Free Forum Friday, January 21 Edition

An Exercise in Futility

This week saw the House back in session and the passage of the Health Care Reform Repeal by Republicans. We were also subjected to endless refrains of “job killing” as a means to deflect the attention off of the fact that House Republicans don’t actually have any real plans for creating jobs. And it was a week where the gunman of the Tucson Massacre was indicted and Representative Gabrielle Giffords demonstrated remarkable progress in her recovery including standing on her own.

But it’s open-mic on Fridays. Anything goes. What’s on your mind?

Free Forum Fridays are an open discussion where commenters are invited to bring up topics that may not have been covered in the previous week. Got something on your mind? Throw your opinion out there.


About Mr. Universe

Mr. Universe is a musician/songwriter and an ex-patriot of the south. He currently lives and teaches at a University in the Pacific Northwest. He is a long distance hiker who has hiked the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. He is also an author and woodworker. An outspoken political voice, he takes a decidedly liberal stance in politics.
This entry was posted in Free Forum Friday. Bookmark the permalink.

188 Responses to Free Forum Friday, January 21 Edition

  1. Mr. Universe says:

    Here’s a thought out of the gate. A Republican has already come under scrutiny for bringing it up but what of representation in Gifford’s district? What happens while she recovers? What if she (God forbid) does not recover all her mental faculties? What does Arizona do then and when?

    There are deeper implications here that I do not wish to contemplate yet as well.

  2. dcpetterson says:

    It’s not generally known, but Republican Representative Darryl Issa was a car thief and suspected arsonist. He has multiple arrests for car theft, plus weapons charges, and was suspected of burning down a building he’d just taken out insurance on. He’s the richest member of Congress, with a net worth of over $250 million. This is the guy the Republicans have made chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He says he’s going to run scores of investigations of the Obama Administration.

  3. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    There is NO Constitutional provision for a member of Congress being incapacitated. Nor is there a provision for replacement.

    A member must resign, die, be legally expelled or voted out.

  4. GROG says:

    DC,

    That’s humerous considering we have a Treasury Secretary who’s a tax cheat.

    Did you know the charges against Issa were dismissed in 1980 due to lack of evidence in 1980?

  5. GROG says:

    Let me rephrase:

    Did you know the charges against Issa were dismissed in 1980 due to lack of evidence?

  6. mclever says:

    With regard to GG (may she recover quickly and fully), my understanding is that should she remain incapacitated, then her district goes without representation until the next election. Same if someone gets a debilitating illness. If they don’t resign or die, then they’re still the Rep, no matter how incapable they are of fulfilling their duties.

  7. Monotreme says:

    Ecce Tea Party.

  8. filistro says:

    You are cooking something that requires you to bring a quart of water to a full boil in saucepan. Is it more environmentally responsible to:

    a.) run the tap water until very hot so it will boil more quickly, thus wasting water

    or

    b.) use cold water, thus requiring more heating time on the stove

    Please rush responses. I have 5o bucks riding on this 🙂

  9. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG

    That’s not the whole truth. Here’s the New Yorker article:

    Three accusations of car theft over a period of a decade.
    One insurance company strongly suspicious of arson for profit. The insurance company refused to pay the claim.
    One CONVICTION, plea deal down to possession of an unregistered weapon, paid fine and sentenced to probation.
    One incident of leaving the scene of an accident.
    Admits in the article to hindering an investigation by covering up for his brother.

    As Issa himself says in the article: “Everyone has a past”.
    Publicly admitted he

  10. Monotreme says:

    @fili:

    Depends on the efficiency of the water heater vs. pot on stove. I would say it’s very likely that the pot on stove is more efficient; as you say, the efficiency of the hot water heater is reduced by cold water in delivery pipes, and by the time between when it’s heated and when you draw it (i.e. it cools off and has to be reheated periodically).

  11. filistro says:

    Thanks Treme (and Max)

    a.) was my pick.. and the agreement is we will go with the consensus of opinion here, because this is a group of Very Smart People. So far I’m up 50 bucks.

    Love it 🙂

    Treme, since you’re here, I wanted to ask you about something that’s been really bothering me. On CNN last week, Sanjay Gupta discussed Giffords’ condition and showed a facsimile of the large rounded section of skull (about the size of my palm) that had been removed above her brain to allow for swelling. He said the skull would have to be “re-implanted” and this would happen in “surgery at some later date.”

    I haven’t heard of any surgery she’s undergone except for bone chips in the eye socket. So… is she being transported across the country with the top of her head missing? Please tell me this is not happening. I can’t bear to think of it.

  12. Monotreme says:

    @fili:

    Not missing. They remove the skull to allow for brain swelling, but they most likely have put back the leathery dura mater, which covers and protects the brain. It lies between the skull and the brain itself.

    Then, over the dura, they replace the flap of scalp. So there are two layers covering the brain: the dura and the skin. It has to be that way to avoid infections.

    The bone is stored for a time, then it can be replaced when all danger of brain swelling is past. They won’t mention this, but they also leave it off so that if they need to re-gain access to the brain for further surgeries, they can do that without additional trauma.

    If the bone won’t or can’t regrow, then they will outfit her with a plastic plate to mimic the shape and function of the skull.

  13. Brian says:

    @fili,

    There’s something called the Mpemba effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect), where hot water actually freezes faster than cold water. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of the reverse in heating water, but it’s something to consider.

  14. mclever says:

    Filistro,

    I agree with our resident scientists, heating a smaller amount of water on the stove is likely more efficient than waiting for hot enough water from the water heater.

    Furthermore, given that particulates and contaminants are generally more solvent in hotter water, it would probably be healthier to start with cold water from the tap, because it will have less of whatever trace pollutants your local water supply might have.

    So, healthier AND more environmentally sound!

    🙂

  15. filistro says:

    Thanks Treme. That’s a bit comforting, but I still feel uneasy.

    So what Giffords now has, in essence, is a very large fontanelle like a baby does? I was always alarmed by the “soft spot” on my babies’ heads. It was such a stark reminder of the extreme fragility of life, and a huge relief when it filled in and hardened…

    What’s your best guess about the degree of function she will have? Having spent the past ten years helping to care for a little boy who has a hypoxic birth injury that hardly even shows up on MRI (it’s a “slight shadow ” on the basal ganglia) and yet he is massively, heartbreakingly disabled… I can’t believe the kind of progress Gaby Giffords is making.

    I guess much of the outer cortex is just spare storage for some time in the future when we are much, much smarter?

  16. filistro says:

    @Brian… There’s something called the Mpemba effect

    I know. That experiment was actually conducted at our house a couple of years ago with thermometers, stop watches and close supervision. So I can confirm that hot water does, indeed, freeze faster than cold water. I lost money on that one (which I mistakenly thought was a no-brainer… 😦 ) I’m hoping to recoup my losses today.

  17. shortchain says:

    filistro,

    You’ve given insufficient information to answer the question:
    1) do you have a water softener? In that case, DO NOT USE HOT WATER for cooking, tea, or coffee.
    2) is your water heater electric? What about your stovetop?
    3) do you have one of those recirculators (not that uncommon these days) that give instant hot water?

  18. dcpetterson says:

    On heating water, it also helps f you cover the pot. Then less heat escapes, more is kept in the water, and it comes to a boil faster and more efficiently.

  19. filistro says:

    shortchain…

    1.) no water softener

    2.) water in condo building is heated by natural gas boiler. Stove is electric.

    3.) no instant hot water

  20. Monotreme says:

    @fili:

    I think the picture that has been painted of Congresswoman Gifford’s recovery is far too rosy.

    There was a doctor on NPR’s All Things Considered yesterday who was very realistic, I think. I am in between things and don’t have the link at hand, but you should be able to find it on their website with a little searching.

    On the plus side, if the unnamed rehab center in Houston is the Texas Institute for Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR), it’s the best in the world. I used to work with them extensively and they’re absolutely tops.

  21. Monotreme says:

    The Mpemba effect has caught me short, too, but like the rest of you, I’ve seen it happen so there you are.

  22. shortchain says:

    filistro,

    In that case, you’ll probably get the least power usage by turning on the hot water, turning on the stovetop, and then, when the stovetop is hot (which takes minutes for many electrics) putting the warm water on the stove.

    Natural gas is more “green” than conventional electric stovetop heating. Electric stoves waste significant energy heating up the element (as well as the container), and then waste more during cool-down. (I’m assuming you have a conventional electric stove with the usual coiled elements, not an induction model.)

    It would probably be even better to use a pyrex container and put it in the microwave. Go with cold water, in that case, unless it’s already warm from something else.

  23. filistro says:

    shortchain… that’s all good advice, but I need to know… who wins the money?

  24. fili, it is definitely more efficient to heat the water on the stove, no matter what kind of water heater you have. Here’s a proof:

    Let’s say it takes X amount of energy to heat the pot to boiling. What’s important is that the water is a constant temp as it enters the house, so whether you heat the water through your water heater first or if you heat it solely on the stove it will take X amount of energy to get a single pot of water to boiling.

    So, if it takes X amount of energy to heat the pot to boiling we can either:

    1) Use the stove to produce ALL X energy required to heat the pot or
    2) Use our water heater to produce Y energy and then use the stove to produce X – Y energy + water down the drain.

    Option 2 is obviously more wasteful.

    There could also be an argument that a water heater is less efficient than a stove top because the water heater must heat 40 gallons+ while the stove top concentrates on the only water you actually need ‘hot’.

  25. shortchain says:

    filistro,

    I’m sorry. I can’t answer without doing the experiment with the equipment in question. I can answer it for my home, having done the experiment — stove top all the way (natural gas in both stove and hot water heater, old pipes, it’s no contest). You can get some information here to help you win the bet.

    On average, heating the water totally on the stove-top is probably the way to go — but not always.

  26. SC, I cannot think of a scenario where that would not be true. Maybe one of those condo inline heaters and an electric stove, but even then I would be surprised if it took significantly more energy than a gas stove, at least enough to justify the water loss.

  27. filistro says:

    I guess, when forced to think this heating-the-saucepan thing all the way through, it’s really unanswerable, isn’t it? It’s truly apples and oranges. Because while, as shortchain points out, you can quantify the amount of heat required for water-heater vs stove-top, you can’t really measure the value of the water that’s wasted since it differs form place to place.

    On a vast global scale I think potable water is actually more valuable than fossil fuel since humanity can survive without the latter, but not the former.

  28. filistro says:

    Nate’s site at the NYT has posted a grand total of 80 comments in the LAST WEEK… about 10 per day.

    Do they want to shut down comments over there altogether? What’s going on, anybody have an idea? It seems very odd. You’d think a lively public response to a blog is something to encourage. I know Nate used to feed off the comments section and get ideas for new posts from the feedback. It amazes me they’re so careless about posting comments. Several days lately they haven’t put up any at all.

  29. filistro,
    The answer to your bet depends, as so many things do, on other data not supplied in your question.

    For example, is the water heater gas or electric? What about the stove? Are you heating the water on the stove with the lid on or off? If either heat source is electric, how is the electricity generated?

    There are other variables as well, but that’s a good start. 🙂

  30. electrovibe11,

    at least enough to justify the water loss.

    What water loss?

  31. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    If the incoming cold water is 55 deg F and the usual water heater setting is 130 deg F.

    To heat cold water in the saucepan will require a delta T of 157 deg.
    To heat preheated water will only require a delta T of82 deg.

    The incoming water (1 pint, 2 pints?) into the typical 40 – 50 gal water heater will have a minimal temperature dilution of that mass. For a well insulated WH and a relatively short run from WH to faucet, same energy source, “a” should be the answer.

    On hot water freezing faster than cold: How does that theory violate Newton’s Law of Cooling to occur. What’s the delta T between the “hot” and the “cold” water at time=0?

    Hmmm?

  32. shiloh says:

    It is interesting both Issa and boxing promoter Don King are born in Ohio, coinkydink 😛 you decide. Indeed, as Ohio has a history of notorious/infamous scumbags ie San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre ~ James Oliver Huberty, Canton, OH so yea, the first reported goin’ postal maniac from Ohio.

    Jeffrey Dahmer, grew up in Bath, OH and former Ohio governor Robert Alphonso “Bob” Taft II grew up in Cincinnati Taft’s approval rating bottomed out at (((6.5 %))), according to a late November 2005 poll by Zogby, giving him quite possibly the lowest polled approval rating ever by a United States politician. Ohioans, once again, standing tall w/both Jeffrey and Alphonso!

    Now of course, we have our current governor Kasich and Speaker boehner to carry on Ohio’s proud tradition of shysterism/criminals.

    btw, King was a Kent State dropout, much like my sister who both went on to bigger and better things as King would say ~ Only in America! er Ohio …

    >

    Sadly, on a related note, Michigan just hired a football coach who was born in Ohio like “Bo” so now they have a chance to start winning lol. hmm, would Ohio State ever hire a football coach from Michigan ~ Rhetorical question! Trivia: Ohio State’s 2002 national champs had (1) player on their team from MI ~ quarterback Craig Krenzel.

    Coincidentally, George Armstrong Custer can claim both MI and OH.

    >

    Having previously apologized for everything Bartles said or will say at 538, let me do the same w/Issa ie apologize for all his former/future shortcomings! and of course to kasich/boehner/issa ~ Where are the frickin’ jobs!

    p.s. the list of famous/historical folk from OH is too numerous to mention …

    God bless America! ~ Don King

  33. filistro says:

    @Michael.. What water loss?

    You have to run the water for quite a long time to get hot water before putting the saucepan on the stove (especially if you live on teh top floor of your condo ;-))

    The waste water you run down the sink in the process has to be weighed against the environmental impact of using the burner for a longer time.

    That’s the essence of the question.

  34. dcpetterson says:

    It’s an old saying — we have the best politicians money can buy.

    The new Republican leaders in the House have received millions of dollars in fresh contributions from banks, health insurers and other major business interests, which are pressing for broad reversals of Democratic policies that affect corporations, according to disclosure records and interviews.

    The terrible Citizens United decision is now encouraging the purchase of elections. We’ll see in 2012 if The People are stupid enough to fall for it.

  35. shiloh says:

    Again, America survives despite itself …

    You bet’cha!

  36. Bart DePalma says:

    Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Three accusations of car theft over a period of a decade.
    One insurance company strongly suspicious of arson for profit. The insurance company refused to pay the claim.
    One CONVICTION, plea deal down to possession of an unregistered weapon, paid fine and sentenced to probation.
    One incident of leaving the scene of an accident.
    Admits in the article to hindering an investigation by covering up for his brother.

    Keeping folks from proceeding on accusations rather than facts is probably the primary challenge facing we defense attorneys.

    Accusations are not evidence. Americans are supposed to assume the accused is innocent until evidence beyond a reasonable doubt convinces then otherwise. No evidence here.

    Entering into a plea is often done for the convenience of the defendant to avoid the cost of trial and the possibility of conviction, even if the defendant believes that he or she is not guilty. The fact that the defendant entered a guilty rather than a no contests plea can also be misleading because many DAs often refuse to make an offer with a no contest plea.

    Finally, insurers deny property claims where the evidence is inconclusive to order to avoid payouts. Having an attorney goes a long way to making an insurer see the light.

    Sounds like the New Yorker is using the usual progressive attack the messenger strategy (very familiar to the posters here) to distract from stench that will surge out when Issa opens the Obama Administration trash cans.

    Another GOP committee chair has just demanded HHS provide its rules (if any) and its basis for providing the 212 waivers from Obamacare regs while denying others. While they wait for the lawyered answers to that demand, the committee may want to check out the campaign contributions/work and public positions on Obamacare of the companies allowed to skate and those who were punished. That is the Chicago way.

  37. shiloh says:

    Bartles please, an entire diatribe apologizing for slimeball issa ~ too funny.

    hmm, would you do the same for Ted Kennedy at Chappaquiddick ~ Rhetorical question.

    apologies to slimeballs …

  38. dcpetterson says:

    Barted:
    Entering into a plea ….

    … means the defendant is found guilty.

    Americans are supposed to assume the accused is innocent until evidence beyond a reasonable doubt convinces then otherwise. ….
    and yet:
    … stench that will surge out when Issa opens the Obama Administration trash cans.

    It’s nice when you contradict yourself in a single post. Saves us the chore of assembling quotes from multiple posts.

  39. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    barted: “Accusations are not evidence. Americans are supposed to assume the accused is innocent until evidence beyond a reasonable doubt convinces then otherwise. No evidence here.

    Kerrect!!!!

    Nor did I speak of Mr Issa’s guilt or innocence, only stated information previously confirmed by Mr Issa. But THREE accusations over a ten year period and in separate geographical locations is a LOT of smoke even if the fire was not proved.

    “Accusations are not evidence.” Isn’t that the same thing John Gotti used to say while he was still an innocent man?

  40. Mr. Universe says:

    I posited that putting hot water in the freezer cauzsed it to kick on quickly thereby freezing the water faster. I’m open to more scientific explanations.

  41. dcpetterson says:

    Warmer water is less dense than cooler water. Therefore, one liter of warm water contains less water (by weight) than one liter of cold water. Thus, depending on actual volume and temperature differential, it would take less energy to cool it; and, being both less dense and having less mass, the heat might be released from warmer water faster than from cooler water.

    Once the warm water has cooled to the same temperature as the cooler water, it will physically occupy less space (because it will have increased in density as it cools). If both samples of water are in similar containers, this means the initially-warmer water will have greater surface area in relation to volume (both containers presumably expose the same amount of surface, whereas one sample now has smaller volume); the initially-warmer water thus will continue to release heat faster than the other sample of water.

  42. shortchain says:

    filistro,

    If the cost of things such as electricity, gas, and water, reflected their environmental cost, we could answer your question without much difficulty. However, that’s not the case, due to significant subsidies. Ah, well, we can carry on.

    In terms of cost, the cost of water is perhaps .2c/gal . If you ran 2 gallons, you would use .4 cents worth.

    For the natural gas stovetop (which you don’t have), a medium burner is about 10,000BTU/hr, and it takes about 3 minutes to boil a quart of water, for a cost of about .4 cents (using the average cost of natural gas in the USA).

    For the electric stove top, I don’t really know how long it takes to boil a quart of water on your stove. Assuming it takes 5 minutes (which is probably a lower bound), and assuming the average cost of electricity, you are looking about .7 cents.

    Now, if you use pre-heated water, the cost for the natural gas version goes down by a factor that is (212-inputTemp)/(212-50) (assuming the input temperature of the water is 50 degrees out of the tap). For the electric version, this does not hold, as the thermal element (and don’t forget the pan) has significant thermal mass relative to the quart of water. It would probably shave a little time off the requirement, but not much. Also, the thermal element would first have to be raised to the water temperature, and it would probably cool the water down before they found equilibrium and started back up.

    And, of course, the costs don’t actually reflect the environmental costs of these things. Water, being renewable, is over-priced relative to the others, and natural gas is under-priced, being that it’s largely a by-product of looking for oil…

  43. shiloh says:

    Just the obvious:

    Reps always look soooo frickin’ angry/disgruntled ie they just won, as Bartles keeps tellin’ us, a historic congressional mid-term …

    and yet

    and yet

    and yet

    boehner/cantor/bachmann/blackburn/ryan et al wingers always look like someone stole their puppy! 😛

    ok, ok, bachmann has that permanent Stepford Wife er space cadet look lol

    btw, ryan gives the State of the Union rebuttal, soooo hopefully he does a tad better than jindal ~ low expectations, eh.

    Obama ~ hopeful, empathetic, intelligent, presidential etc.

    ryan ~ the sky is fallin’ ~ hell no, you can’t ie 100% negativity …

    That’s the ticket!

  44. shiloh says:

    hmm, giving Reps the benefit of the doubt 😉 after America elected a bi-racial, African/American Muslim born in Kenya the 44th President of the United States of America conservatives/Bartles entire world collapsed before their very eyes …

    And their road to recovery has been rather bumpy/whiny/angry ie deleterious!

  45. The waste water you run down the sink in the process has to be weighed against the environmental impact of using the burner for a longer time.

    The stove top burner may be used for a longer time, but we would also be using pre-warmed water that has already used gas/electricity to warm it up already or at the very least we would need to count the energy needed to warm up cooled water after using the hot water out of the tap.

    I still believe that since we’re talking such a small difference (if any) between heating on a stove or heating in your water heater that the only real difference between the two methods is the amount of water used and the energy difference between the two methods of heating are negligible.

  46. filistro,

    The waste water you run down the sink in the process has to be weighed against the environmental impact of using the burner for a longer time.

    Ahh, so it’s not about the preheat vs. new heat so much as it’s about wasting water. On that front, if the use of “preheated” water includes dumping whatever was already in the pipes, all the way back to a water heater several floors away, the stove is the way to go, period…assuming that they’re using a municipal water supply.

  47. shortchain,

    Water, being renewable, is over-priced relative to the others

    Au contraire, mon frere. While it’s true that water is renewable, it is not being renewed at anywhere near the rate that it’s currently being consumed. Thus, in any practical sense, it is as underpriced as fossil fuels.

  48. shortchain says:

    Michael,

    In some locales what you say is true. In others, such as where filistro (and I) live, our water comes from surface sources. Renewable, IOW.

    ‘Course it’s fluoridated, de-algaed, and sent through aging cast-iron pipes.

    That’s why, Mandrake, I only drink distilled water or rainwater.

  49. shiloh says:

    Paul Ryan’s Plan for Millionaires’ Gain and Middle-Class Pain … The ‘Ryan Roadmap’ leads to an entitlement raid and middle-class tax hikes in order to enrich the wealthy

    1. The Ryan Roadmap raises taxes on Americans making between $20,000 and $200,000 while slashing taxes in half for the wealthiest Americans.

    2. The Ryan Roadmap replaces corporate taxation with a regressive consumption tax.

    3. The Ryan Roadmap places the entire burden of deficit reduction on spending cuts.

    4. The Ryan Roadmap dismantles Medicare and Medicaid, defunding important social
    programs without addressing the rising cost of health care throughout the economy.

    5. The Ryan Roadmap cuts benefits and partially privatizes Social Security without improving retirement security.
    ~~~~

    An ideological attack on the safety net

    “The Ryan Roadmap suggests that America’s benefit programs – particularly Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – have spawned a society in which self-reliance is a vice and dependency a virtue. But programs like Social Security and Medicare are meant to pool risks for all Americans against either market failures or economic uncertainty, and they ensure a greater level of dignity and health in retirement. Seeing no value in these important programs, the Roadmap exploits the nation’s long-term fiscal challenge in an effort to dismantle them.

    The Ryan Roadmap proposes turning the clock back to a time before the country prioritized access to health care and retirement security, and before there was a robust middle class. Ryan suggests a tradeoff in which social insurance programs would be dismantled to finance tax cuts for millionaires and the elimination of corporate taxes. Our fiscal challenges don’t require sacrificing the middle class; they require everyone – especially corporations and wealthy individuals – to pay their fair share of taxes.

    Where would the Ryan Roadmap lead America? A long tradition of progressive taxation would be abandoned; millionaires and Wall Street bankers would pay significantly lower tax rates than middle-class workers. Roughly three-quarters of Americans would face tax increases while millionaires would see their taxes fall by more than half. Corporations’ profits would surge as the corporate income tax would be eliminated and replaced with a regressive consumption tax. Income inequality would soar. These giveaways to corporations and wealthy individuals would in turn require drastic cuts to the social insurance programs and public investments supporting the middle class.

    The Roadmap abandons the commitments made to all Americans over the past century by cutting away large swathes of the social safety net. It would replace Medicare with a voucher of ever-diminishing purchasing power. Health care costs would continue to spiral out of control, and insurers could continue their predatory practices. Health care coverage would no longer be guaranteed for retirees. More and more low-income American children would go without health care. Costs would be shifted from the federal budget to consumers, businesses, and states, while the problems in the health system would remain unaddressed. State budget crises would intensify, requiring more tax increases or benefit cuts that would further weaken a middle class already under assault. Social Security would cease to be a universal social
    insurance program: most retirees would see steep benefit cuts; partial privatization would require massive bailouts to the trust fund, risking even bigger benefit cuts; and
    seniors would experience growing retirement insecurity and expensive or inadequate health care coverage.

    These are all unacceptable policy outcomes. The Ryan Roadmap sharply veers from the American values of fairness, financial security, and dignity in old age. The nation’s long-term fiscal challenges require a modernized tax code that equitability raises more revenue, targeted spending cuts that don’t undermine the middle class, and reforms that slow health care cost growth throughout the economy. The Roadmap proposes precisely the opposite. The Ryan Roadmap leads to an entitlement raid, not balanced deficit reduction, and in doing so would turn the clock back on the social progress made since the Great Depression.”
    ~~~~~

    So let’s recap, shall we:

    Ryan is one of Bartles’ all-time heroes lol along w/cut and run Dutch of course.

    hmm, Bartles heroes: palin, boehner, cantor, bachmann, limbo, billo, beck, hannity, cheney/bush, bush41, breitbart 😉 coulter, savage, levin, o’donnell, angle, buck, perry, sanford, ensign, vitter, mark foley, rand paul, joe miller, joe wilson, jan America’s sweetheart brewer, etc. etc.

    My heroes: Jessie Owens, Jackie Robinson, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Raoul Wallenberg, Muhammad Ali, Bill Russell, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, Churchill …

    “the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in great moral crises maintain their neutrality”

  50. Number Seven says:

    Shortchain, great line from a great movie. Don’t forget the pure grain alcohol 🙂

  51. Bartbuster says:

    hmm, Bartles heroes: palin, boehner, cantor, bachmann, limbo, billo, beck, hannity, cheney/bush, bush41, breitbart coulter, savage, levin, o’donnell, angle, buck, perry, sanford, ensign, vitter, mark foley, rand paul, joe miller, joe wilson, jan America’s sweetheart brewer, etc. etc.

    The worst collection of scum and villainy in the galaxy…

  52. shiloh says:

    The worst collection of scum and villainy in the galaxy…

    Was being sarcastic, but yea lol although Klingons/Romulans can be nasty as well.

    May the force be w/you … always

  53. Mr. Universe says:

    Nate does a poll comparison between 1995 and now. Will the Republicans do the Government shutdown dance again?

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/will-it-be-1995-all-over-again/#more-5367

  54. mclever says:

    Mr. U,

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the Republicans try the shut-down dance, but just like last time, they’ll boogie themselves right off the stage…

    Shut downs sound great to conservatives in theory. But when they really happen, people don’t like it, because they suddenly get a very harsh reminder of all the things the government actually does for their benefit. I don’t want a shut down, because too many people will suffer for it. But if Republicans go that route, they’d only shoot themselves in the foot.

  55. dcpetterson says:

    I heard on the radio today — After President Obama’s State of the Union address next Tuesday, Paul Ryan is doing the Republican rebuttal. Nothing unusual there (but note, I suspect this means Ryan intends to run for President). What is unusual, is that there will be a second rebuttal, this one by Michelle Bachmann for the Tea Party.

    How’s that for audacity and ludicrous self-aggrandizement?

    Bear in mind, Ryan was one of the first to say “No!” to Bachmann, when she tried to demand a leadership position in the 112th Congress. So I honestly don’t know if she’s going to be rebutting Obama or Ryan — or both. It will be very interesting to see for which one she reserves to worst of her crazy.

    A year from now, we could recognize this as a Tea Party Declaration, which could escalate into a full-scale revolt — against the Republicans. Get out the popcorn.

  56. shiloh says:

    Every time Bachmann opens her mouth she rebuts herself!

    Just sayin’ as it’s all good …

  57. Mainer says:

    Every time I hear Bachmann speak it maes me wonder if perhaps Darwin was wrong.

    I think Ryan has been running but trying not to be a lightening rod. Odd thing is he would like to be the thinking Republicans salvation and tries to come across all policy boy and it sounds really sharp until you thin for about 8 seconds and realize the numbers are all bullshit and his ideas would pretty much destroy what is left of the American middle class.

    I am curious how Bachmann got this gig. She gets to rebut for a party that isn’t a party? Am I missing some thing here?

    Would some one kindly explain to me what they think the end game is for the conservatives. After they have made sure the rich have all the money and have wrecked all the social safety nets, destroyed the environment and ensured rule by corporation………what then? Do they beleive they will all be brought to the new gated American living centers to bask in the glow of the new masters or what? Serfs and peons can be very difficult to rule for when people have nothing more to lose they are much more likely to gamble it all to get back what has been taken from them.

  58. dcpetterson says:

    Just learned Olbermann’s Countdown is going off the air — farewell Keith! We’ll miss you!

  59. dcpetterson says:

    @Mainer

    Good question about conservative endgame. I have no idea.

    The better question is, Why do so many non-rich people buy their nonsense? They’re killing themselves.

  60. shiloh says:

    Yea, no fanfare, just a thank you for all his supporters and the folk who donated to the free clinics, etc. ~ very strange, so obviously folk at MSNBC are very good at keeping a secret, eh.

    hmm, as Keith would say, Time marches on … One would think he has some sort of future plans, back to sports maybe ?!?

    Breaking, Laura Ingraham is replacing Keith ~ j/k ~ we need more pundits!

  61. Mr. Universe says:

    Damn it! Olbermann just got canned. I guess it’s no surprise. I’d heard Comcast wanted to Lean Backwards.

  62. shiloh says:

    Keith’s goodbye!

    One of my fav’s: Countdown 05/01/07 ~ Mission Accomplished!!! ~ Bogaucity!

    Wishing Keith fair winds and following seas …

  63. dcpetterson says:

    I hear — rumor only — Comcast and NBC merged. Comcast doesn’t like the leftie slant of MSNBC and is about to kill both Countdown and Maddow’s show. We’ll be left with FOX.

  64. Number Seven says:

    Keith is off the air??? How ironic, GE buys Comcast and one of the best voices of progressives gets canned.

    Well folks. I know you guys disagree with FDL but, playing nice with this crap is over for me. I think I am going to buy me my first gun.

    Enough is enough.

  65. Mainer says:

    Oh yeah that sound like a great business plan. Lets see we want to be like Fox……I’m guessing every thing but Morning Joe will go and then they will figure out that people that are adicted to Fox will still be watching Fox and they will have booted what ratings they had. Or maybe they could become the Teachannel or maybe Freeper toons. We will be more Fox than Fox……more cowbell and less sense. I was going to maybe get rid of my sat system that shold about cinch it.

  66. Number Seven says:

    What more will it take before Ed and Rachel are ‘cancelled’

    Wake up people, it is time for our own second amendment solutions.

    Be seeing you….

  67. shiloh says:

    Well, if MSNBC goes right we’re talkin’ fixednoise retreads lol ie Michelle Malkin, Laurie Dhue, John Gibson, etc. and fixednoise will have competition, eh. Oh the humanity!

    hmm, a pissing contest between (2) ad nauseam minutiae winger cable news media networks … Let the games begin 😛

    btw, Rachel is on HBO’s Real Time tonight w/Bill Maher ..

  68. Brian says:

    Just wanted to point out 2 things,

    1- “… very special level of Hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater.” Bonus points if you guys can recognize the quote. Not sure if I should expect y’all to or not, since you’re all quite bright, but still 10-40+ years older than me.

    2- Antonin Scalia is going to speak to the Tea Party Caucus. While I’m sure the Tea Party will downplay this, I am equally sure if Sotomayor spoke to the Latino Caucus (if it exists), there would be far more uproar.

  69. shiloh says:

    Soooo, MSNBC just canceled its highest rated show as the powers that be must be former members of cheney/bush’s economic team!

    New MSNBC lineup: 6pm Cenk Unger, 7pm Hardball, 8pm Lawrence O’Donnell, 9pm Rachel Maddow, 10pm Ed Schultz.

    (2) :::zzzz::: (1) whiner (2) intelligent liberal advocates ie Rachel/O’Donnell as MSNBC goes rogue 😀

  70. dcpetterson says:

    Brian —1 — Shepherd Book. Firefly. Our Mrs. Reynolds

  71. Number Seven says:

    This whole thing reminds me of the movie , The Year of Living Dangerously, when Billy Quan faces the reality of what his hero, Sakurno, has become. His first and last act of defiance results in his being tossed out from a twenty story building after unrolling a scroll from the window pointing the lies his former hero had promoted.

    You folks who still believe in Obama being some sort of solution to the decades long problems created by the right wing have the same lesson to learn.

    Please excuse me from my rant, I am already crying. If Olbermann gives up, what are the rest of us expected to do?

  72. filistro says:

    @#7…

    C’mon dear, come down from the ledge. Just climb down, that’s a dear. Besides, you look silly with that gun, you’re much too smart.

    Now, pay attention… YOU ARE WINNING.

    Do you hear me? This president has taken all the slime and crap they can throw at him for 2 years, and weathered the worst recession in a century, and his numbers have rebounded to above 50% . Meanwhile, the Republicans in congress have approval levels lower than a snake’s belly.

    THEY CAN’T BEAT YOU. All the combined efforts of FOX, Rush, Hannity, Malkin, Drudge, the Tea Party, nasty hateful Palin, Bachmann, Beck and other assorted crazies have been unable to stand against the simple decency and common sense of the president and the progressive view of government. Progressives are the majority. They are winning. In fact, they have already won. They need only keep doing what they are doing, and the country will be behind them all the way.

    I have always had faith in the wisdom and good sense of the American people. They can tell who is sincere, and who really has their best interests at heart. They are speaking loudly in every poll. They don’t like the GOP agenda for their country, and they are rejecting it with great firmness. The haters and jingoists and bigots are dying out and being replaced by a younger, smarter, more compassionate populace.

    As for you… you are Sir Galahad. Your mantra …if you remember any of the Tennyson they forced you to take in school…

    “My strength is as the strength of ten, because my heart is pure.”

    And thats’ why you are winning… and why you need not ever stoop to their tactics. Because you are right.

  73. dcpetterson says:

    filistro —

    Yes. Just yes.

  74. Number Seven says:

    Fili, god help me, I so want to believe you, I really do. But they can beat us. If Olbermann can call is quits, what more can I do? What more can I do?

    I am so fucking scared that the Barts of this world can win.

    I seriously feel like Billy Quan at this point. One last act of defiance….

    I do thank you for trying to talk me down. But in the Village, we are all pawns. I don’t feel like I am winning anything except the next choice of torture. Drugs? Sex? Hypnosis? Isolation?

    My name comes from the old BBC series, The Prisoner. RIP Patrick McGoohan

    I am not a number, I am a free man….

    And all I can hear is the Barts of this world laughing…..

  75. Mainer says:

    Don’t know why but I suspect we have not seen the last of Keith. I keep thinking that the time is ripe for some one like Keith to bypass the broadcast waves entirely and go straight to all net trasmission. That said I don’t even know if it is technologically possible but I’m guessing it might work. A combination of advertisers and subscription fees maybe to support it. Maybe a Soros or some one like him would do it as an experiment.

    I suspect Keith is fine financially but when some thing like this happens there are many support staff that got axed tonight as well and I doubt they are in near as good shape and surely will not find work with what remains on the air. Yup another fine example of the librul controled media.

    Control what people hear and see. Lie to get what you want. Propaganda as a party plank hell the Republicans missed a golden chance. They could have replaced Steele with Frank Luntz and save a ton of money. If Luntz ever gets a conscience and walks people like Barthole will be mutes.

  76. Bart DePalma says:

    Fili:

    When CNN asked: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?” Americans said they approved by a margin of 53% to 45%.

    Yet when CNN asked: “Do you consider the first two years of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?” Americans considered it a failure by a margin of 48% to 45%

    Fox found the same dichotomy –

    Approval of Obama’s job performance stands at 47 percent, up from 40 percent in December. The last time approval of the president was this high was late June 2010 (also 47 percent approval). The new poll found 44 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing.

    BUT…

    By a 51-42 percent margin, more voters say they would vote for someone else if the 2012 presidential election were held today than would support re-election of President Obama.

    Translation: Barry, we like you personally, but you are a disaster area as President.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/20/fox-news-poll-obama-falling-expectations-year-mark/#ixzz1BjXHlUke

  77. dcpetterson says:

    You believe FOX? C’mon.

    The first two years ddn’t go well BECAUSE THERE ARE REPUBLICANS IN OUR GOVERNMENT.

    Seriously, Bart. Get a clue.

  78. Bart DePalma says:

    Olby has quit MSNBC? Well, when you can’t outdraw Greta van Sustren in the ratings…

    Maybe CBS News could use another Dem propagandist.

  79. mclever says:

    Brian,

    You should expect Mr. Universe to get your “very special level of Hell” quote… There are quite a few Firefly fans in here. 🙂

    dcpetterson already gave the correct answer, so I won’t bother repeating.

  80. mclever says:

    @filistro,

    You sure know how to make a liberal’s heart go pitter pat. Never lose your optimism and faith.

    🙂

  81. mostlyilurk says:

    Very, very well said, Filistro.

  82. Bart DePalma says:

    dcpetterson says: You believe FOX? C’mon.

    Seriously, can any of you conduct an argument without beginning by killing the messenger? Any of you at all? Well, maybe Michael.

  83. Mr. Universe says:

    “… very special level of Hell. A level they reserve for child molesters and people who talk at the theater.”

    “Preacher, you got a smutty mind.”

    Not very fair of me to play given my moniker.

  84. Mr. Universe says:

    @#7

    Do not despair. Keith and Rachel aren’t going away. It’s Comcast that is making the change. We all suspected they wanted to cash in on Murdoch’s viewers. Lean Backwards is the new motto.

    The message has to remain constant and firm. Only the medium has changed. Do not turn to the dark side (forgive me for the science fiction metaphors). If you do, they win.

    That’s why there are websites like this because the signal is out there…and we go everywhere.

  85. Number Seven says:

    Mr U, I hope you are right, er, I mean correct but I will put up $50 right now, for anyone willing to wager against me that within one year, of this exact date, either Rachel or Ed will no longer be on MSNBC.

    With only a part time job and living off of my fathers SS check, I have nothing to lose. If anyone wants to take this up, I authorize Mr U to tell them my e-mail.

    Be seeing you 😉

  86. Mr. Universe says:

    Also, the filter kicks comments to my mailbox that have key words in them. Including your last two. You self edited one. I feel your frustration but I can’t allow the second comment.

  87. filistro says:

    Well… the gossip I hear is that Keith didn’t “call it quits”… he simply refused to budge in contract talks. Word is that he has something very lucrative he is considering, and it must have come together in recent weeks for him to let go of his current gig.

    I think Keith is a VERY smart man, and realizes we are reaching the sell-by date for furious on-air commentary. FOX has made it old-hat. You can only be outraged for so long and then calling each other stinky poopy-heads starts to look ho-hum and kind of silly. I think there is a growing hunger in the viewing public for real news and analysis. The pendulum is swinging back to seriousness, and smart on-air personalities are trying to get ahead of the curve.

    Keith is just the first. We will see more in coming months. The startling fall of FOX news has created a shift in the entire broadcast world. Nobody wants to follow them down the tubes, so everybody is casting around for a new tone… a “not-FOX” kind of vibe.

    We’re going to see a lot more “fair and balanced” news reporting in the next two years.

    The Day Of The Grownup is at hand… and about time, too.

  88. shiloh says:

    Bartles again really/truly/sincerely 😛 ~ feel free to stop obsessing about Obama at any time … or not.

    Re: Keith let me comment on Bart’s bottom line as Olbermann made more $$$ in one year than Bartles will make in his lifetime! ie Keith got paid to make fun of er tell the truth about cheney/bush er wingers lol ~ is this a great country or what!

    btw again, The Beverly Hillbillies was the highest rated tv show in the early ’60s ~ ok, ok fixednoise is almost as funny as ‘The Beverly Hillbillies’ but, but, but fixed may have better actors … you bet’cha!

    WWE RAW ratings are higher than fixednoise ~ ‘nuf said!

    take care

  89. Number Seven says:

    I hope you are all correct on this. I really do. No prob on the editing, Mr U. Just wanted to add, if you share my e-mail with any gamesters, I get theirs also.

  90. dcpetterson says:

    Be seeing you

    One of the best shows ever. Just sayin’.

  91. shiloh says:

    fili ~ FOX has made it old-hat. You can only be outraged for so long and then calling each other stinky poopy-heads starts to look ho-hum and kind of silly. I think there is a growing hunger in the viewing public for real news and analysis. The pendulum is swinging back to seriousness, and smart on-air personalities are trying to get ahead of the curve.

    Totally disagree as just mentioned WWE Raw ratings are higher than fixed ie over the top outrageousness sells er beck/billo/hannity/limbo.

    Keith was entertaining and informative and again I would posit fixednoise has a very low bar as they have a ready made lowbrow audience of teabagger lemmings plus no competition … as again, most liberals like to be entertained and don’t watch any political tv cable crap.

    The #1 show on American tv is AI er reality tv and a large part of its popularity is Simon Cowell as it will interesting to see the ratings drop now that he is no longer on the show …

    Call me anything you like as long as you don’t stop talkin’ about me! 😀 Paris/Britney/Lindsay …

  92. dcpetterson says:

    Call me anything you like as long as you don’t stop talkin’ about me!

    The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about.
    Oscar Wilde

  93. MoldyMe says:

    NYT & WAPost were very coy about Keith Olbermann and whether he quit abruptly or was terminated. When I heard his comments, it seemed obvious that he was being fired. Six months of non-competition, then it will be interesting, indeed, to see his next venue. I like Lawrence O’Donnell, but it seems a shame that all MSNBC is doing is shifting shows, rather than adding another progressive voice. If Comcast moves MSNBC rightward, the voices of Rachel Maddow, et al, will show up elsewhere.

    Anyone notice that Dana Milbank has called for a Palin-free Feb and has asked others to take the pledge? Any 538refugees interested in doing likewise? After her “blood libel” comment she became a nonentity to me, period.

    Also, ps to Shiloh from a comment he made a long time ago: “May the force be with you,” indeed! Star Wars is just cowboys and Indians. Star Trek rules!

  94. Jungle Jim says:

    Number Seven: don’t get mad, get even. Re KO: this is a case of “If you can’t beat ’em, buy the company they work for and fire ’em. ” I plan to boycott MSNBC. Dcpatterson is right about Filistro being right! We ARE winning. The Rabid Right is scared to death that Sherriff BHO will be reelected in a landslide because they have no one to run. The Stimulus has worked and the economy is about to come roaring back. Its deja vu all over again. Countdown did its duty and now its time to move to the next level! Anybody know a good and reliable hacker?

  95. Number Seven says:

    I aways like the ep where Kirks long time friend, Gary Mitchell (after acheiving godlike powers) could not even get Kirks middle initial correct for the grave he dug him….. but then, HotLips was a distraction, lol 😉

    Where No Man Has Gone Before….

  96. Number Seven says:

    Sorry but when I look at nations like Tunisia, I do not think we can make major changes by beefing on the internet.

    What gun shall I buy, is the only question I want an answer to now. I already know know to make black powder, lol, thanks to Star Trek, lol.

    Sulphur, charcoal, and …..

  97. Jungle Jim says:

    That’s so 20th century. Today you can do it in your pajamas. And you don’t need saltpeter. Besides, we’ve got the President on our side. Now if we could just get the Supreme Court……..patience, my friend, time is on our side as well

  98. Number Seven says:

    I hope so, I really do…

  99. dcpetterson says:

    What gun shall I buy

    A phaser.

  100. Jungle Jim says:

    I’ve got a feeling the Right will be unable to explain why their dire predictions didn’t come true about BHO, the Stimulus, Healthcare, etc. And no one will be listening to them anymore. More importantly, I think they know it too and that’s what really scares them!

  101. shiloh says:

    MoldyMe ~ Live long and prosper …

    Re: Republicans a line from Star Trek II is relevant: You keep missing the target! Khan btw, the USN was a lot more exciting in the 22nd Century than it was in the 1970s and 80s.

    Beam me up, Scotty as there’s no intelligent life at MSNBC besides Rachel and O’Donnell

    Anchors Aweigh !!! ~ Leslie Parrish was a babe!

  102. Jungle Jim says:

    Just for the record, though, I intend to buy a gun, myself. I’m gonna need it b/c I’m gonna put a sticker on my front bumper that says “RUN SARAH, RUN!” and one on the back that says, “THE STIMULUS WORKED SO THE RIGHT WING MEDIA WAS WRONG”. We just need to turn their tactics right back on ’em. They wanna be confrontational? Let’s shove the truth down their throats every time they open their mouths. Crash their websites. Raid their bank accounts. These dinosaurs don’t know how to play in the 21st Century and they’re outmatched!

  103. Jean says:

    And on a lighter note who raised government spending faster, George W. Bush working with a Republican Congress, or President Obama working with a Democratic Congress? (Here’s a hint: conservatives won’t care for the answer.)

    A budget quiz on federal spending, budget and the deficit at

    http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/01/21/a-little-budget-quiz-on-federal-spending-budget-and-the-deficit/

  104. dcpetterson says:

    @Jean

    I don’t even have to check the link. Republicans screw the economy.

    Current Teapers will blart about Bush being too librul. But he had a whole Republican Congress. And at the time, all the people who are currently Teapers insisted that anyone who questioned Bush was anti-Amurrikun. And probably traitors.

    It never ceases to amaze me — the hypocrisy and short-term-memory-loss of modern conservatives. Oh, for an honest and true classical conservative to debate with!!!

  105. Mr. Universe says:

    Sulphur, charcoal, and …..

    Mythbusters actually debunked that episode of Star Trek. I recommend a 30.06 the next time you go Gorn hunting.

  106. Mr. Universe says:

    @#7

    I should point out that many television personalities have non-compete clauses in their contracts so it may be awhile until we see Keith again. Terms vary but it could be six months to a year and Keith may have other plans. He may think this is a perfect time to exit the stage. And everybody eventually has to. That just means the mantle has to be taken up by others. For example, Nate evolved, but we felt obligated to take up the mantle. But going agro only defeats the cause.

    And believe me, the gun may win the battle but the pen; or in this case the keyboard, wins the war.

  107. Jonathon says:

    Mr. U,

    You should be careful about using words like “gun”, “battle”, and “war”. That’s not very civil. What if a mentally unstable individual read your post?

  108. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Bart fails to mention that the Fox poll shows that Obama is rated by 2 to 1 over Boehner.

    Obama – 56%
    Boehner – 29%

    And Bart STILL hasn’t answered the dichotomy of “favorable” vs “Administration”, now that HE himself used the “Administration” term to define a Congressional action.

  109. Mr. Universe says:

    @Jonathan

    That was an admonishment that guns are not the answer not an analogy for inspiration.

  110. Mainer says:

    You should be careful about using words like “gun”, “battle”, and “war”. That’s not very civil. What if a mentally unstable individual read your post?

    Ah rats Jonathan I already saw it and was cleaning the ole smoke poles and inventorying my ammo. I’m beginning to think civil discourse may be way over rated especially if one side tried to do it for too long while the other side was over the top 24/7. I fear the damage has already been done and to now step back from he edge and try to play nice……….well the seeds of our destruction have been planted and all that remains is for one side to get to reap their crops of destruction or our side to induce crop failure.

    Don’t go for a black powder rig. To primative and too slow. 30/06 is grand. I love mine along with my Brit 303’s and my 45 ACP’s but you need to lay in a weapon that has the best supply chain and that is going to be 5.56, 762 or 9mm. Not some of the best rounds but certainly the most available. If you want to be able to in house your ammo needs then lay in a stock of once fired brass, bullets, powder and primers and get a simple reloading set. One other weapon I might add would be a 12 gauge shot gun. Those too can be reloaded at home and components are readily available.

    I have spent a bunch of time touring other sites of late and have come to the conclusion that while individual progressives probably celebrate their Mensa memberships and other progressives enjoy listening to their reasoning there sure seems to be a growing group on the right that are celebrating their Densa memberships. If any one ever wonders the value of propaganda just get out and do a blog tour. Think Barthole on steroids. Be thankful we have Grog, Mule and Parksie. Guys you may tick me off to no end but you also throw stuff in that is worthy of consideration and I wouldn’t trade you………..Barthole I’d trade you for a pair of worn out sneakers that have been used in the barn.

  111. Jungle Jim says:

    Guys, guys, we just need to use our brains here. Think like a Republican. Here’s what we do: join the Republican party, call for a circular firing squad, then duck out at the last minute and blame it all on the liberals. Simple, yes?

  112. Jungle Jim says:

    And Jonothan, that’s the dumbest comment of the last 24 hours.

  113. shortchain says:

    You cannot eradicate stupidity and ignorance with guns and violence. If we haven’t learned that by now, then we are as stupid and ignorant, collectively, as those whom we criticize.

  114. Number Seven says:

    What I would really like to see is a bunch of us get into their faces at town meetings like the tea baggers did. But instead of yelling the crud they did, yell about the lack of decent paying jobs for many of us. Tell them to quit wasting time and do something to fix our economy.

  115. Jungle Jim says:

    I’m with #7 and Mainer. The Republicans seem to want civil war. How far have gotten by handing out flowers? Still, “violence is the last refuge of the incompetent” and there are better ways to win in the 21st century than sinking to their level.

  116. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    All those comments are true, but IF the shooting DOES start, and I’m in the vicinity, fer shure I ain’t gonna be standing there just brandishing my member!

    Unless I want ’em to fall down laffing!

  117. Mainer says:

    Jungle Jim and others I know of no one on the left that is advocating civil or any other kind of war. I would certainly put myself in that grouping. But in school yard bully fashion we have far too many from the right that have blustered and flustered from that angle…….Well we wil have to consider Second Amendment sollutions……….well you just go right ahead but be advised there are folks arayed against you that would take dimly to that idea and that would most likely arrest your sorry ass or if confronted by such bullying just blow said ass into the next county. As always the success of and the problem with propaganda is that people will start believing it and right now there appear to be many on the right that think the government is at the same time completly running roughshod over them in their way too powerful state and at the same time inept and incapable of stopping them. There is also the concept that those on the left have never served in the military and don’t own guns. So the propaganda has worked and it has failed. Rise up dipwads and see what it gets you. In the mean time I will keep chipping away at you every time I get the chance. I will call your lies and I will demand answers but don’ ever try to threaten me or mine in the mistaken beleif that we are defensless patsys. The truth could really set you free.

  118. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Well said Mainer.

    Say, you wouldn’t be a part of those few Scot-Irish that slipped in past the Puritans there in New England, while the rest of us hit the Appalachians and headed South, are you?

  119. Jungle Jim says:

    I have never owned a gun and in truth I don’t want to. But I have had enough of the lies and bullying. My father, however, has an extensive collection and has both offered whatever he has along with training to use it. I have declined up to now, but I think its time to get some self protection. If we are to confront these people I think its inevitable we will have to back it up and be prepared to defend ourselves.

  120. shiloh says:

    Mainer ~ individual progressives probably celebrate their Mensa memberships

    Indeed! some more than others …

    Sadly, Bartles tested for a Densa certificate, but didn’t make the grade!

    Frank Zappa was reported to have had an IQ around (180) give or take an extended blues jam on his guitar. Myself, in the 6th grade tested at 135, but alas I’m sure it’s gone down a tad since then ~ a lot of water under the bridge, eh.

    but, but, but I still know the capital of Mongolia 😛

    >

    Which begs the question: What was Tipper Gore’s IQ 😀

  121. dcpetterson says:

    Jungle Jim asked:
    How far have gotten by handing out flowers?

    We got an African-American, and a progressive, elected president. We got historic health care reform. We brought the nation back from the brink of a second Great Depression. We ended America’s war in Iraq, and starting in a few months, we begin taking troops out of Afghanistan. We got huge swatches of land put under Federal protection. We got an expansion of the SCHIP program. We got better rights for women who are raped in the workplace. We got START. We repealed DADT. We got huge tax cuts — for the middle class, for a change! That’s just scratching the surface, stuff off the top of my head. And that’s in only two years.

    One indication of how HUGE this all is — it drives the right wing absolutely batshit, They’re scared, because they can see they’re losing control. That’s the reason they’ve been spouting all this “guns” crap. They’re being left in the dust of history, they can see it, and the only thing they’ve got left is to try to scare everyone else.

    We’re winning. All we have to do is keep doing what we’ve been doing. Just keep on keepin’ on. We’re winning.

  122. shortchain says:

    JJ,

    Guns are tools. Everybody should know how to handle one safely, even if they never intend to use one. At least take your father up on training.

  123. Jungle Jim says:

    Thanks for reminding me ,dc. I get so upset b/c I feel the pressure they’re exerting and I’m probably too emotional to be trusted to carry. I’ve had several run ins lately and I recently had to fire someone who still has me on edge. It was the last straw to hear that nonsense from one of my own employees. Still, silent and cowed is unacceptable if you’re truly proud to be an American, and I’ve decided it must stop.

  124. GROG says:

    Thanks for the shout out Mainer.

    In reference to Jean’s link from last night, I’m having a little trouble understanding (no comment from you Shiloh). 🙂

    According to the link the blog cited, spending did increase 6.8% per year on average from 2001 to 2007. But from 2008 to 2009 spending increased 17% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. All years after that are estimates. How does that translate into Bush increasing spending faster than Obama?

    Not to mention that Bush averaged a deficit of $250 billion during his presidency and Obama’s 2009 deficit ran $1.4 trillion.

    And as a percent of revenues, the Bush deficits averaged 11.5%.
    Obama’s deficit was 67% of revenue in 2009.

    There’s no comparison.

  125. shiloh says:

    Thanks for the shout out grog …

  126. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG,

    A few points:

    The year 2009 was US government Fiscal Year 2009 beginning on 1 October 2008. Remember who was President on that date? The spending for FY2009 is the responsibility of that President.

    Secondly, the National Debt on 1 October 2001 was just a tick over $6 Trillion. On 1 October 2009 it was just over $11 Trillion. Now I was taught that 11-6=5 and 5/8=0.625. So that would make Bush II’s AVERAGE annual deficit $625 Billion.

    Comparing the first year of Obama’s presidency and it’s spending is a data point of 1. Essentially useless. By THAT criteria, Bush’s first year deficit was “only” $159 Billion, which makes his later years so bad. The LAST years of Clinton, FY 2001 was a SURPLUS of $250 Billion. That makes Bush look REALLY bad!

    Let’s see what Obama’s average annual deficit is on 1 October 2017 before making value judgments.

  127. dcpetterson says:

    Jungle Jim
    Still, silent and cowed is unacceptable if you’re truly proud to be an American, and I’ve decided it must stop.

    Oh, I definitely agree with you there! Stand up, no question. Or, sometimes, sit down — Ghandi showed how to do that rather effectively. Call them on their BS. The right-wing talk of “tyranny” and “liberty,” for instance, is just so much meaningless noise, and it must be challenged. If for no other reason, they insult the true martyrs who fought real tyranny. The modern right-wing memes — “liberty” means “I don’t have to pay taxes,” and “tyranny” means “my guys lost the last election” — they’re all utter crap, and they can’t go unanswered.

  128. dcpetterson says:

    @GROG and Max

    You also have to look at the direction of the deficits. Bush increased size of the deficit nearly every year he was in office, culminating in the record $1.7 trillion for his final year. Obama has decreased the size of the deficit in both FY’10 (from Bush’s record in ’09) and FY’11 (so far — the year ends in October, but so far it is coming in below last year).

    So, on balance, Obama is doing far better than Bush, as far as the direction of the deficit goes.

  129. shiloh says:

    Max ~ Let’s see what Obama’s average annual deficit is on 1 October 2017 🙂 before making value judgments.

    Indeed!

    >

    If you’re interested …

    Rachel ~ Real Time ~ Jan. 21, 2011 (21:53)

    New Rules ~ Jan 21, 2011 (6:46)

    Overtime ~ Jan. 21, 2011 ~ HBO Streaming Video

    and even if you’re not.

  130. GROG says:

    Max,

    I’ll try to do the math for you. Add up all the Bush deficits from 2001 – 2008 and you get $2 trillion. Divide that by 8 years and you get $250 billion. These are numbers from Jean’s link.

    If you want to disregard 2001 and replace it with 2009 (which he shares with Obama and was approved by the Dem Congress) you get $442 billion, not even close to your $625 billion.

    Obama average from 2010 and 2011 – $1.4 trillion.

  131. GROG says:

    @DC,

    First of all the 2009 deficit was $1.4 trillion, not $1.7 trillion. (Did you guys bother reading the link?)

    Secondly, please don’t act all innocent regarding the $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009. Dems had controlled Congress since 2006 and the huge increase in the deficit was due to TARP bailouts and the stimulus which have been touted as huge successes by the left.

    Were you not in favor of TARP and the stimulus? If you were, then you were in favor of the 2009 deficit.

  132. Bart DePalma says:

    DC: The year 2009 was US government Fiscal Year 2009 beginning on 1 October 2008. Remember who was President on that date? The spending for FY2009 is the responsibility of that President.

    Dude, the FY 2009 budget was not enacted by the Dem Congress and signed by Obama until March 09. Until then, the Dem Congress was paying for what it wanted under various resolutions. The FY 2009 budget was a Dem plan which exploded discretionary spending by nearly 20% over FY 2008.

    Bush and the Dem Congress is responsible for the TARP program during FY 2009, which was largely opposed by the congressional GOP and the voters.

    Obama and the Dems are completely responsible for the Porkulus spending which was larded onto the FY 2009 budget.

    The Dems own the 2009 deficit, with a TARP co-credit going to Bush.

  133. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2010
    Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.
    The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.
    To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.
    Date Dollar Amount
    09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
    09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
    09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
    09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
    09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
    09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
    09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
    09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
    09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
    09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06

    Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

    GROG: “I’ll try to do the math for you. ” Well you didn’t try well enough.

    Let’s see (we’ll round to nearest billion) 9/30/2001 Debt = $5,807 Trillion, 9/30/2009 Debt = $11.910 Trillion
    So: 11,910-5,807=6,103. Thats, $6,103Trillion for the eight FY’s that Bush proffered and signed into law. 6103/8= 763. And ACTUAL average annual deficit of $763 billion. Worse than my first guesstimates.

    Facts is facts. Don’t argue with ME, argue with the Treasury Department.

  134. Jean says:

    GROG, Max and DC:

    In answer to the following question posted on Jay Bookman’s quiz, “Did I somehow miss 2008 spending in these calculations, with it’s +9.3% year-over-year spending growth? And starting at 2009 totally skips over its yoy growth of 17.94%! Note everyone that outlays in 2009 were quite nearly $1T more than in 2006, i.e. outlays in 2009 were nearly 33% higher than 2006. 2010, 2011, and on *grow* from that starting point.

    Here’s the table Jay sourced, where I calculated YOY growth in total revenue and spending directly, rather than averaging selected years…

    Year Total Revenues ($MM) Total Outlays ($MM) Year-over-year Revenue Growth Year-over-year Spending Growth
    2000 2,025,198 1,788,957
    2001 1,991,142 1,862,906 -1.7% 4.13%
    2002 1,853,149 2,010,907 -6.9% 7.94%
    2003 1,782,321 2,159,906 -3.8% 7.41%
    2004 1,880,126 2,292,853 5.5% 6.16%
    2005 2,153,625 2,471,971 14.5% 7.81%
    2006 2,406,876 2,655,057 11.8% 7.41%
    2007 2,568,001 2,728,702 6.7% 2.77%
    2008 2,523,999 2,982,554 -1.7% 9.30%
    2009 2,104,995 3,517,681 -16.6% 17.94%
    2010(e) 2,165,119 3,720,701 2.9% 5.77%
    2011(e) 2,567,181 3,833,861 18.6% 3.04%”

    Jay responded by explaining, “I chose 2001-2007 for a couple of reasons. First, that’s the period in which Republicans were running the whole show, to allow an apples to apples comparison to 09-11, when Dems were running the whole show.

    Second, as you’ll see from the numbers you posted, by 2008 the impact of the recession was already being felt. Note, for example, that federal revenue declined that year. Including ‘08 and and ‘09 in Bush’s numbers would have made them worse.”

  135. shiloh says:

    Re: the budget where I’m no expert, wasn’t the cheney/bush’s (((illegal/unconstitutional))) Iraq War cost taken off budget to make the (((Republican’s))) yearly deficit not look as bad …

    Did I mention grog/Bartles’ buddies from 2001/2009, cheney/bush, were the worst president since Buchanan! Just wanted to make sure!

    take care, blessings

  136. Jean says:

    And as Jay Bookman further asked:

    “As to your earlier post about 2001-2007 not being representative of GOP governance, I’ll bite:

    If a recent six-year time frame in which the GOP controlled all branches of government is not “the benchmark any R’s would use for appropriate spending, please tell us:

    What historic time frame WOULD provide such a benchmark? When’s the Golden Era in which conservative Republicans actually acted on the principles they claim to hold so dear?

    Would it be from 1968-1976, under Nixon/Ford, when spending more than doubled?

    Would it be from 1981-89, under Reagan, when again it almost doubled?

    Would it be from 2001-2009, when once again it almost doubled?

    Please, identify the benchmark you wish us to use.”

  137. GROG says:

    Max,

    You’re confusing budget deficits with the national debt.

  138. dcpetterson says:

    GROG
    First of all the 2009 deficit was $1.4 trillion, not $1.7 trillion. (Did you guys bother reading the link?)

    Correct. Obama reduced the Bush deficit, during Obama’s first months in office, by 300 billion dollars. Right out of the gate, Obama began reducing the deficit.

    , please don’t act all innocent regarding the $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009. Dems had controlled Congress since 2006 and the huge increase in the deficit was due to TARP bailouts and the stimulus which have been touted as huge successes by the left.

    They were indeed huge successes. But please don’t act so innocent about them. TARP was the idea of the Bush administration. And the stimulus was made necessary by the Bush fiscal collapse.

    Were you not in favor of TARP and the stimulus? If you were, then you were in favor of the 2009 deficit.

    Indeed, I was. Keynsian economics suggests (and history has proven) that this is the correct course. My point was merely that Bush increased the deficit, nearly every year he was in office, and Obama has decreased it, both of the years he has been in office. So the criticism from the right that Republicans lower the deficit while Democrats increase it, is absolute nonsense. And easily proven to be total nonsense. The reverse is true.

  139. GROG says:

    And the stimulus was made necessary by the Bush fiscal collapse.

    The stimulus has been a failure and the fiscal collapse was caused by the Congressional Democrats.

    My point was merely that Bush increased the deficit, nearly every year he was in office,

    No he did not. He reduced it in ’05, ’06, and ’07. Then the Dems took control of Congress.

  140. Bartbuster says:

    The stimulus has been a failure and the fiscal collapse was caused by the Congressional Democrats.

    Too funny. The GOP controls the White House, Congress, and SCOTUS, but the collapse is the fault of the Dems. That is some serious wingnut delusion.

  141. dcpetterson says:

    @GROG
    No he did not. He reduced it in ’05, ’06, and ’07.

    Which means Bush increased the deficit in ’02, ’03, ’04, ’08, and ’09, five years out of eight, going from a surplus of over $200 billion in FY ’01 to a deficit of $1.7 trillion in FY ’09. You like blaming Congress — but the president sets the bdget priorities. As can be proven — for the last 30 years, whenever there is a Republican president, regardless of whether the Congress is Republican or Democratic, the deficit increases. Whenever there is a Democratic president, regardless of whether the Congress is Republican or Democratic, the deficit decreases. Period.

    Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 all increased the deficit. Clinton and Obama both decreased the deficit. Reagan and Obama had Democratic Congresses. Bush and Clinton had Republican Congresses. The pattern is clear. Regardless of the party of Congress, it is the party of the President that determines the direction of the deficit.

    The stimulus and TARP were tremendous successes, bringing us from a loss of 750,000 jobs in January of ’09 alone, to now–what is it, 12 months straight? gaining jobs. Over 3 million jobs gained or saved. The Second Republican Great Depression avoided. Nearly all (about 90%) of the TARP money has been paid back. That’s what success looks like, my friend. The alternative would have been bread lines and tent cities, 20% + unemployment, and the total and sustained collapse of the world banking system.

  142. dcpetterson says:

    Jean, one of the most striking things about the data you’re presenting is in the “spending growth” numbers. Conservatives like to claim that Democrats increase spending. Yet Obama’s two years (FY 10 and FY 11) have a slower rate of growth than every one of Bush’s years, with only one exception — FY ’07.

    There is almost nothing conservatives say about the economy that is true or honest.

  143. GROG says:

    what is it, 12 months straight? gaining jobs. Not if you’re talking about private sector jobs.

    That’s what success looks like, my friend. The alternative would have been bread lines and tent cities, 20% + unemployment, and the total and sustained collapse of the world banking system.

    That’s ridiculous and you know it. The people feeding you that garbage that the stimulus has created or “saved” 3 million jobs are the same geniouses who told you we had to rush to pass the stimulus because it would prevent unemployment from going over 8%. They said without it we would reach 10%, so your 20% figure is a complete farce. It’s a scare tactic used on the left to misrepresent reality.

    In reality, the stimulus is 6.5 million jobs short of what they promised in order to get it passed. The either lied or they were incompetent.

    Look at the cost to this country because of the failed Keynesian policies. We have deificits as % of GDP that we haven’t seen in 70 years. We have debt we will never be able to repay. The economy is not creating jobs. Tell the unemployed how well the stimulus worked.

  144. GROG says:

    There is almost nothing conservatives say about the economy that is true or honest.

    You mean like when you said, “that Bush increased the deficit, nearly every year he was in office” which was not true or honest?

    Unless in your world 62.5% is considered “nearly every”.

  145. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG: “You’re confusing budget deficits with the national debt.

    GROG you are just sad.

    The deficit is the shortfall between revenue and spending in a given year.
    The national debt is simply the accumulation of deficits.

    To help you out, here’s a hypothetical:
    Every year, for each of ten years the deficit for that year is $1.
    At the end of year 4, the debt is $4.
    At the end of year 10, the debt is $10.
    If I subtract the debt at the end of year 4 from that of year 10 year, the difference is $6. If I divide that $6 by the number of years between 4 and 10, which is 6 the average deficit per year is $1.

    I hope that helps you. Maybe not, though, as it is free of the ideological somersaults on which you attempt to base your analyses.

    Best

  146. shortchain says:

    I’d just like to say:

    “We have debt we will never be able to repay.” — is an obvious and egregious lie.

    “The economy is not creating jobs.” — is an obvious and ridiculous lie.

    Things could be better. But things could also be worse. People who have not read, or have not understood what they read, about the Great Depression, do not understand the possibilities.

  147. dcpetterson says:

    the same geniouses who told you we had to rush to pass the stimulus because it would prevent unemployment from going over 8% … They said without it we would reach 10%, so your 20% figure is a complete farce.

    That is the Republicans who are spreading this. No one in the Administration ever said it. We’ve been over this. You know this is untrue, yet you repeat this anyway.

    In — what was it, Dec of ’08, or January of ’09 — a couple of economists who later were hired by the Obama Administration did a preliminary study, using the best data that was available at the time. With the forecasts they had of the economic situation, and with the suggestions they made for a stimulus bill, they projected a peak unemployment of 8.5% — if their recommendations were followed.

    In point of fact, economists realized shortly thereafter that Bush had left us in wven worse shape than anyone had imagined. And the recommendations in the report were not followed — teh final stimulus bill had much more in tax cuts, and much less in jobs spending, than had been recommended.

    So you can stop repeating this obvious lie.

    We have deificits as % of GDP that we haven’t seen in 70 years. We have debt we will never be able to repay.

    Yes, we have a high deficit. It was higher (as a % of GDP) during and after WW2, and we paid that off just fine. We need only the balls to do what’s needed to grow the economy and increase tax revenues.

    The economy is not creating jobs.

    Uhm, yes it is.

    Tell the unemployed how well the stimulus worked.

    Indeed, there are not enough jobs yet. (It’s been WEEKS since the Republicans took over the House!! WHERE ARE THE JOBS?!?!?) Had the Stimulus been as large as it should have been, and directed more toward jobs programs and less toward tax cuts for the uber-rich, we’d be in even better shape than we are now.

    But at least we’ve avoided the worst of it. As I said, over 3 million jobs gained or saved. True, that’s not nearly enough when considering the 8 million jobs Bush destroyed. But at least we’re moving in the right direction. Unless the Republicans in the House kill the recovery, as they seem intent on doing.

  148. shiloh says:

    Max ~ grog you are just sad.

    Indeed!

  149. Bartbuster says:

    Tell the unemployed how well the stimulus worked.

    I see people every day who have jobs because of the stimulus. They are my coworkers. Without the stimulus they would be unemployed. The GOP also knows its works, because they are begging for it to be spent in their districts, even though they voted against it.

  150. dcpetterson says:

    @Bartbuster

    There’ve been lots of pictures of Republican governors proudly standing with huge cardboard ARRA checks at construction sites.

    Then, in contrast, there was the Gov of Wisc who turned down ARRA money to build a high-speed rail line from Minneapolis to Chicago. It would have created thousands of Wisconsin jobs. Some Republicans are willing to keep unemployment high, just to prevent the Democrats from looking good for having rescued the economy.

    When was the 112th Congress sworn in? Where are the jobs?

  151. GROG says:

    Max said: GROG you are just sad.

    sigh

    If it wasn’t easy enough for you to just add 8 years worth of budget deficits and divide by 8 to get an average, I’ll try this for you.

    Fed Debt Fed Debt Adjusted for inflation
    Bush 2002 $6198 $6,923
    Bush 2009 $10,413 $8,218

    $10,413-$6198 = 4215/8 = $516 billion
    Adjusted for inflation
    $8218 -$5945 = $2273/8 = $284 billion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

    You’re just wrong Max.

    And ACTUAL average annual deficit of $763 billion. Worse than my first guesstimates.

    Why don’t you cite any reputable website that states Bush’s average annual deficit was $763 billion?

  152. Jean says:

    GROG,

    The question was not finding an “average” YOY revenue growth or “average” YOY spending growth. The question and link I posted was ” who raised government spending faster, George W. Bush working with a Republican Congress, or President Obama working with a Democratic Congress? ”

    Also, still waiting for answers from you to:

    If a recent six-year time frame in which the GOP controlled all branches of government is not “the benchmark any R’s would use for appropriate spending, please tell us:

    What historic time frame WOULD provide such a benchmark? When’s the Golden Era in which conservative Republicans actually acted on the principles they claim to hold so dear?

    Would it be from 1968-1976, under Nixon/Ford, when spending more than doubled?

    Would it be from 1981-89, under Reagan, when again it almost doubled?

    Would it be from 2001-2009, when once again it almost doubled?

    Please, identify the benchmark you wish us to use.”

  153. GROG says:

    DC said:

    Some Republicans are willing to keep unemployment high, just to prevent the Democrats from looking good for having rescued the economy.

    These are the kind of statements that cause you to lose all credibility. Nothing is as simple as you like to portray them.

    These so called “high speed” rails would be a complete financial disaster for states like Wisconsin and Ohio. The states would be forced to pay the operation and maintenance on the rails and they have no money. It would be a financial burden for decades.

  154. GROG says:

    Jean,

    In 2007 spending was $2.7 trillion. The 2010 estimate is $3.7 trillion. Democrats increased spending $1 trillion in 3 years or 37%.

    Republicans increased spending 35% in double that amount of time from ’02 to ’07.

  155. dcpetterson says:

    The states would be forced to pay the operation and maintenance on the rails and they have no money.

    You truly imagine they would have no income from these rail lines? Really? Millions of people moving through their states, and stopping at the cities the rail lines go through? What drugs are you on?

    Yes, and no state benefited from the Interstate Highway system.

  156. dcpetterson says:

    In 2007 spending was $2.7 trillion. The 2010 estimate is $3.7 trillion. Democrats increased spending $1 trillion in 3 years or 37%.

    The real issue isn’t “spending.” It is, “What is the spending for?”

    I mean, the year I bought a house, I spent about $20,000 more than I did the year before. And I went $100,000 into debt. It was still a good idea.

    America has to dig itself out of the enormous hole the Republicans dumped us into. Buying the shovels and ladders isn’t free. Not making these investments in our future will drown us in unemployment and destroy any hope for America’s future.

    I don’t want America to fail. I am willing to invest in tomorrow. I am willing to repair the damage the Republicans did. I am not willing to allow these context-free right wing talking points to go unanswered.

    The real issue isn’t “spending” or “deficits” (although it is worthwhile to point out when there are lies about these topics). The real issue is moving America forward. The trees are blinding you to the forest.

  157. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Well DAMN!!!!

    Who here is surprised that GROG “suddenly” found inflation adjusted dollars would allow him to fudge Bush’s figures? Didn’t I predict GROG’s “ideological somersaults”?

    GROG, Do you really want to play THAT game? What say I use Reagan’s deficits in terms of 2010 dollars?

    So let’s WAIT TEN YEARS before we bitch about Obama’s numbers so we can actually compare apples and apples, young GROG.

    GROG:“It would be a financial burden for decades.“. Yep. Kinda like the Interstate Highway system. Wait, wasn’t that proposed by a Republican? And doesn’t it MORE than pay for it’s “operation and maintenance” in assuring the free flow of interstate commerce? Good thing the leadership in the 50’s weren’t as shortsighted as GROG!!!!

    GROG, grow some big hairy ones and give Jean straight up answers to her questions.

  158. GROG says:

    Max,

    All that from someone who thinks Bush’s average budget deficits were $738 billion. LMAO.

    I’ll be waiting for that citiation from anyone else on the net, other than Max aka Birdpilot from 538refugees.com, who would make such an idiotic claim. I’ll check it out in the morning.

  159. Number Seven says:

    Well, I must say, after watching every George Carlin HBO special made, perhaps, I should play George. He did have some rather biting things to say about both sides of the political spectrum, or rectum, as he said, lol.

  160. dcpetterson says:

    Clearly, GROG, you don’t have an answer to Jean’s question. That speaks volumes.

  161. shiloh says:

    grog ~ I’ll check it out in the morning.

    Grog’s gone for the night, soooo he can’t embarrass himself again until morn …

    As Martha would say ~ that’s a good thing! 🙂

    btw grog, feel free to answer the plethora of questions thrown at you in this thread at any time … or escape/flee like your idol Bartles does routinely.

    take care, blessings

  162. GROG says:

    What historic time frame WOULD provide such a benchmark? When’s the Golden Era in which conservative Republicans actually acted on the principles they claim to hold so dear?

    Would it be from 1968-1976, under Nixon/Ford, when spending more than doubled?

    Would it be from 1981-89, under Reagan, when again it almost doubled?

    Would it be from 2001-2009, when once again it almost doubled?

    GDP also more than doubled from ’68-’76.

    GDP also nearly doubled from ’81-’89.

    Bush’s first budget was 2002 and the deficit was 1.48% of GDP. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 it was 1.14%. By the time the Democrats lost control of the House in 2010 it was 10.64% of GDP.

    Use whatever era you want. There’s no comparison.

  163. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG.

    wanna recheck your figures and admit your mistake before one of us embarrass you further?

  164. dcpetterson says:

    Thanks for linking that chart, GROG. Compare today to the 1940s. We’re clearly not in any trouble. Deficits today running around 10% of GDP, deficits peaked in the 40s at near 30%, and staying well over 10% for a decade.

    We recovered from the deficits of the 1940s pretty rapidly. All it took was to engage in some serious government investment (Interstate highways, NASA, student loans, VA loans, government-guaranteed mortgages, etc.), and a sane progressive tax system (top marginal rate well over 70%, serious estate taxes, and so on).

    All the stuff Republicans don’t like is exactly what we need today. Thanks for making that point.

  165. Jungle Jim says:

    At the risk of rescuing the republicans, let me throw a couple of sabos into the machine. If anyone can answer the following you probably have a degree in economics, but here goes:
    We know that both goverment spending and inflation were out of control in the late 60’s, early 70’s and 80’s. Johnson gave us “guns and butter” and got us into Viet Nam, but Nixon escalated it. Nixon also floated the dollar in ’71 or ’72. Carter lost control of the amount of money printed, Reagan gave up on trying to balance the budget after seeing that the economy couldn’t handle it. interest rates skyrocketed as a backlash to cutting off the printing of money and he massively increased military spending. So, adjusting for inflation, what the hell actually happened, who the hell was actually to blame, and most importantly, what the hell actually worked and what didn’t?

  166. GROG says:

    DC said:

    We recovered from the deficits of the 1940s pretty rapidly. All it took was to engage in some serious government investment (Interstate highways, NASA, student loans, VA loans, government-guaranteed mortgages, etc.), and a sane progressive tax system (top marginal rate well over 70%, serious estate taxes, and so on).

    No, that’s not all it took. That’s as simpleminded as saying the current economic situation is soley the fault of Republicans.

    We recovered from deficits (not debt) because of the tremendous growth in the economy following WWII which had little to do with Interstate highways, NASA, sudent loans, VA loans, and especially 70% marginal tax rates.

  167. GROG says:

    @Max,

    Still waiting for your citation of Bush’s $738 billion average deficit.

  168. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG,

    As you wish:

    http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

    National debt on 09/30/2009 $11.910 Trillion
    National debt on 09/30/2001 $5.807 Trillion
    Difference in eight years $6.103 Trillion
    divided by 8 = $0.763 Trillion or $763 Billion average annual deficit for Bush years.

  169. shortchain says:

    Hey, I’d like to have GROG give a citation showing what the boomlets in technology of the 60’s and 70’s were due to, if they were not due to “Interstate highways, NASA, sudent loans, VA loans, ” and high tax rates.

    It sure as hell wasn’t the Republican opposition to all progress that led to the computer boom and the internet.

  170. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    OK GROG, I did as you requested. I used a specific source and straight-up addition, subtraction and division to demonstrate the number I cited.

    You are free to do the same thing, using the same endpoints, FY2002-FY2009, and a commonly agreed upon source showing the National Debt at those endpoints to prove the data is incorrect.

    Your turn. No ideological rants allowed.

    NOW, go through and give direct, straight-up and provable answers to each of Jeans questions to you. No ideological rants allowed.

  171. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    To highlight the difference between an ideological whiner and myself: my searches on the National Debt found another site sky machines that references by calendar year that yields different numbers, even though it also uses the treasurydirect.gov source.

    By THAT site:

    National Debt on 12/31/2008 – $10.700 Trillion
    National Debt on 12/31/2000 – $5.662 Trillion
    difference over 8 years = $5.038 Trillion
    divided by 8 = $0.630 Trillion or $630 Billion average annual deficit for Bush years.

    Now this number is lower than the first, mainly because it does not cover the entire FY of 2009 that began on 1 October 2008. This also answers one of Bart’s whines.

    Still WAAAAAAY over $250 Billion GROG tried to get us to believe.

    Waiting for other, commonly agreed, proof, GROG. And the answers to Jean.

  172. GROG says:

    Max,

    I’ll take your above posts as proof that you cannot find anyone on the entire internet to make the claim that Bush’s average budget deficits were $738 billion. Even your friends here refuse to back you up on it.

    http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html#avg-deficit

    Go to the second graph of this link. It shows average budget deficits by president. Tell me what you find.

  173. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG,

    I take your purposeful ignoring of facts presented to you, without your rebutting said fact AND that you have not answered specifically Jean’s questions that you are an ignorant, ideological, denying twit.

    Note that Prof. Bloch ADMITS to playing with the numbers. Note to the site that he refers to in the first sentence is THE SAME SITE that I get my info from. I DON’T make adjustments to the data, I just subtract the debt at the start from the debt at the end and divide by the number of years, unlike the professor.

    Note too, Bloch’s “Comments on Table 2”: “Republican Presidents seem to rack up the big debts, at least in my lifetime. Democratic Presidents tend to be “troughs” in the above graph, relative to their Republican successors and predecessors. On the other hand, the only two Presidents in this table to actually run an average surplus (in the Roaring Twenties) were both Republicans, and the Obama administration, in its first full fiscal year, is still running record-breaking deficits (albeit smaller than the previous fiscal year; see table 1).

    The first seven years of G.W. Bush accrued more total debt than eight years of Reagan, and almost twice as much as twelve years of FDR. If you include 2008-2009, the 8-year G.W. Bush administration accrued almost as much total debt as the 8-year Reagan administration and the 12-year FDR administration combined.

    Interesting shit you use to make your point!!

  174. GROG says:

    So Max, you still can’t find anyone to back up your claim that Bush’s average deficits were $738 billion? Not one single person on the entire internet?

    It should be easy, shouldn’t it?

  175. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Ain’t asked anyone, GROG. No need for me to as YOU are the one pissing and moaning.

    Do YOU deny the figures cited in my, AND Dr. Bloch’s, citation? Can YOU provide ANY OTHER SOURCE that independently uses the same start and end points to back YOUR claim?

    Your constant harping on ME finding “anyone to back up” MY instead of providing YOUR documentation OR ANSWERING SPECIFICALLY Jean’s questions is a mere diversion and demonstrates YOUR failure, not mine.

    Hell, what say YOU on Dr Bloch’s comments I cited above, even?

  176. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    BTW GROG

    I hope you DO know that Dr. Bloch is using 1983 dollars, which is why he shows W’s average annual deficit at $376 Billion in 1983 dollars. Since prices have essentially doubled during the time period (check it out for yourself, CPI 1984= 101.9, CPI 2009 = 211), that is why his table shows Obama’s 2010 deficit at $757 Billion instead of the $1.4 Trillion in actual dollars.

    Now multiply $376 Billion times 2 and see what you get.

    Sorry, sonny. No cigar for you.

  177. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    And GROG, I DID give you the chance to correct your mistake in your post @ 16:56 yesterday (@19:29 when I said recheck your figures).

    Since you are sloppy in your work as well as ideologically lazy, time for school:

    You cited wikipedia, and you said about Bush’s debt increase “$10,413-$6198 = 4215/8 = $516 billion“. WRONG!

    You used the first year of Bush instead of the last year of Clinton as your start point. The $6.198 trillion was the debt at the END OF BUSH’S 1st YEAR! Go Back and look!!! By using the CORRECT number of $5.769 trillion at the END of CLINTON’S TERM, the arithmetic SHOULD have looked like THIS:

    $10.413T – $5.769 T = $4.644T/8 = $581 Billion average annual deficit. Which ain’t too damn far off of the $630 billion I showed in my 10:19 post this morning. In fact, within $50 billion.

    BUT a DAMN SIGHT BIGGER than your assertion @ 11:43 yesterday that: “Not to mention that Bush averaged a deficit of $250 billion during his presidency and Obama’s 2009 deficit ran $1.4 trillion.

    No cigar AND no kewpie doll!!!!!!!! Sorry, little boy. It’s past your bedtime. Run along now.

  178. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Oh, GROG, I didn’t notice a little item in the Wiki site, you missed it too:

    Please look at the Formula Notes under the table where you got your numbers. It tells you that last number for Bush was an ESTIMATE:
    The values for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 represent estimates from the source material.

    So I believe the number of $1o.700 Trillion was the latest if we go to 12/31/08 and that would yield $616 Billion average annual Bush deficit in actual dollars. From the site YOU quoted. And if we go back to the 9/31/2009 number of $11.910 Trillion we get: 11.91 – 5.769 = 6.141 Trillion/8 = $768 Billion average annual Bush deficit in actual dollars.

    Show YOUR math if you can.

  179. Number Seven says:

    Sulphur, charcoal, and …..

    Mythbusters actually debunked that episode of Star Trek. I recommend a 30.06 the next time you go Gorn hunting.

    I was refering to the raw formula (minus anealing) for black power, not the way it was used in the Star Trek episode which is, of course, rediculas. Just look at the remains of the cannon and where Kirk put his hands.

    Reinforce a brittle tube of bamboo with a half inch think rope??? And on the muzzle end???

    Mythbusters was right, Kirk would have had no hands left to put the knife into the Gorn capitans heart… assuming the Gorn’s heart was there, lol.

  180. GROG says:

    Max: The $6.198 trillion was the debt at the END OF BUSH’S 1st YEAR! Go Back and look!!! By using the CORRECT number of $5.769 trillion at the END of CLINTON’S TERM.

    No Max, you’re just wrong again. Clinton set the budget for that year.

    I’m just going to pat you on the head and let you believe that Bush’s average budget deficit was $738 billion, regadless of what everyone else on the planet says including the White House’s own Office of Management and Budget website.

    But Max aka Birdpilot from 538refugees.com thinks it’s true, so it must be true. Right Max? Good boy.

  181. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    No GROG,

    You are so intent on attempting to make ME the issue. Either that or you are being intentionally stupid! OK, I’ll show you piece-by-piece:

    Start with the 2002 (0) $6198, 02-03 (1) $6760, 03-04 (2) $7354, 04-05 (3) $7905, 05-06 (4) $8451, 06-07 (5) $8951, 07-08 (6) $9654, 08-09 (7) $10413, Oops! Where’s year (8)??? To get an EIGHTH YEAR you’re gonna have to go to 09-10 $13,954, but THAT’S Obama’s 1st year. So by YOUR reasoning “No Max, you’re just wrong again. Clinton set the budget for that year.”, I guess you’ll HAVE to go there as BUSH set the budget for that year???????? At least TRY to be consistent.

    You HAVE to start Year (0) as Clinton’s LAST year! Otherwise 0-0=0, or 1-1=0. Maybe you need to ask a 5th grader about the number line.

    Get it?

  182. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    GROG,

    Also, note that Bush STARTS in FY2002, the year AFTER Clinton’s influence on FY2001 when Bush was sworn in on 20 Jan. 2001.

    Just admit you made an error. We all do. Quit being ideologically stubborn. You’ve embarrassed yourself, and your cause, enough.

    BTW, we ARE talking about the Wikipedia data set, just so you are not MORE confused than you already are.

  183. mclever says:

    Obviously we need a new topic…

    The State of the Union is tomorrow night. Any predictions? Guesses as to what the “aha” moment will be? Any thoughts on Bachmann giving the Tea Party rebuttal to the Republican rebuttal to the SOTU?

    Come on folks, there’s gotta be something we can talk about?

  184. mclever says:

    (Reposting from other thread, because it belongs better here.)

    Other topics?

    How ’bout Rahm being DQ’d from the Chicago Mayoral race?

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48061.html

    Does anyone care? Good thing? Bad thing? Should his candidacy have been allowed, since he’s a long time Chicago resident who maintained property there even though he physically relocated to DC for 2 years? Or, did the appellate court get it right. He’s a DC carpetbagger who got what he deserved?

    Or the Moscow terrorist attack at the airport that killed 30+ and injured 160+?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110124/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_airport_blast

    Any speculation as to who or why? Chechens? If not, then who else? Likely motivations? (I’ve heard some wild “anti-FIFA” speculations from rabid soccer fans.)

  185. Max aka Birdpilot says:

    Should military personnel be disenfranchised from their home town when they are in service to the Country?
    What’s the difference?

  186. mclever says:

    I don’t know, Max. Would the Chicago courts interpret the law the same way if a returning veteran wanted to run for public office?

    good question.

  187. Jungle Jim says:

    Here’s one: should Justice Clarence Thomas be charged with income tax evasion?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s