Mr. Rick's Smilin' Mug
 |
| This man has good reason to smile |
I was distraught. Texas Governor Rick Perry's indictment on two felony corruption charges was more than enough to put a certain damper on what had been an otherwise pleasant day. My dream of Rick (or someone as delightfully goofy as he) being nominated at the Republican convention two years from now had gone up in a cloud of smoke. This can't be happening, I thought to myself. I was damned-near ready to pack it all in and start a blog about classic film comedy when who do you think should come to the rescue: None other than Chris Matthews!
In a very reasonable essay on his excellent MSNBC program, Hardball, Chris calmly explained to me something I should have been smart enough to understand at the outset. Far from disqualifying him from from obtaining the nomination in 2016, this major brush with the law will only enhance him in the eyes of the halfwits and crazy people who now make up "the base" of the Republican party. Of course it will! "I should have known better" as the Beatles said.
Although I'm not in the habit of coming to the defense of Mr. Rick, the details of this case are just a bit fishy. What it comes down to is this: The governor is charged with two felony counts of trying to force the District Attorney of Travis County to quit her job by cutting off funding for her office (which quite inconveniently had been probing corruption in Texas state politics). At one point the D.A, in question, Rosemary Lehmberg, was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Perry used that as an excuse to shut the office down. Ms Lehmberg was eventually convicted and served three weeks in the Travis County jail. It's interesting to note that had she carried a loaded, semi-automatic weapon into a crowded church service she would have been perfectly within her rights in Rick Perry's Texas. Weird!
Dirty politics? No doubt. But two felony charges? That seems a bit extreme to me. Democratic party or Republican, Texas is such a fucked up state - extreme and completely corrupt - you just never know with that place.
MEMO TO MY COUSINS, THE FABULOUS BARRAS FAMILY OF PORT ARTHUR: Get out while the getting is good, kids. Love ya!
So there is a bit of jolly good news upon the horizon. A half century ago someone as heartbreakingly dumb as Rick Perry would never have been taken seriously as a candidate for anything (let alone president of the United States). It's a different world today. The "party of Abraham Lincoln" (What would I do without quotation marks?) has lowered the bar into the sub-basement. You'll recall that in 2000 they nominated a nincompoop named George W. Bush, don't you? Apparently the bar has been lowered nationwide. Not only did he receive enough votes in the general election that he was able to steal that election, he was re-elected four years later! The day following that contest a British newspaper asked on its front page how fifty-nine million people could be so dumb. How indeed?
I wonder if the Founding Fathers ever dreamed that things would get as weird as they've gotten. Just a thought.
The real irony in play here is the startling fact that the only thing that is going to hurt Rick Perry with the lunatic base of that disgusting party will not be his appalling lack of vision and insight; it will not be his alleged corruption; nor will it be his very real intellectual limitations ("Oops!"). What's going to hurt Rick Perry in the 2016 primaries will be his occasional decency. You may recall that in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Rick offered shelter to the refugees of that disaster (most of whom being of the nasty non-white variety). You may also remember that during the 2012 primary debates ("Oops!") he told an audience of jeering yahoos that a state which refused to educate the children of illegal immigrants had "no heart". If anything kills his chances for the nomination in two years it'll be that.
As the pundits and talking heads never tire of reminding us, two years is a lifetime in politics. In American politics it can be the equivalent of a couple centuries. It's impossible to accurately gauge where this is all leading to and how it will all end up. All I can tell you for certain are these two facts:
1. On Inauguration Day 2017 - for the first time since 1857 - one Democratic administration will hand over the reigns of power to another Democratic administration.
2. The campaign of 2016 is going to be a satirist's dream. If you thought that 2012 was a clown show, fasten your seat belts, kiddies!
We really do live in amusing times, do we not?
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
SUGGESTED VIEWING:
Here's a link to the Chris Matthews/Hardball segment mentioned above:
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball-with-chris-matthews/watch/perry-s-indictment-might-help-him-with-gop-320662595998?cid=eml_mhb_20140822
Matthews is as good as it gets.
Although I'm not in the habit of coming to the defense of Mr. Rick, the details of this case are just a bit fishy. What it comes down to is this: The governor is charged with two felony counts of trying to force the District Attorney of Travis County to quit her job by cutting off funding for her office (which quite inconveniently had been probing corruption in Texas state politics). At one point the D.A, in question, Rosemary Lehmberg, was arrested for driving while intoxicated. Perry used that as an excuse to shut the office down. Ms Lehmberg was eventually convicted and served three weeks in the Travis County jail. It's interesting to note that had she carried a loaded, semi-automatic weapon into a crowded church service she would have been perfectly within her rights in Rick Perry's Texas. Weird!Dirty politics? No doubt. But two felony charges? That seems a bit extreme to me. Democratic party or Republican, Texas is such a fucked up state - extreme and completely corrupt - you just never know with that place.
MEMO TO MY COUSINS, THE FABULOUS BARRAS FAMILY OF PORT ARTHUR: Get out while the getting is good, kids. Love ya!
 |
| Clueless |
I wonder if the Founding Fathers ever dreamed that things would get as weird as they've gotten. Just a thought.
The real irony in play here is the startling fact that the only thing that is going to hurt Rick Perry with the lunatic base of that disgusting party will not be his appalling lack of vision and insight; it will not be his alleged corruption; nor will it be his very real intellectual limitations ("Oops!"). What's going to hurt Rick Perry in the 2016 primaries will be his occasional decency. You may recall that in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Rick offered shelter to the refugees of that disaster (most of whom being of the nasty non-white variety). You may also remember that during the 2012 primary debates ("Oops!") he told an audience of jeering yahoos that a state which refused to educate the children of illegal immigrants had "no heart". If anything kills his chances for the nomination in two years it'll be that. As the pundits and talking heads never tire of reminding us, two years is a lifetime in politics. In American politics it can be the equivalent of a couple centuries. It's impossible to accurately gauge where this is all leading to and how it will all end up. All I can tell you for certain are these two facts:
1. On Inauguration Day 2017 - for the first time since 1857 - one Democratic administration will hand over the reigns of power to another Democratic administration.
2. The campaign of 2016 is going to be a satirist's dream. If you thought that 2012 was a clown show, fasten your seat belts, kiddies!
We really do live in amusing times, do we not?
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
SUGGESTED VIEWING:
Here's a link to the Chris Matthews/Hardball segment mentioned above:
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball-with-chris-matthews/watch/perry-s-indictment-might-help-him-with-gop-320662595998?cid=eml_mhb_20140822
Matthews is as good as it gets.
A Little Family History
My
father was part of a committee of local Democrats that met President
Kennedy at Stuart Air Force base in Newburgh, NY in October of 1962.
This was at the time the Cuban Missile Crisis was brewing up. Dad is in
the background on the far right. At the time he was a candidate for the
NY State Assembly. He did a bit better than I did when I ran for the
state senate forty years later - although not much better.
posted by Tom Degan @ 8:26 AM
84 comments
84 Comments:
A person named Henry Rice posted the following on my Facebook page in response to this piece. I had to share it with you.
"This was good right up until you used the word "reasonable" to describe something Chris Matthews said and that his propaganda show was "excellent." That and comparing drinking and driving with legally possessing a tool for self defense. Despite you and Mathhews' hopes and desires, I very much doubt that Perry is a major player for the GOP nomination. He is the same guy as he was in 2012. It does make sense that you would wish for a flawed candidate to win the GOP ticket, because it would even the field what looks like a completely flawed DNC candidate. Of course with soldiers like Matthews carrying the flag, they will again try to completely ignore the vetting process and blindly back whoever has the "D" after there name."
Isn't that special?
"Get out while the getting is good, kids."
Or learn how to speak Spanish.
To quote the penultimate line in a 1972 paperback book entitled "Blue Alice," that was supposed to be a porno novel but instead turned out to be a wild political satire...when the situation is hopeless, there's only one thing to do.
"Simply lie back, close your eyes, and enjoy getting screwed."
Yours very crankily,
The New York Crank
Don't get too excited Tom. If 2012's melee of the GOP nomination was any indication of what is to come, we can expect the "patriots" to eagerly and readily turn on one another with disgusting ease. There's really no plan for these bums. After all they've spent a decade whining and so that has become their forte.
Perry will be mauled as the rest of the pack eagerly attacks him. It's not about their constituents. It certainly isn't about the country. It's about *them.*
No doubt they'll send out 9 candidates--each trying to be more "conservative," hateful, vindictive, and "patriotic," than the others. Then comes the 'rugby match' where they pile on that week's leader--y'know their "good friend."
The immense selfishness of today's modern conservatism prevents them from being elected. They are their own worst enemy. But goddamn--they have remarkable self esteem and huuuuge balls.
Jay
http://loraxlog.blogspot.com
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
To vote for Nixon the first time Americans had to dismiss Nixon's part in Red baiting and blacklisting of the 1950's. To vote for him the second time Americans had to dismiss the facts known that the Watergate burglars had been Nixon operatives for decades.
To vote for Bush II the first time showed America's lack of judgment not to mention the corruption of the Supreme Court. To vote for Bush the second time Americans had to dismiss the then known lies about Iraq.
We get the leadership we vote for.
10 weeks from today and we will see what the voters say.
There is no chance that Chris Christie will let Rick Perry take away his opportunity to win the White House. Despite Christie's baggage, he's a demonstrably better candidate to the GOP mainstream.
Not that he'd win either.
neoconned
@neoconned
Please Bernie Sanders, please run for President!
Can't stand Perry, however it is 100% legal for a governor to veto things and withhold funding. This is an illegal witch hunt and abuse of power by the local libtards in Texas desperate to try to take Texas. Hell, even Democrats admitted the charges are false. The writer of this blog is basically so married to the letter "D" he no longer sees any scene of reality. Nothing dumber than a Demcorat loyalist, even dumber than a Republican. Luckily both are dying breeds as the people slowly unite against the fake 2 party syste, Tom Deagan is stuck in the past. So sad. YOu can guarantee if a "R" tried this to a "D", retard Deagan would be freaking out, pointing out the same thing I just did, Perry is within his legal power to cut funding and veto it
LOL. Tom Degan really thinks there is a difference between a demon like Hillary Clinton and whatever GOP hack will be nominated. Deagan, is politically ignorant, and if he can't understand it's all a charade, should retire from blogging. It's not 1970, people understand reality, the left/right paradigm has been exposed. Only the truly stupid on both sides still worship a political party and play the R vs D game. LOL Deagan is still living in the past, before the awakening. NExt election for president will have the LOWEST turnout EVER. America no longer believes in the system. Nobody cares who wins, when both are Anti-American Globalist scum
LMAO, Deagan quoted Chris Matthews, proving to be a true low information voter. MSNBC!!! YOu my friend are not qualified to commentate, you watch the main stream media and quote it. OMG. You might be the only person in the country watching MSNBC at this point. How dumb are you Tom? How dumb can a human possibly be?
Texas Gov. Rick Perry added another high-powered lawyer to his team fighting a felony indictment against him, but this addition is just as much about sending a message than winning the case.
LMAO.. Even Democrats know this whole thing is a witch hunt, and I can't stand Rick "forced vaccination" Perry, either can most of the GOP voting base
This blogger is so lost and out of touch with everything, like most devoted party line sheep
I get my information from many sources, not just MSNBC. Chill.
Perry using his power as a governor to make a line item veto ending the funding for an office is legal.
Publicly announcing it was conditional on the resignation of a public official isn't.
The fact that it's a felony in Texas is the law.
Interesting, liberals hold conservatives to the law, but make excuses when they break the law..
Double standard.
Double standard.
As in it's OK for Republicans to torture as long as they call it "enhanced interrogation", and it's OK for Republicans to detain people indefinitely without charges and deny them counsel, and it's OK for Republicans to take us to war based on lies, etc.?
Yeah, we get it. Damn Democrat hypocrites. No respect for the law.
Do you mean captured terrorists should have the same Constitutional rights as American citizens?
Do you mean the Intel from Bill Clinton was not a lie?
Do you mean Hillery was telling us a lie?
Do you mean the IRS emails were NOT lost?
Do you mean the IRS held up applications for groups that supported Democrats?
Do you mean drawing the "red line" in Syria?
Do you mean the democrat governor of CA giving his state over to Mexico?
Sounds like he's succeeding from the Union, like S.C. did.
Do you mean to say that because of GWB, liberals get a free pass for every and any thing? What about the democrats who voted for the WAR? Are they in trouble because they believed the lie that was based on the Clinton Intel? Do they get a pass? If so why doesn't GWB?
Are you saying it was OK for the US govt under Clinton to attack and burn to death entire family's at Waco?
Are you saying it was ok for Clinton to allow the sale of OUR missile technology to China?
Do you mean it's ok to give citizenship to illegals and add to the number of our unemployed?
Do you mean to say its ok to tell us we can keep our insurance and Dr if we like them?
Do you mean to say it's ok for Obama's administration to look the other way as States break Federal Drug laws?
Do you mean to say it's ok for the NSA to continue break the law by spying on American citizens.
Do you mean to say it was ok that Obama lied when he told us the NSA was going to stop spying on us?
Do you mean to say it's ok for Holder to start a civil rights violation investigation over events in Ferguson, but to ignore when a black cop shoots a white kid?
Do you mean to say it's ok for black kids to beat two white kids to death in a parking lot of a fast food restaurant and not be looked at as a "hate crime"?
"Damn Democrat hypocrites. No respect for the law."
Not really, they just don't hold themselves to the same standards as they hold Republicans and conservatives.
Gee, was my point that difficult to grasp? That really snapped his garter, didn't it?
"Damn Democrat hypocrites. No respect for the law."
Not really, they just don't hold themselves to the same standards as they hold Republicans and conservatives.
So what did he really mean to say? That the reverse is NOT true? LOF'n L!
Again, how many died due to Bush's criminal lies compared to Obama's?
Chuckie better keep to his double standards and his obedient, unquestioning service to the Republican Party. I guess it gives his life meaning and importance.
"Ahh Mozart, Mitch McConnell is in the Senate, not the Congress." --- Anonymous
Just a credibilty check.
Hey anonymous, do you even know who your congressmen are? Bet you don't.
Again, Do you mean to say that because of GWB, liberals get a free pass for every and any thing? What about the democrats who voted for the WAR?
"Interesting, liberals hold conservatives to the law, but make excuses when they break the law.."
What's interesting is you can't figure out the difference between a misdemeanor (DUI) and what is a felony under Texas law (Quid Pro Quo).
Lehmberg paid the legal penalties for her offense, why shouldn't Perry do the same for his?
Also, why didn't Perry require the other two District Attorneys in Texas who were charged with DUI (one was a 2 time offender) to resign or he would defund their office?
Certainly it's not because they were Republicans, right? That would be a double standard, which apparently is abhorrent to conservatives.
(What would I do without quotation marks?)
...from this point on, you should delimit that phrase with question marks.
ie. ?party of Abraham Lincoln?
Also, changing from robot to nidiot in 'Please prove you're not a...' would really transform the commentary.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans are more than twice as likely to say they "strongly disapprove" (39%) of President Barack Obama's job performance as they are to say they "strongly approve" (17%). The percentage of Americans who strongly disapprove of Obama has increased over time, while the percentage who strongly approve has dropped by almost half.
BLAME BUSH?
"The voice of Con-servatism speaks."
Actually it's the voice of a peace loving Muslim leader, if you bother to read the entire post you would know that.
"Lehmberg paid the legal penalties for her offense, why shouldn't Perry do the same for his?"
If convicted he will. Until his trial he is innocent. Kind of a Constitutional thing we do in the USA, except where liberals control things?
Liberalism, theirs is the envy that fuels their hatred.
"The voice of Con-servatism speaks."
Actually it's the voice of a peace loving Muslim leader,
If someone didn't have double standards that require only others to use quotation marks, this would be clear.
"Oh sheep of the West, you have seen nothing yet from Syria. We are a nation that bows to none but Allah, because truth is on our side. The day is near when we will celebrate the great victory, crowned by the whole world. Bashar Al-Assad will become the leader of the entire world."
There you go. From your "voice of a peace loving Muslim leader".
This person is not a liberal. He is, in fact, conservative.
He's a fellow authoritarian, just like Chuckie.
No wonder Chuckie wants to spread the hate.
His IS the hate that fuels fascism.
Liberalism, theirs is the envy that fuels their hatred.
Yeah, liberals want to be like Chuckie. LOL!!
His is the hate that fuels fascism, complete with scapegoats, false accusations, and lies.
Fascism 101. Chuckie: Exhibit A.
Can anyone here tell me when our young President is going to grow a set of balls and drop a lot of bombs on ISIS?
Watching James Foley get his head chopped off on Youtube really made my progressive stomach get very nauseous.
Just remember back in 2008 that I said Hillary was the better candidate.
Hillary would have crushed these low life muslims a long time ago.
And I am really tired of people like Jefferson's Guardian and Dave Dubya who support these low life muslims. It makes me ashamed of saying I am a progressive.
Well sparky, what I said had nothing to do with envy, and everything to do with your bloviation about 'double standards'.
http://www.pressherald.com/2014/07/23/lepage-proposes-work-requirement-for-food-stamps/
Gov. Paul LePage announced Wednesday that Maine will no longer seek a federal waiver that allows some able-bodied adults to receive food stamps without fulfilling work requirements.
“We must continue to do all that we can to eliminate generational poverty and get people back to work,” LePage said in a statement announcing the change, which would take effect Oct. 1. “We must protect our limited resources for those who are truly in need and who are doing all they can to be self-sufficient.”
I've sent an email to Bernie Sanders about what this Neo NAZI is trying to do in the State of Maine with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. He must be a Tea Bagger.
We should boycott Maine in protest for cutting back on free stuff for the People. Or maybe we should eat a lot of Tacos and Mexican Refried beans and drop one helluva Occupy Movement on the Governor's front lawn!
More government and higher taxes is the solution.
California Common Sense released a brief report called “California Welfare Overpayments: Fraud, Internal Errors, and Limited Investigation.” The report finds $848 million in outstanding CalWORKs overpayments to beneficiaries, half of all identified overpayments recovered, and administrative error costs on the rise.
The California Work Opportunities and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) provides temporary cash assistance, welfare-to-work, and other services to eligible low-income families with children. This analysis examines the program’s benefit overpayment trends to determine how frequently beneficiaries and the program’s administration cause errors, as well as how costly those errors are.
While individual errors may seem insignificant, taken together, they prove costly to the system, taxpayers, and the thousands of additional cases they could have funded instead.
For the better part of a decade, just as unemployment was rising and more families sought benefits, California’s social services absorbed cuts as the state diverted limited funds elsewhere. We found that those deep budget cuts had very real unintended consequences: costly administrative errors and a systematic lack of oversight at CalWORKs.
The report’s findings include the following:
As of March 2014, California has $848 million in CalWORKs overpayments. In 2012-13, its identified overpayments were $112.8 million with a total of $19.5 million in fraudulent overpayments.
The annual identified overpayments are equivalent to the costs of enrolling approximately 13,000 additional cases per year.
Beneficiary-caused errors occur six times more often than administration-caused errors and are becoming increasingly common. However, administration-caused errors are becoming costlier.
Due to funding cuts, since 2007-08, welfare spending and staffing positions have decreased by 17% and 5%, respectively. This has led to insufficient eligibility and investigation staffing, which may partially explain why administrative-caused errors are becoming costlier.
The monthly grants for a CalWORKs employed family of three living in a high-cost county dropped from $830 in 2006-07 to $670 in 2014-15 (19%), after adjusting for inflation.
In 2012-13, overpayment collections totaled $53.6 million. Over the past decade, only 49% of the total sum of identified overpayments have been recovered and 10% of them have not been pursued.
OH, I for got Bush lied.
Envy 101:
Dave Dubya Exhibit A.
"no one SUPPORTS abortion"
Mozart
On Monday 9-1-2014 the PBS series "POV" will air "After Tiller." The show's web page promoting the film describes it as "a deeply humanizing and probing portrait of the only four doctors in the United States still openly performing third-trimester abortions in the wake of the 2009 assassination of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas." Who knew that these murderers of late-term pre-born babies — Dr. LeRoy Carhart, Dr. Warren Hern, Dr. Susan Robinson and Dr. Shelley Sella — could be such great people?
Many of the usual suspects are involved in developing, promoting and underwriting the film. Taxpayers are by definition partially on the hook, given that $445 million for fiscal 2014 was allocated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in October of last year.
The film's primary funder has been The Fledgling Fund, whose "about" page describes it as "driven by the passionate belief that film can inspire a better world." So enabling late-term abortions is not just some kind of unfortunate necessity to help downtrodden women. It's a positive thing which brings us "a better world." Wow.
One of the film's stated objectives is to "Change public perception of third-trimester abortion providers by building a movement dedicated to supporting their right to work with a special focus on maintaining their safety." Leftists in support of someone's "right to work." Imagine that.
Its theater gross, according to BoxOfficeMojo.com, was $72,125. This film would have virtually no visibility without its promoters leveraging others' money.
BUT NO one supports abortion.
Ah, “stigma:” one of the last great impediments to full-blown government dependency.
Here’s What Happens Without Stigma
That’s easier said than done. The Left wishes to make it a no-big-deal kind of thing because the Left wants the citizenry as dependent upon government as possible. “Once Stigmatized,” the New York Times reported a few years ago, “Food Stamps Find New Acceptance.” One food bank employee told a gainfully-employed young man to sign up for the program because “there was enough aid to go around and that use would demonstrate continuing need.” Eight years into Mike Bloomberg’s mayoral tenure, the number of residents on food stamps had hit over one-and-a-half million people; a stunning 20 percent of households nationwide were enrolled in SNAP. Over half of illegal and legal immigrants from Central America are on some form of welfare; both the Mexican and United States governments encourage illegal aliens to sign up for food stamps.
This is what you get when you “remove stigmas.” At one time, public assistance was looked upon as a moderate failure—not an irredeemable sin or uncorrectable wrong, but something you wanted to avoid if possible. European socialists realized a long time ago that such well-intentioned opprobrium served to weaken the dependent bond between citizen and state, which is why you can find single mothers on 20 years of welfare.
There is strong evidence that welfare use is transmitted from parents to children; that is to say, a parent’s using welfare significantly increases the likelihood that the child will use it, as well.
Yet with tens of millions of Americans still on food stamps, there’s still plenty more work to do, especially considering that the Left always resists efforts to wean people off government dependency and place them on the road to upward mobility: as long as there are enough people on the government rolls to “demonstrate continuing need,” Progressives will be happy.
Nucky Chuckie, unable to think for himself, is plagiarizing the lies of the far Right “Federalist” hate site. Their job is to make liberals look like monsters and demons, desiring everything evil, and mostly for the great Nanny State to support everybody. They are evil for wanting school lunches for poor kids. And they have envy. Right? Can’t forget the envy, no matter how unspecified that alleged envy may be. The envy is real all right. But it is projected by Chuckie’s cult. These hateful greedheads truly envy the rich. OF that there is no doubt. Nobody envies Chuckie, that’s for sure. LOL!
But our plagiarized propagandist has “genuine sympathy”, yesiree, but only for those he deems worthy.
Those who have truly fallen on hard times deserve our genuine sympathy, and we should not snarl at them for turning to as easy and accessible a source of relief as government welfare. Yet we should also avoid making needy people feel comfortable being dependent upon the government. To do so is would not be merely bad public policy—it would be disingenuous and harmful to poor people, who more than anything need the mental and emotional drive to be free from government dependence.
One evil group on food stamps are naturalized American children of undocumented parents. One must surely be a liberal monster to allow such evil.
The nice folks at firedoglake called out the coldblooded propagandast:
Poor children just need the “mental and emotional drive” to stop being poor? Apparently being a poor child means you did something wrong and need to be properly motivated to stop being a bad person. Are these children, as Ronald Reagan once said about the homeless, poor by choice?
Maybe it should not be surprising this argument came from a federalist. Federalism in America, after all, was the principal argument for allowing slavery and opposing civil rights laws. Federalists see the dependency on the federal government as a greater evil than dependence on any private tyrannies. So maybe these children should only get food if they agree to a certain amount of indentured servitude or be sold into slavery? Then it’s not feeding poor children on the dole but asset owners maintaining their property in hopes of a return on investment – a federalist solution if ever there was one.
---
Comment:
Well once the 1% manages to do away with Child Labor Laws, then they’ll do away with the poverty “stigma” by forcing poor kids to work for their thin gruel. Remember Newt Gingrich wanting poor kids to be school janitors to larn ‘em how to work (because, allegedly, their parents were all deadbeats). Georgia Rep Jack Kingston believes poor kids are “basically lazy” so they should be janitors to get “free food.” Would like to see this happen this year.
Brought to you by the Divide & Conquer campaign of the 1%.
=============
As for the “Over half of illegal and legal immigrants..are on welfare” Mostly false according to Politifact.
"41 percent (of illegal immigrants) are on welfare" is misleading. Most of the "welfare" benefits in question are going to U.S. citizens who live in illegal immigrant households, not directly to illegal immigrants, and very little of it comes in cash form, which is the traditional definition of "welfare." On balance, we rate the claim Mostly False.
“Why is it that lefties have a hard time identifying actual existential evil unless it’s a Republican or a stay-at-home mom?"
"I keep voting democrat and I'm still poor."
Dave's envy fuels his hatred for the the successful.
lefties have a hard time identifying actual existential evil
Another hateful lie. We don't have to go far to find evil, thanks to Chuckie's hate and anger.
Poor Chuckie's still not rich, so he projects his envy unto liberals.
It's what they do, blame liberals for their own failure to be rich.
Obviously Chuckie is not happy. His anger and hate and false accusations tell us he's a miserable wretch.
Even after all his loyal service to the Party of Mammon, poor Chuckie's just a chump and shill for his masters. Since Chuckie is a failure in his own eyes, he needs to scapegoat and hate liberals for his unfulfilled greed.
It's the fascist thing to do.
His is the hate, and envy, that fuels fascism...and failure.
"As for the “Over half of illegal and legal immigrants..are on welfare” Mostly false according to Politifact."
Was it Politifact who rated Obama as having the biggest lie of the year in 2013 "If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it. Period"?
This comment has been removed by the author.
It seems Chuckie accepts Politifact's assessment. Good.
Does Smokey Chuckie remember the previous lies of the year, spread by Chuckie and the entire GOP? We remember the fear-mongering "Death Panels" lie. And the lie of the year before that was "government takeover of health care".
Turns out many people DID keep their health care coverage. Still no sign of death panels and "government takeover of health care".
Oh, oh. looks like it may be time for Chuckie's double standards again.
His is the hate and envy that fuels fascism.
Yes, compared to New York. The quality of life here is so much better. This is a non-debatable fact.
"Another hateful lie."
Typical Dave leftist response to the truth.
Typical Dave leftist response to the truth.
Typical lie from a coward, and enemy of the truth, who can't post under one name.
His is the hate and envy that fuels fascism.
"Turns out many people DID keep their health care coverage. Still no sign of death panels and "government takeover of health care"."
No Sign?
My healthcare plan, THAT I WAS PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH, went up 40% in my monthly payments to be OBAMACARE COMPLIANT.
BUT THE LITTLE BRAIN IN YOUR THICK PRISON GUARD SKULL AND THE BUBBLE YOU LIVE IN WILL STILL CLAIM WITH ROSE COLORED GLASSES THAT HEALTHCARE IS NOT RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT.
We see I was correct, that Chuckie is indeed a miserable and fearful wretch.
I'm afraid nobody will believe him after all his lies about death panels and "government takeover of health care".
He sure hates me for his misery. Like all fascists, he needs his scapegoats. Insurance companies take his healthcare money, so he's mad at me.
It's really all Chuckie's fault for not being wealthy. We really touched a nerve here. He resents liberals and blames them for his failures.
Now he can only envy the rich and be mad at liberals. Exactly what his masters and party of the rich want.
Good little fascist.
Yep, that little Asian storekeeper certainly deserved being roughed up by Michael Brown, since he undoubtedly acquired his store through racial privilege. Wait, wait I get it: Brown was so demoralized by historical institutional racism that he HAD to act out! No choice! Victim! Victim!
The soft, soft bigotry of low expectations.
“Why is it that lefties have a hard time identifying actual existential evil unless it’s a Republican or a stay-at-home mom?"
"I keep voting democrat and I'm still poor."
Well Dave?
If the guy is cool, experience and knowledge are irrelevant. If he simply wills something to happen, it will. This is what we've learned after electing Dear Leader twice. If the results are less than wonderful, you simply "will" that the bad news go away. While liberals can call conservatives stupid, hateful, racist, homophobic, etc., etc., it's abundantly clear that liberalism relies on willful disregard for facts and results.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1
"The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.
The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall's congressional elections."
It warms my heart to see that the health care insurance industry and the Obama Administration are now joined at the hip.
These companies are now slaves of the state, and to stay in business must be obedient to their master like a good puppy dog.
When the Obama Administration tells the health care companies to raise rates to be ObamaCare compliant, they raise rates.
When the Obama Administration tells the health care companies to dance, they dance.
When the Obama Administration tells the health care companies to sit, they sit.
Gee, who was it who said Obama is just another corporatist?
Channeling public money to the private pockets of the elites is what they do. Ask Halliburton Dick. Ask Wall Street.
Or ask Dick's puppet Shrub, who made big profits from borrowed money on a baseball team who's value increased when their new stadium was built by taxpayer money.
The Corporatist/Conservative goal has always been private profit at public cost.
Buying elections and politicians for private profit at public cost is the essence of corporatocracy and con-servatism.
Mussolini was credited saying fascism could also be called corporatism.
Welcome to the corpo-fascist American empire and police state.
"You have no rights, you have owners" - George Carlin.
"The Corporatist/Conservative goal has always been private profit at public cost."
Interesting use of words Dave. Are you saying that a Fascist (A.K.A. Corporatist/Statist) could not be a liberal? Or are you claiming that Obama is not a liberal but a conservative?
Either way it sounds like you are blaming the black guy, you racist you.
"The Corporatist/Conservative goal has always been private profit at public cost."
Good to know there's no confusion on this point.
And no, the Corporatist/Conservative agenda is not a liberal agenda.
Clear?
Probably not to the deliberately obtuse.
What makes you so sure that Corporatist/Conservative agenda can not be a liberal agenda?
Are you saying that liberals would never work with corporations for the good of the State?
Is it wrong that by working together, if both the State and the Corporation benefit?
Do I understand you to be saying that the State should just leave corporations alone and in exchange for being left along the State should not accept contributions to elections?
If Obama is not a liberal, as you are saying, then what is he?
Do you think that Obama has fundamentally changed America?
Using your definitions, what is the name of a liberal politician today?
Would this liberal politician have a strategy on how to deal with ISIS?
What do you think it would look like?
Would a liberal politician be pro choice?
Would a liberal politician support increasing taxes on corporations and the richest Americans?
Would a liberal politician support amnesty?
Would a liberal politician support gay marriage?
Would a liberal politician support single payer health care?
Would a liberal politician become involved in the meals served at public schools?
Who do you think best fits your vision of a liberal president, B. Sanders or E. Warren?
What really pisses me off is that it looks like some of "AmeriKas" Occupy Movement Socialist/Communist Assholes are now joining ISIS.
These people joining ISIS should be liquidated without a trial. Just Say'n whats on my mind.
Its good we have a world leader in David Cameron who understands the ISIS threat versus AmeriKa's Amateur (Bill Clinton analysis).
I wish Barry and Valerie Jarret would pull their heads out of their ASSHOLES!
And I also want to say to Jefferson's Guardian (James Hanson or James Hansen or whatever) to go fuck yourself you Islam sympathizer.
Clear?
Probably not to the deliberately obtuse.
Ah, yes, thank you again.
Great write up, I am glad I ran into your page. The upcoming 2016 clown show will amuse and bewilder the thoughtful for many a day.
21st Century Smokey Chuckie:
go fuck yourself you Islam sympathizer.
20th Century Smokey Chuckie:
go fuck yourself you Jew sympathizer.
Not much difference, is there?
His is that hate that fuels fascism.
Chuckie needs to chill. He’s screaming again.
He’s so wigged out he just gave us evidence that supports MY point. This is due to the fact of his being so deliberately obtuse in recognizing said point.
From his linked article:
But with proposed 2015 rates beginning to come in, the administration acceded to industry demands for a clear guarantee that more money would be available to cover potential losses.
Gee, it’s like Obama answers to corporate demands…you know, what a corporatist does.
And yes, this is entirely supports my point.
"The Corporatist/Conservative goal has always been private profit at public cost."
I bet this makes Chuckie want to be even more obtuse…and oh, so angry.
His is the hate that fuels fascism.
And he’s always proving my case.
Thanks, again, Chuckie.
So again Dave you dodge the questions.
Why?
You aren't chicken re you?
What makes you so sure that Corporatist/Conservative agenda can not be a liberal agenda?
Are you saying that liberals would never work with corporations for the good of the State?
Is it wrong that by working together, if both the State and the Corporation benefit?
Do I understand you to be saying that the State should just leave corporations alone and in exchange for being left along the State should not accept contributions to elections?
If Obama is not a liberal, as you are saying, then what is he?
Do you think that Obama has fundamentally changed America?
Using your definitions, what is the name of a liberal politician today?
Would this liberal politician have a strategy on how to deal with ISIS?
What do you think it would look like?
Would a liberal politician be pro choice?
Would a liberal politician support increasing taxes on corporations and the richest Americans?
Would a liberal politician support amnesty?
Would a liberal politician support gay marriage?
Would a liberal politician support single payer health care?
Would a liberal politician become involved in the meals served at public schools?
Who do you think best fits your vision of a liberal president, B. Sanders or E. Warren?
My point was and is:
"The Corporatist/Conservative goal has always been private profit at public cost."
Good to know there's no confusion on this point.
And no, the Corporatist/Conservative agenda is not a liberal agenda.
Clear?
Probably not to the deliberately obtuse.
Chuckie's dictatorial demand for interrogation (Did anyone count his "questions"?) is merely a reflection of his obtuse disregard for my valid point that he inadvertently substantiated with his link.
Now THAT is what we call obtuse.
Is it wrong that by working together, if both the State and the Corporation benefit?
Just to illustrate the obtuse nature and bias to this question: Note the absence of who should benefit from a corporate government policy. He only includes the state and the corporation. Like all corporate written trade agreements and ALEC written legislation, working Americans and public considerations are completely out of his equation.
He unwittingly validates my points again and again.
"And no, the "Corporatist/Conservative agenda is not a liberal agenda.
Clear?"
Well, not until you can support this claim with back up no, it's not clear.
It's like someone saying liberals support socialism and communists support socialism, therefore liberals are communists. You would rightful demand support to this claim, correct?
The list of things a liberal president would or wouldn't support is so simple for you as the expert on liberalism to answer it's strange you won't do so.
I think you won't answer because Obama does support or oppose the things on the list that a liberal would and should be therefore, called a liberal. Therefore since you called Obama a Corporatist, it IS possible for a liberal to be a Corporatist.
Now if Obama held the same views of let's say Rand or Cruz, I could understand you claiming he was a "Corporatist". Since he doesn't and holds the views and supports the same policy's as liberals, he would by even the narrowest definition be called a liberal.
But what I really find interesting Dave is your not being able to respond to this "Who do you think best fits your vision of a liberal president, B. Sanders or E. Warren"?
Nixon said "run from the right, govern from the middle (or was it the left?)" He won based on running as a conservative. Reagan ran as a conservative, he won. Bush one and two both ran as conservatives and both won. To what extent these governed from the right is open to historical debate.
But when liberals run as centrists or moderates and govern from the left, (Clinton/Obama) they win.
When liberals run as liberals they lose.
Which leads me to this conclusion, liberals can not win a national office running as a liberal, hence your refusal to select who, Sanders or Warren, fits your vision of a liberal candidate. You are chicken to do so. Liberals are afraid to be known as liberal.
Liberals must hide their true positions, they win be deceiving the voters.
It's like someone saying liberals support socialism and communists support socialism, therefore liberals are communists. You would rightful demand support to this claim, correct?
Which has been your position, and requests for supporting evidence were ignored. Same with the other accusations, No evidence whatsoever to support false accusations of “envy”, “Communism”, “wanting more on welfare”, ad nauseam.
You demand accountability of others that you refuse in return. Classic Right Wing double standards. In other words, you don’t deserve answers to your dozen-plus, often poorly framed, questions.
Did Obama advocate Medicare style, single payer healthcare? NO. Did Obama support gay marriage when running for office? NO. (He changed when the polls changed) He ran as a moderate and has governed as a moderate. The most “socialistic” program he initiated was patterned on a GOP/Romney implemented plan.
The more a so-called “liberal” tends to be a corporatist, the less liberal he becomes. He wouldn’t have been elected without corporate support.
A complicated concept for the deliberately obtuse. And even if a liberal were in the White House, he would need to conform to the demands of a militarist/corporatist empire.
What you refuse to understand is both liberals and conservatives support the basic premise of capitalism. Liberals are more Constitution-minded in supporting regulation of commerce. Conservatives don’t like that part of our Constitution.
You could almost say the reverse is true for the Second Amendment. But it is only a generalization. Many liberals own firearms. Of course this doesn’t fit the black and white world view of the Right. Reality never does.
This isn't about what I do or don't do Dave, it's about you supporting your claim that the that Corporatist agenda can not be a liberal agenda?
So far you have not been able to respond to that or anything else I've tried to talk to you about. Instead you revert to you focus on the person asking the question instead of you supporting your stated position.
So is Obama a liberal or not? Because he was elected twice does that mean he had corporate support? Then why did his IRS obstruct the Tea Party organizations that opposed him? Per you, to win the White House all you need is the corporations behind you.
Which raises the question of how could Romney lose? Surely there would be few candidate with more corp support than he? Maybe it was because he was not conservative enough or maybe it was the IRS actions on the Tea Partys?
As for me "refuse to understand is both liberals and conservatives support the basic premise of capitalism"is a misunderstanding of what I have tried to explain to you many times before. I want free enterprise, I government restrictions on entrepreneurship lifted, I want access to more investment capital for the entrepreneur.
I do not believe FEDERAL government should be the support of 47% of Americans. Note the word Federal. If a State wants to fund 90% of their population that's fine with me. Just dont require the State I live in to do the same. It is the growth of the Federal govt's power and control over and into all parts of the citizen's lives that is so destructive.
But really, who do you think would make the best Liberal candidate, Sanders or Warren?
You see, I dont think either of them could win if they were truthful to the voters on their positions. That's why the Democrats are left (for right now) with Hillary as their front runner. That's why liberals are attacking each possible GOP candidate as Tom has been doing. (check out the subject of threads over the past 6 months, from Bush to Chaney to Cruz to Palin, etc) It's not because he wants H. Clinton (he says he doesn't and I believe him) but he wants the most liberal candidate from both party's to run.
If the voters are given that choice in 2016 I predict the lowest voter turn out in 50 years. BTW, effective tomorrow 9/2/14 there are just 9 weeks till the Nov. elections. Right now with the leadership of Obama, I see the results being a landslide for the GOP. Not to say that can't change, but each week makes it less probable.
The president has become the lame albatross around the DNC's neck in the Nov elections.
Chuckie,
Thanks for whining the usual resentments. We got it.
And there you go again, with the double standards: This isn't about what I do or don't do Dave, it's about you
Actually, its about what each of us say.
As usual, I answer more of your crap than you would ever do in response.
As you fret over whether a Corporatist agenda cannot be a liberal agenda, we recall my original point, thus far undisputed:
"The Corporatist/Conservative goal has always been private profit at public cost."
And we see you validate my second point:
“And no, the Corporatist/Conservative agenda is not a liberal agenda. Clear? Probably not to the deliberately obtuse.”
Anyone halfway aware of civil society will understand civil rights, voting rights, workplace bargaining rights, reproductive rights, LGBT rights, environmental regulations, etc, have been the liberal, NOT the corporate /conservative, agenda.
As you've given no reason to not concur with this point, we can let it, too, stand.
My attempt at reasonable discussion failed when I even gave you credit that both liberals and conservatives support capitalism, albeit one side embraces constitutional regulation of commerce and the other rejects the rule of law over commerce. But don’t worry, we got it.
Here’s something else you cannot understand where we really agree.
I do not believe FEDERAL government should be the support of 47% of Americans.
Good thing that’s not happening.
Liberals don’t want that either, but you can’t accept that fact. I think you are conflating the large percentage of American workers who pay no Federal income tax, due in large part to suppressed wages. But they do pay into Social Security, Medicare, state taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, etc.
Liberals want able people to have jobs. We honestly do, but you don’t want to understand this.
Your propaganda simply refuses that reality. To the contrary it declares that liberals WANT people to need unemployment and other safety nets. And yes, we want safety nets because they are needed by human beings.
You are wrong. All your accusations are just as groundless and wrong.
Now to show there are no hard feelings, of the two, I’d prefer Sanders over Warren. They’re both way better than who’s been in power, and both are more truly representative of the people, rather than Wall Street.
Now the issue goes back to when will YOU ever answer any of my questions?
Don’t worry, we already know what to expect. Just kidding.
"You are wrong. All your accusations are just as groundless and wrong."
And you prove that by supporting your positions or just by issuing your edict?
Look Dave, my post is not meant to be taken as an attack on you personally. It is your chance to respond with thoughtful logical not defense answers to serious honest questions. That you either cant or are not willing to weakens your position.
But that's your choice.
"Thoughtful and logical" approaches have always been dismissed, scorned and ignored by Chuckie.
"You are wrong. All your accusations are just as groundless and wrong."
And you prove that by supporting your positions or just by issuing your edict? This sounds like a person quite unfamiliar with what "thoughtful and logical" mean.
In the interests of justice and truth, the accusing party has the burden of proof. Radical Right Authoritarians like Chuckie obviously don't care for such things when they're busy blaming, accusing and scapegoating. Objective truth has no place for hateful and dishonest extremist ideologues.
His is the hate that fuels fascism.
Thoughtful and logical, therefore ignored and dismissed by the authoritarian personality.
Liberals want able people to have jobs. We honestly do, but you don’t want to understand this.
Chuckie's bigotry and hate blind him. He cannot recognize these thoughtful and logical words.
His is the hate that fuels fascism.
"Ahh Mozart, Mitch McConnell is in the Senate, not the Congress."
--- Anonymous
Sigh,
Liberals are hopeless when it comes to discussing tough subjects as adults. It seems they (or at least the two house liberals on this site, Dave and Mozart) only know how to belittle the person they disagree with since they are unable to support their own statements. Still cant support their claims no matter how many times they repeat them. Repeating them again and again does not make them right.
"no one supports abortion" Mozart.
"Liberals don’t want that either", then why do they continue to support policy's and issue mandates that do NOT reduce the number of AMERICANS WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON THE FEDERAL GOVT? In fact you Dave, have WHINED against cutting govt spending. So which side of your mouth is it Dave?
I really think Democrats and their supporters have developed split personalities.
Do you remember when the phrase "take back America" was made by Tea Party members and conservatives, it was deemed a sign of racism by Holder and Obama?
Yet today Uncle Joe Biden told a crowd of HUNDREDS in Detroit it was time to "take back America"!
Aside from the double standard, Joe's statement makes the normal person wonder after being the V.P. for six years, who Uncle Joe wants to take back America from? Romney? Obama? After all, per Dave both are Corporatist.
The president has become a lame albatross around the DNC's neck in the Nov elections.
Nine weeks until the mid term elections.
For clarification since Dave as usual keeps adding posts so the next reader hasn't a clue what is being talked about.
"This isn't about what I do or don't do Dave, it's about you supporting your claim that the that Corporatist agenda can not be a liberal agenda?"
He has run from all civil discussion since asked this question.
Anonymous, we have tried to get you to debate like an adult, but all you do is whine. When confronted with FACTS that contradict your talking points you change the subject.
WHO ARE YOUR CONGRESSMEN?
I'll bet you don't know. I'll bet you aren't even an American citizen.
And if my reminding everyone that you didn't even know that the Senate is part of congress "belittles" you, it's not MY fault. Maybe you should have gotten at least a Middle School education before trying to debate politics with the adults.
Still cant support their claims no matter how many times they repeat them. Repeating them again and again does not make them right.
Projection.
Reasonable discussion has been rejected by Chuckie again.
Note the irrational and (again) accusatory nature of this.
"Liberals don’t want that either", then why do they continue to support policy's and issue mandates that do NOT reduce the number of AMERICANS WHO ARE DEPENDENT ON THE FEDERAL GOVT? In fact you Dave, have WHINED against cutting govt spending. So which side of your mouth is it Dave?
Chuckie's failure at reason is his dogmatic cult belief that government spending creates unemployment. This has been proven wrong again and again.
It was corporate, not liberal, trade agreements and laws that allowed off-shoring American jobs that forces people to use safety nets. Chuckie, as with with all authoritarians, blames the victims.
All he does is whine and blame, whine and blame.
His is the hate that fuels fascism.
It was the highest corporate tax rates in the World that forced corporations to flee. Just ask Burger King.
The higher the tax rate the less taxes collected. The higher the tax rate, the lower the wealth of the people.
All he does is whine and blame, whine and blame. Like Uncle Joe Biden, "take back America".
From who Uncle Joe, from who?
It was the highest corporate tax rates in the World that forced corporations to flee.
Nobody forced them. It was greed.
Corporate propaganda loves to whine about the "highest rates in the world".
Who actually pays that rate? Anyone?
Crickets.
GAO: U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%
Burger King is the ideal corporate "person". After benefiting from US patronage and infrastructure for decades it gets to leave the country and still lobby and buy politicians.
And they have chumps eager to shill for them.
Divide and conquer. It never fails.
The higher the tax rate, the lower the wealth of the people.
Wrong. The middle class grew when tax rates were higher, and shrunk when tax rates were lower. The Bush tax cuts and Bush Great Recession have done their damage.
Just. The. Facts.
100% correct:
"Liberals want able people to have jobs. We honestly do, but you don’t want to understand this."
Chuckie's bigotry and hate blind him. He cannot recognize these thoughtful and logical words.
His is the hate that fuels fascism.
Sure Dave, what ever you say.
"The middle class grew when tax rates were higher, and shrunk when tax rates were lower."
So Dave you would support an effective tax rate of 90% so the middle class would really grow? Then why not 99% tax rate, then happy days would really be here again.
Almost as bad as Uncle Joe calling for us to take back America, from who Uncle Joe, from who?
What Dave is saying is the the federal govt by raising the tax rates makes the middle class grow. What he might consider is the qualifications to be in the middle class goes down as income shrinks due to TAXATION. Also Dave doesn't produce sources to support his statements (not that he will or can, that he has proven time and time again) nor what time periods he is talking about. His thinking is as stale as bread used for Thanksgiving dressing.
So Dave, did the middle class grow when FDR raised taxes? The end of the depression was brought about by increasing taxes?
Sure Dave, sure.
Run, Chuckie, run from reality.
"The middle class grew when tax rates were higher, and shrunk when tax rates were lower."
Just. The. Facts.
What happened after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and the Bush Great Recession?
How's that all working out for the middle class?
The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest
The numbers, based on surveys conducted over the past 35 years, offer some of the most detailed publicly available comparisons for different income groups in different countries over time. They suggest that most American families are paying a steep price for high and rising income inequality.
Although economic growth in the United States continues to be as strong as in many other countries, or stronger, a small percentage of American households is fully benefiting from it.
It’s the “trickle UP”, Stupid!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Clean up in cell 215 Dave.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Lofgren, a recently retired long-time GOP operative, anguished diatribe on the “apocalyptic cult” that is the GOP.
“I left because I was appalled at the headlong rush of Republicans, like Gadarene swine, to embrace policies that are deeply damaging to this country's future; and contemptuous of the feckless, craven incompetence of Democrats in their half-hearted attempts to stop them. And, in truth, I left as an act of rational self-interest. Having gutted private-sector pensions and health benefits as a result of their embrace of outsourcing, union busting and "shareholder value," the GOP now thinks it is only fair that public-sector workers give up their pensions and benefits, too. Hence the intensification of the GOP's decades-long campaign of scorn against government workers. Under the circumstances, it is simply safer to be a current retiree rather than a prospective one.”
“If you think Paul Ryan and his Ayn Rand-worshipping colleagues aren't after your Social Security and Medicare, I am here to disabuse you of your naiveté. They will move heaven and earth to force through tax cuts that will so starve the government of revenue that they will be "forced" to make "hard choices" - and that doesn't mean repealing those very same tax cuts, it means cutting the benefits for which you worked.”
“During the week that this piece was written, the debt ceiling fiasco reached its conclusion. The economy was already weak, but the GOP's disgraceful game of chicken roiled the markets even further. Foreigners could hardly believe it: Americans' own crazy political actions were destabilizing the safe-haven status of the dollar. Accordingly, during that same week, over one trillion dollars worth of assets evaporated on financial markets. Russia and China have stepped up their advocating that the dollar be replaced as the global reserve currency - a move as consequential and disastrous for US interests as any that can be imagined.”
“If Republicans have perfected a new form of politics that is successful electorally at the same time that it unleashes major policy disasters, it means twilight both for the democratic process and America's status as the world's leading power.”
And from another post.
The only thing that can keep the Senate functioning is collegiality and good faith. During periods of political consensus, for instance, the World War II and early post-war eras, the Senate was a “high functioning” institution: filibusters were rare and the body was legislatively productive. Now, one can no more picture the current Senate producing the original Medicare Act than the old Supreme Soviet having legislated the Bill of Rights.
Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican filibuster. Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that Washington is gridlocked: legislating has now become war minus the shooting, something one could have observed 80 years ago in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself. […]
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress’s generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner…. Undermining Americans’ belief in their own institutions of self-government remains a prime GOP electoral strategy [emphasis added]
That's probably the best comment anyone's ever posted on this site,
Pappy. Thank you.
Post a Comment
<< Home