Budget talks: This is getting nasty

I wonder if that song ever gets stuck in Al Gore's head.

 

Aww, tea partiers are learning to be real politicians, selling out core values to please big donors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-rep-austin-scott-betrayed-his-tea-party-roots/2011/08/09/gIQAoKnQ5I_story.html?hpid=z2

 

Sort of evident that people commenting on that Atlantic link I posted didn't bother reading the story.

The entire second half of the piece proposes a dozen interlocking remedies, including lowering corporate tax rates and raising Federal incentives for private sector Research and Development.

 

He said this:

I wasn't arguing about whether Bachmann is, was or will be the nominee.

He said this:

Which is patently not. true.

 

For what, Ben? The term limit statement? Here you are:
http://bkl1.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/congressman-wants-to-amend-constitution-to-remove-presidential-term-limits/

 

Certainly when he hears "hail to the chief " it has to be a little sad for him.

 

Our political system (in presidential contests) really only come down to two choices. In an election year with an incumbent up for reelection, I always think is he/she better than the other candidate? Always. In 2012, I wonder if the Republicans win the White House but lose both houses of Congress. Sure, the president is vulnerable, but it is not like the Republicans did such a great job to warrant a wholesale return.

And by Zag's rationale of not saying the president deserves to be reelected because he's a better choice than a Republican opponent, why is someone like Bachmann (thin resume, just as the president's opponents always harped on him about/ truly disagreeable ideas on a number of wedge issues) taken seriously as a presidential contender?

 

Shut up and be grateful for your gruel.

 

This is going to be another one of those cases where the facts conspire to make you look bad:

From the same article:

 

The sad part is that you think Obama and the Dems are any better. First of all, reforming Social Security to make it viable (it isn't at this point) is not eliminating it, so your "say goodbye to Social Security" line is crap. Same with medicare and medicaid. These programs will drive the economy off the cliff, into the valley where there will be a big explosion on impact if they are not reformed. That involves reworking the programs, not using them as a political talking point. Tell you what, when your side puts forth an actual budget (over 830 days without doing so and counting), and you can point out how the Dems will "save" anything, just keep your KOS talking points under your hat. All the Dems have is throwing stones at the other side because, instead of tackling these issues, Obama is just voting present again. And he is going to be a member of the private sector because of it. No one is buying what you are trying to sell here anymore, so quit wasting bandwith.

By the way, how did those recall elections in Wisconsin treat your side? Who controls the state senate after them? Kinda sucks when you realize the majority of people out there don't share your liberal mindset, doesn't it?

 

Hilary's 3 a.m. phone call ad will live for ever. You can reference it in a story and not even explain where it came from.

 

Posting this again.

Smart piece in the current Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/can-the-middle-class-be-saved/8600/


All the action in the American economy was at the top: the richest 1 percent of households earned as much each year as the bottom 60 percent put together; they possessed as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent; and with each passing year, a greater share of the nation’s treasure was flowing through their hands and into their pockets. It was this segment of the population, almost exclusively, that held the key to future growth and future returns. The analysts, Ajay Kapur, Niall Macleod, and Narendra Singh, had coined a term for this state of affairs: plutonomy.


According to Gallup, from May 2009 to May 2011, daily consumer spending rose by 16 percent among Americans earning more than $90,000 a year; among all other Americans, spending was completely flat. The consumer recovery, such as it is, appears to be driven by the affluent, not by the masses. Three years after the crash of 2008, the rich and well educated are putting the recession behind them. The rest of America is stuck in neutral or reverse.



The entire second half of the piece proposes a dozen interlocking remedies, including lowering corporate tax rates and raising Federal incentives for private sector Research and Development.