sloppy" would be misspelling a word. This is just downright disingenuous.
So journalists are not expected to source their quotes (or their paraphrases)?
.
Uh, do you expect them to? If so, you must regularly be disappointed when you read the papers. Sure it would be nice if journalists adhered to professional standards, but, well, who's going to make them?
Balfegor, I couldn't agree with you more. But that's a whole new discussion. For now, I hope we can agree that, when they don't adhere to these basic standards, they should be criticized for it, not amplified by Atlantic bloggers.
"So journalists are not expected to source their quotes (or their paraphrases)? "
You've GOT to be kidding, right?
How many NY Times stories are unsourced, alleged "administration officials"?
I'm amazed that you've finally noticed that the press makes shit up.
"...A non-linked text citing the opinions of an amorphous mass of anonymous Democrats..."
Dios Mio ... Where are our ANIMATORS! Inquiring minds want to know!
Also, it does make some sense, so no, it's not the Worst. Talking Point. Ever., nor does it make Michael Steele look like a brilliant political strategist.
Although you have succeeded at making Jonah Goldberg's lame pop culture references look cool by comparison, so kudos to you for that.
Hey,
Don't mess with the J-Berg or we will sic [sic] the NRO posse on you :-)
Really - just between you and me - how hard is it to get in Princeton?
I mean, I did sleep in a Holiday Inn a year or so ago.
Inquiring Minds Want To Know
Well, it depends.
If you're a legacy, you get in automatically. Unless the legacy in question is a real closet case. Like Fred.
Bill Rutherford, Princeton Admissions:
Fred who?
Fred Dorfman. From Harrisburg.
Ahem...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/19/campaign.wrap/index.html
Maybe Obama's just been really stressed and he forgot about that campaign talking point?
Ahem..
Have you read any of the other comments? Obama didn't say this. No one said this. It's an unsourced paragraph of a politico article. It's a piece of hack blogging by Megan, unworthy in content other than showing how uncritically she reads and repeats things that confirm her biases.
And don't wait up for a retraction of acknowledgment of this shoddy bit of blogging, that would reek of integrity.
"No one said this. It's an unsourced paragraph of a politico [sic] article."
I've been sourcing this paragraph and have four other sources saying the exact same thing. Those sources have requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about Democrat strategy.
But it's true what they're saying.
Did you pass these anonymous sources along to Megan? Because that's the point. I'm not here to dispute that actual Democrats are saying things like this in the furry orgies where you talk Democratic strategy with anonymous unauthorized sources. I'm saying Megan quoted an article with no one even pretending to say that statement, and didn't suggest that she had obtained the information from other sources.
And I have at least 50 quotes by people unauthorized to speak publicly about Democratic strategy that we never landed on the moon, Barack Obama is an immortal dinosaur, and fossils aren't real.
Well, if Palin is the best the republicans can come up with, the trouble dems are in will look like shallow water by comparison.
If Palin sucks so bad, wouldn't Democrats want her to succeed in the Republican Party?
Funny that you guys are always attacking her ... preventing her from maybe winning a nomination that would be so easy for you to defeat at the polls.
Maybe I should question your motives in attacking her now.
Do you live in a universe where Democrats scorning somebody hurts their chances in a Republican primary?
And have you never met people who just say what they think?
Don't try to use logic with movertyperguy. He is completely impervious ot it, since logic is Alinsky rule #173.5
Well lets see...
For years the Dems said McCain was their kind of guy, they'd vote for him, the repubs should move in that direction, etc. etc.
So the Dumb Sh*t repubs nominated him and not only did the dems not vote for him, he got less votes that Bush did!!!
Seems repubs shouldn't listen to dems about who to nominate.
So you're convinced that McCain won the primaries because Democrats deceived the Republican base into thinking they would prefer McCain to their own candidate? Really?
FWIW, I think any other Republican contender would have suffered a heavier loss. With the possible exception of Romney - but then again, people weren't exactly expecting a financial meltdown when they voted for McCain.
Nimed said
"So you're convinced that McCain won the primaries because Democrats deceived the Republican base into thinking they would prefer McCain to their own candidate? Really?"
There was a lot of talk in the rep primaries about who would be the most electable candidate - the fact that McCain was liked by MSM was often cited.
Yes i do believe that alot of republicans were punked by the MSM and progressives that McCain would be the best choice.
What I'm really saying is that progressives don't have the best interest of conservatives or republicans in mind, ever. And we shouldn't pay a lot of credence to which republicans the progressives like.
"Yes i do believe that alot of republicans were punked by the MSM and progressives that McCain would be the best choice."
You really don't know much about Republican primaries do you? The most electable guy in the general was Mitt Romney. But he's a Mormon and therefore unacceptable by a large part of the Christian right.
I don't know, the bar seems pretty low. The last two Dems elected were a pathological philanderer and a community organizaer who hung out with terrorists.
Yes that's exactly right. It's that being completely out of touch with reality about Obama that is gonna win in 2012.
I'm confused. Are you saying Barack wasn't a community organizer, or that he didn't launch his career in Bill Ayers' living room?
I am saying meeting people at someone's house is a LOONG way from "hanging out with terrorists".
I'd like to also say that there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with being a commmunity organizer.
Or, more accurately, a community organizaer, whatever that is.
How about half a dozen meetings, working on a project together, and sharing an office?
But hey, no biggy. I mean, he only bombed the Pentagon. Bygones!
I'm just saying, the bar is low. Barack never actually accomplished anything other than reading a teleprompter and getting elected despite the very real danger Chris Matthews might start humping his leg.
What's the worst Palin's done? Comment on the view from her state?
I mean, OK, the moose vote is definitely not going her way.
Palin is a quitter. That's a huge stick to beat her with in a National election.
Really?
OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term.
That's right. Getting elected to another position is just like quitting your job as governor. What was Sarah elected to?
Sarah has done a pretty good job sniping from the sidelines.
It might be much better for the Ds if she was in office.
And the scary thing is, those are the good ones. Before that you have an idiot peanut farmer, a man who could generously be described as psychotic, and a drug addict.
Careful, guys, TallDave will stoop to any level to get his point across.
I think you are missing the bigger political picture.
You don't win or lose the battle at the first skirmish.
The Palin initiative has not yet focused on the Dems. It is a very much focused on control of the Republican party at this point. Witness three recent events:
1) The Tea Party mobilized a whole lot of CONSERVATIVES on September 12 this year to rallies across the nation. At the DC rally that I attended only 2 Republicans made a VERY BRIEF statement. Many of the speakers dismissed the Republican Party as irrelevant.
2) Last Tuesday, Palin mobilized those same conservatives to actively eliminate the RNCC (Republican National Congressional Committee) candidate from NY23.
3) Yesterday, (Nov 5, 2009) the Republican party (actually Michele Bachmann -R Minn.) called for a truce and 10,000 CONSERVATIVES showed up in Washington. You really needed to have been there, but seeing the entire House Republican caucus walk out of the US Congress Building and down the steps to speak to their constituents was impressive.
I'm not sure where the Palin/Conservative/Tea-Party movement is going but I do know that it has a lot of momentum.
I have no idea how they are going to focus their energy next, but you should not underestimate them.
1. They can go galt for all I care. Vote libertarian. See how many Democrats you elect.
2. No. Palin didn't mobilize them to just eliminate a RNCC candidate. She mobilized them to support another candidate who LOST and put a Democrat on a safe seat the Republicans have held for over 100 years. I hope they do a lot more of that.
3. A lot of momentum? The anti war movement can put 10 to 20 times that number in Washington in an instant. Yet somehow we are still involved in two wars. Bachmann got huge coverage on Fox and 10,000 show up? Count me underwhelmed.
I don't "underestimate" the Teabagger movement. I don't think you should "over estimate" their electoral weight which will be even lower in 2012 than it was 2008. Sarah Palin motivated these people to come out and vote for John McCain. And they lost.
Why does everyone repeat this bs that the ny-23rd has been only republican for 150 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_23rd_congressional_district
The district has bounced back and forth between rep and dems a lot.
Is this an example of lazy journalism that repeats a meme with out bothering to do 30 seconds of research or what?
Did you not read the Wikipedia article? You do realize they are talking about the geographic region right? You don't seem to be aware that re-districting takes place on a regular schedule? Read the article again and pay attention to the column on the right.
What are you talking about?
Are you trying to say that the geographic area that now is the 23rd has changed over time (what congressional district hasn't) and that geographic area has only voter for reps in the past, even when it may have been in completely different districts? How can anyone track something like that?
The meme in the media is that the NY-23rd has only elected republicans for 150 years. This is clearly wrong.
The meme that keeps getting repeated is an example of how some bullshit is said by a "trusted" source, then repeated endlessly, with no one ever bothering to fact check it. Eventually the fact that every "Knows" that it is true is used to prove that it iss true, and anyone doubting the statement is ignorant.
This
You don't have to vote Libertarian to elect libertarians. You can vote Republican.
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/
I think it was in NY or NJ that the voters got so fed up that they actually elected a Libertarian.
McCain nominated Palin to pick up the Libertarian vote. She did just that:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-mccain-picked-palin.html
Oh hey, thanks for reminding me. The even better outcome would be for Palin to mount a serious third-party campaign and peel off 10-15% of the national vote.
I mean, worse outcome. Yeah. Dems are scared of her. We don't want her to run for President! No! Please don't throw us in the briar patch!
Bill,
First off - I'm a devout independent - A throw all the bums out kind of guy. But I do like watching the political ebb and flow.
However,to the point -
IMHO, Thursday's town hall meeting on the capitol steps was a game changer.
Sara Palin did not ask for the electorate to show up.
The Tea Party did not ask for the electorate to show up.
(I have no idea what Beck/Limbaugh/etc said because I don't listen to them.)
What did happen is this: A Republican (Michele Bachmann R-Minn) called on short notice (I heard about it on Monday) to meet on the Capitol Steps on Thursday and several thousand showed up. (To my untrained eye, these appeared to be he same demographic group that attended the 9/12 Tea Party Meeting at the same location.)
Unlike the 9/12 Tea Party meeting, this was a Republican organized event - and the Conservative/Tea-Party electorate applauded the Republican speakers.
IMHO, this was the moment when the GOP and the Tea Party Movement reunited after the NY23 debacle. Bachmann said please come, the conservatives responded, and the entire Republican caucus came out and spoke to the voters.
I have no idea what the future holds but I think Thursday was significant.
Strangely that little announcement by Michelle got covered by Fox News, Fox News Radio and Glenn Beck. I mean who would have guessed a few thousand people would show up.
I mean it might have been an important moment because the Republican party might be forced to accomodate the base once again. However that might lead to some less than desirable outcomes electorally for the GOP. I am willing to bet that every single Teabagger voted for McCain. The problem is that isn't enough to get the GOP the electoral votes for the presidency nor is it enough to expand the number of seats in the House. Demographics are destiny and the GOP is on the wrong side of too many demographic trends.
Brian,
Please stop the "Teabagger" language. It really does not influence anyone positively.
Thanks
No offense but isn't that what they have called themselves? Isn't that what they called their movement? Their poor choice of words is hardly my problem.
Brian,
No, they called themselves Tea Partiers.
"Tea Baggers" was the derogatory term used by self-proclaimed unbiased journalists.
Apparently, used so often that you believed it to be the term the Tea Partiers used themselves.
I don't think I've seen a better illustration of a liberal taking marching orders from the liberal political media complex.
Thanks.
Brian: >Demographics are destiny and the GOP is on the wrong side of too many demographic trends.
Young people don't know what high taxes look like. They will find out, and see how little it gets them. Especially when they see a very large chunk of it go to pay interest on the debt.
Then they will vote for whoever keeps taxes low.
Derek
I like "Tea Baguettes" myself. Viva la revolucion! Let them eat bread!
Because Democrats attacking Palin endears her with the Republican base that's way. So yes Democrats want her to succeed - that's why they are attacking her.
Yes.
Also, Democrats absolutely want Palin to succeed in the Republican Party.
It just goes to show how much nicer Democrats are. GOPers want Obama to fail, yet Dems want Palin to succeed.
Palin/Beck 2012!
Or maybe both parties just like making fun of prominent persons on their opponent's team.
Hey, give Dems some credit. At least they stopped blaming Bush.
For example I fully intend to contribute to Palin's 2012 campaign fund. I also registered "governorquitter.com" Attacking the former governor plays right into the massive amount victimhood you see on the right. The world is against them.
Isn't the Dems whole philosophy pretty much built on victimhood? Women are victims, minorities are victims, the poor are victims, vote for us and the gov't will help you out.
Yes it is. That fact that this same sense of victimhood has migrated to right as well is pretty annoying.
I couldn't agree with TallDave more - women definitely deserve to be beaten and raped.
Permit me to raise the quality of dialog at least three levels above where you just took it:
Your mom.
Your momma is so fat her dress says "Ringling Bros" on it.
Hey! Leave Bill Clinton out of this!
Bill - "...women definitely deserve to be beaten and raped."
I lived several years in Berkley and Sausalito (Sausalito is still my home but sadly I have not lived there for a nearly decade) both of which are beyond a doubt the most liberal/progressive communities I have ever had the privilege to inhabit. (Well, maybe Boulder comes close.)
While it is only about a 30 minute drive from one to the other, there is a town between them called Richmond - perhaps you have heard of it in the news recently?
Oh hi Megan - I mean, aMouseforallSeasons
You're not the first person who implies that Megan is mouse. What's the deal with that?
Slavish defense of anything and everything Megan posts, even that video of the non-funny amateur stand-up comic from a few weeks back.
Very similar writing styles, too.
There's lots of slavish defense of Megan in these parts. I attribute it to simple blog crush.
Funny how every Johnny-come-lately with a bad attitude and a bashing stick wants to make that conflation in place of cleaning up his own act, ain't it, Rutherford? As it happens, I've been reading MM's blog since late 2001 or thereabouts, and have a certain affinity for some of her major policy positions, hence the perception of similarity. Stick around for the next time she proposes, say, legalizing the unwritten scope of the Craigslist Adult Services section or establishing an Arab street bazaar for critical organ sales, and I promise you'll see something new.
As for the present discussion, sure, it is definitely annoying when she rushes through a post and forgets to attribute the source, but such is life on ocassion. I suspect a polite email request for clarification might get rapid results, but hey -- being snide and nasty here might work, too. Worth a try, and it really polishes those personal ego insecurity demons, right?
As a side note, my appreciation for Goolsbee's schtick was not its absolute quality compared to the summed realm of comedy, but the pleasure of finding a certain amount of such talent in a college professor who has undertaken a career in a relatively dry field. My summary dismissal of his detractors came from the shallow and unnecessarily nasty tone several of them employed, perplexing in light of the fact that nobody was forcing them to watch a five minute routine that evidently did not to speak to them.
Ok, it's definitely Megan.
Seriously though, a couple of points:
- you could choose to see the identification as at least partly flattering instead of just getting miffed about it. Megan is a pretty good writer, after all.
- forgetting to link the article is a very minor lapse. Echoing claims of anonymous "Democrats" when, in the very next sentences of the same article, there are identified Democrats stating completely different things - not so much. Rather, it's a good example of bad journalism amplified by selective quoting.
The paraphrase is extremely juicy: are Democrats really saying that their plan to solve the current crisis is to prioritize the recovery of Wall Street? So Megan chose to highlight a paraphrase of an altogether uncheckable source ("Democrats") instead of readily available direct quotes of several members of Congress. It's sloppy work, and it's completely misleading.
@aMouseforallSeasons
Do you really think the problem is that Megan forgot to attribute the source? It didn't take long for someone to find the Politico piece. The problem is that Megan forgot to attribute the source to a Politico piece the was filled with sourced quotations from Democratic leaders. She chose to portray a statement as a "talking point" that the "Democrats came up with". "Whoever said that" strongly implies that it was a quote, when it was not. It's disingenuous and a misrepresentation.
It's disappointing because Megan regularly posts superb content, and this sort of post casts a bad light on her bullshit detector. It's even more disappointing that she'll never own up to it.
Someone said something very close to that: "the stock market is recovering, and if we falter on health care now, everything will go to hell". Focusing anyone on the stock market, not a good idea.
Someone said something very close to that: "the stock market is recovering, and if we falter on health care now, everything will go to hell".
Someone? Why didn't you quote and deride them? And who is this person, how do they represent the Democratic Party, and what does that have to do with the fact that you misrepresented the information you were quoting? It doesn't really matter if your point is accurate. If you don't have a good quote, just comment on the idea in general without misrepresenting things or do a little digging and find a good source. Just trying to keep you honest.
Okay, it's one thing to say that you think they were paraphrased inaccurately, but you seem to be claiming that you think no Democrat said anything like this. The reporter did not, I am near-certain, make it up. *Someone* told them that the stock market recovery showed that what they were doing was working, even if hey, everyone's losing their jobs--and that eventually this would translate into broader recovery. This is an awful, awful response, in part because corporate profits are rising in several due to cost cutting--i.e. job cuts.
As for the allegation that I am The Mouse--well, I'm very flattered, but sock puppeting is a) a firing offense and b) a really embarassing lapse of character. I have commented anonymously on other blogs, but never on my own, never about any debate I was publicly involved in, and certainly never about me or anything I said. Mouse is admirably independent, and freely criticizes when we diagree. I believe that one of my favorite trolls can also confirm that Mouse has an independent presence in a city very far from where I live, though I will leave it to them to elaborate, if they care to.
Okay, it's one thing to say that you think they were paraphrased inaccurately, but you seem to be claiming that you think no Democrat said anything like this. The reporter did not, I am near-certain, make it up. *Someone* told them that the stock market recovery showed that what they were doing was working, even if hey, everyone's losing their jobs--and that eventually this would translate into broader recovery.
I can't speak for the other posters, but I explicitly said that it doesn't matter if your point is accurate, there's no indication from the quoted article that this is a Democratic talking point. *Someone* could have been the gang of argumentative Democrats at his soup kitchen. And I have no idea who could have been paraphrased incorrectly, because I have no idea where the info came from and whether or not this person represents the Democratic party. And neither do you.
"As a side note, my appreciation for Goolsbee's schtick was not its absolute quality compared to the summed realm of comedy, but the pleasure of finding a certain amount of such talent in a college professor who has undertaken a career in a relatively dry field. My summary dismissal of his detractors came from the shallow and unnecessarily nasty tone several of them employed, perplexing in light of the fact that nobody was forcing them to watch a five minute routine that evidently did not to speak to them."
Jesus. Unless Goolsbee was a close friend or relative, I think it's high time you learned the fine art of choosing your battles.
Apparently I am in the only for whom "your momma" jokes resonate and are considered a cultural art form.
Your mother resonates and is considered a cultural art form.
Jesus, what happened to the comment section here? There have always been liberal trolls, but it seems to have gotten a lot worse. Wasn't making people register supposed to cut down on the trolling?
Journo-list has made this comment section a Priority 1 project.
They're trying to get Megan fired.
And we would've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling movertyperguy.
Idiots on both sides. Yay for forums.
KR. I have been posting at Megan's blog for a while. In fact I posted quite a bit at her old blog before she was hired by The Atlantic. Clearly you don't appreciate the "Your Momma" joke culture. You probably don't like hush puppies as a food either. I post under my actual name as opposed to some random nome de guerre, just so a few people might remember me from the old days.
Megan,
Indeed it is a bad talking point. Good thing it is a paraphrase in an unsourced quote, rather than, you know, a talking point that anyone is actually using.
I've had that same talking point given to me four different times by four different senior administration officials - all requiring background identification protection.
It is an official talking point.
You must be able to provide 4 links, then?
I have to to admit that, as far as BS goes, this one as a certain mystical quality to it.
All four sources demanded anonymity in return for background information because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the policy. But they have been specifically authorized to speak on background.
I assume Mover this your idea of a joke on unsourced background right?
Talking points are not meant to be kept secret. Talking points are generally things that officials talk about publicly and that they encourage the media to source and print. Your unsourced claims about unsourced claims are exactly the opposite of talking points.
As the prophet James Brown said: Stock market going up/ Jobs, going down/ Ain't no funky jobs to be found/ Taxes keep going up/ I changed from a glass/ Now I drink from a paper cup/ It's getting bad.
His advice is apposite, too: Turn on your funk motor, get down, and praise the Lord.
1. The idea that Obama's policies are responsible for the high unemployment rate is laughable. This was an economic catastrophe that began in 08. It was a worldwide catastrophe that almost caused a Great Depression. Many governments went bankrupt or would have but for the IMF.
The idea that we should be somehow "over it" one year later is preposterous.
2. Note: this is not to say it is "Bush's" fault. A lot of things happened, in the US and all over the world, to create the massive credit bubble. A lot of the Bush policies, in my opinion, contributed. But that is water under the bridge.
3. The banks are a problem. Criticizing the stimulus while complaining about unemployment is just ignorant. Criticizing the handling of the bank crisis is cogent. I'm not sure whether other options would have turned out better. But when banks aren't making loans, it's tough for the economy to come back. It's one reason monetary policy has become pushing on a string.
4. Goldman Sachs is a huge problem. I don't mean only Goldman, but rather the idea that capital is flowing to firms like GS and other high-frequency traders. This type of economic activity is really bad at creating jobs, because Goldman doesn't loan out its capital. Rather, it puts into markets. This doesn't create jobs; it just enriches people who hold stocks, perhaps only temporarily.
Somebody needs to crack down on Goldman ASAP and make them start abiding by BHC rules if they are going to take BHC capital and protections.
5. The American economy is in a bad way right now. During the 2000s, the chief growth industries were housing and hedge funds. Both of those industries attracted foreign capital and helped offset an otherwise enormous trade deficit. But nobody wants what we are selling anymore. We've got all these homebuilders but nobody to build homes for, and all these hedge fund traders and security collateralizers who can't attract any foreign assets.
It's no wonder jobs are having trouble coming back. Too many of our citizens have skills that are not useful under current circumstances.
What any of this has to do with Obama is beyond me. It's sad how partisan politics consumes people's minds so thoroughly that they can't think about anything else. Like what is good for the country.
Muzzy -- Good and sensible points all around, but I respectfully disagree with the notion that this has nothing to do with Obama (though I concur that partisanship is a general fog-on-the-brain problem in many other contexts). Like you, I can't cite Obama's policies as the proximate cause of high unemployment at the moment. But I think it's fair to question what precisely his administration is doing about the problems you mention above. I'd suggest that they are tinkering around the edges on some of these issues, but in general, they appear to be distracted and more interested in various other things (healthcare, cap and trade, etc.).
This is not at all to diminish the general importance of sound policy on healthcare, the environment, or other domestic issues. But the man was elected at a time when the wheels were coming off of our collective economic cart, and I wish he would have shown a more laser-like focus on that problem before indulging in lengthy debate on the various other initiatives we have seen (again, healthcare primarily).
Amongst those closer to the center of the political spectrum, I think there is some sense that Obama was unwilling to allow our looming economic problems to distract/impede progress on other aspects of his domestic policy agenda about which he is most passionate. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with his position on various domestic issues, I think it's fair to be critical on the basis that not much has happened with respect to the economy, including the problems you identified, which seem to me to be most important at the moment.
"I can't cite Obama's policies as the proximate cause of high unemployment at the moment."
Obama refuses to pay businesses to hire workers, which is a policy which would immediately reduce unemployment. He pays people to buy houses. He pays people to buy cars. But he won't pay a small businessman to hire someone. That is his policy.
High unemployment is directly Obama's fault because of his policy.
Obama has the power to tax imports to stimulate production at home. He refuses to do so. That is a policy. It leads directly to high levels of unemployment. It's a direct cause. It's Obama's policy, so it's Obama's fault.
Obama has the power to reduce the importation of cheap labor from abroad through visa reductions policy. He has not done so. That is his policy. That is a direct cause of high unemployment that is his fault.
Obama wants people to be unemployed so he can manufacture a crisis in order to pass his health tax increase. So he has deliberately allowed through his policies the unemployment figure to rise to frighteningly high levels.
He is cravenly evil and we should impeach him forthwith.
Obama could allow energy exploration and development in the US. This would lead to jobs in the short term and lessen the trade defecit in the long term.
Obama could have presented some plans for the stimulous, to keep the money from being wasted on BS political kickbacks.
Example - $5billion to study a high speed train between LA & Vegags. - Just exactly how many jobs has that created?
Obama can stop the radical poilicy changes the progressives are proposing, until the economy recovers.
The uncertainty is freezing investment and hiring.
Obama can do something to address the debt that is crushing individuals and small businesses. Government spending will be the only growth area until the debt is disposed of. Either make bk easier or direct the next bail out at individuals / small businesses instead of the WS bastards that killed the economy.
Yep, Josh ... there's lots of policies that Barack Obama has implemented that have killed job growth in the country.
I'm surprised that the liberals would even raise this topic for discussion as it's so trivially easy to demonstrate that Barack Obama is purposely keeping people unemployed to achieve his political goals.
Someone needs to step up to the plate and do the right thing before we're all unemployed.
Stop being so darn stupid.
One day you're a communist, the next a capitalist. You spin so much, it's no wonder you're confused...
Oh, wait, I get it: You're a communist when it applies to you, and a capitalist when it applies to everyone else.
"trickle down" ?!?!? i thought those were dirty words to democrats.
they really just say whatever pops into their heads, don't they ?
"What any of this has to do with Obama is beyond me."
Getting beyond you isn't much of a challenge, Mussy. While I actually agree with most of what you said, you seem to have missed a rather major theme of the past 10 months: that job creation in this country is not enhanced by massive policy uncertainty. What kind of businessman is going to hire and invest when they 1) have been pretty well assured that taxation on business is going up dramatically 2) health care policy is completely up in the air with huge ramifications on business 3) union power is in the ascendancy--again with huge ramifications on business 4) the plaintiff's bar is in the ascendancy 5) regulation is in the ascendancy 6) government intervention in the markets is rampant and 7) energy costs are going up dramatically due to Cap & Tax.
Nope. Not much gets beyond you. Like a steel trap, you are.
THREAD WINNER
The stock market does anticipate a recovery of sorts. The really destructive deleveraging in September 2008, then November and then February was premised on end-of-the-world scenarios. Now the armageddon tail of the distribution has been taken off the table by the wall-of-money and the government takeover of GM. ATMs dispense cash and IRA statements come in the mail, suggesting that accounting entries on computers in various big cities still have some relationship to purchasing power in 20 years. Everybody cut back on discretionary spending from August 2008. Data out this week saw consumer credit use contract $ 14 bln in Oct. In the Bush 50x levered economy, this number expanded at a $ 7 bln/month rate. 17.5% of the working population is un- or under-employed, so their spending is truly constrained. But, everyone was made more insecure by the headlines and everyone cut back spending. (except maybe Goldman bankers, who needed Blankfein to tell them to "be discreet.") So the still employed will start to spend again, and their money goes further thanks to deflation. The comment by the DEM was accurate if inartful.
What's really interesting is the 9.5% leap in business productivity. BHO would not, could not give business tax cuts with the hope that jobs would be created. So businesses are generating the retained earnings - through layoffs - that are necessary for the private sector to eventually expand. Instead of every company being given money so that some would expand employment, now only the leanest, most efficient companies have the wherewithal to eventually expand. More unemployment than necessary but a stronger economy when we get there. As PD QUIG points out, though, its not going to happen until they end the Health Care tax uncertainty. For job-creation, the worst thing Pelosi can do is extend this sausage-making into next year. I suspect PD QUIG is right about the union power issue as well. Penny Pritzker IPO'd Hyatt this week. I really had trouble reconciling her hotel chain and exposure to the SEIU with support of BHO. So now we know.
If this is the best Megan can come up with, this blog is in deep, deep trouble.
Why? Because it exposes the Democrat hypocrisy?
The rise in the stock market is temporary. The stimulus did its job. Now it is waning. Car sales are down. Foreclosures are rising again and companies are still shedding jobs. I will believe we are in a recovery when job growth returns to zero. Right now it is negative.
Obama will make sure not to let a crisis go to waste. He'll simply keep blaming it all on Bush, and laugh all the way to a 2012 re-election.