Politics

[Wild Bill]

She went full potato there. I think a long time ago, some liberal dude really crushed her fragile little heart. Probably an immigrant too... smh

She's crazy like a fox. Bitch makes serious coin.

Bill Maher and Coulter are very good friends and have been for years (at least dating back to his old show "Politically Incorrect" on which she was a regular guest). Two sides of the same coin.

Didn't they date?

 

[ACamp1900]

Maher and Coulter absolutely deserve each other imo...

 

[Cackalacky]

Maybe it was Maher who crushed her soul into the black shadow it is today. LOL. just saying..

 

[IrishJayhawk]

She's crazy like a fox. Bitch makes serious coin.



Didn't they date?

Nah. But he jokes about the fact that people think that.

He's a dick, but I don't think he's nearly as crazy as her. He's wrong about a lot of stuff. She's practically certifiable.

 

[connor_in]

Is this where I post my #WarOnWomen hash tag

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Absolutely right. I mis-spoke. I was referring to the bail out that was measured in trillions of dollars ($8.5 trillion I believe) and not the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which I believe was $787 billion. Despite your assertion that it was money wasted, many believe that was beneficial to the economy.

They are wrong. Numbers, not my assertion, show it was not only a huge waste of money but delayed this "recovery."

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Debuts next week in theatres. Written and produced by Dinesh D'Souza.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPsLB11POtQ

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Say what you want about Mark Cuban, but he's no dummy. And in this case I hope he's right for the sake of future students who can't start their lives until their late 20's/ early 30's because of the insane college debt.


Mark Cuban: Student Loan Bubble Will Burst, Put Colleges Out Of Business | Video | RealClearPolitics

 

[IrishJayhawk]

They are wrong. Numbers, not my assertion, show it was not only a huge waste of money but delayed this "recovery."

That is far from a universal belief.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/what-the-stimulus-accomplished.html?_r=0

It’s probably too late for the White House to persuade skeptics about its program, but its assessment echoes the views of many independent economists and the independent Congressional Budget Office. “The Recovery Act was not a failed program,” the C.B.O.’s director, Douglas Elmendorf, told annoyed Republican lawmakers in 2012. “Our position is that it created higher output and employment than would have occurred without it.”

The stimulus act was a success — and we need another - The Washington Post

Economist's View: Paul Krugman: The Stimulus Tragedy

All of these people think that the "numbers" you mention paint a different picture.

It's very hard to prove how much worse things would have been. But many believe the stimulus, if anything, was too small (or contained a too high a percentage of tax cuts instead of actual spending). In retrospective analysis, the economic crisis was actually worse than anyone knew. GDP was shrinking significantly more quickly (about 3.5% more quickly in the 4th quarter of 2008) than people thought it was in real time.

How did the recent GDP revisions change the picture of the 2007–2009 recession and the recovery?

Numbers, not my assertion...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

That is far from a universal belief.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/what-the-stimulus-accomplished.html?_r=0

The stimulus act was a success — and we need another - The Washington Post

Economist's View: Paul Krugman: The Stimulus Tragedy

All of these people think that the "numbers" you mention paint a different picture.

It's very hard to prove how much worse things would have been. But many believe the stimulus, if anything, was too small (or contained a too high a percentage of tax cuts instead of actual spending). In retrospective analysis, the economic crisis was actually worse than anyone knew. GDP was shrinking significantly more quickly (about 3.5% more quickly in the 4th quarter of 2008) than people thought it was in real time.

How did the recent GDP revisions change the picture of the 2007–2009 recession and the recovery?

Numbers, not my assertion...

NY Times, Washington COMpost, and Paul Krugman. Glad you take a broad view of the spectrum lol. Let me show you the other side of the world:

Obama's Stimulus, Five Years Later - WSJ

Why the Stimulus Failed | National Review Online

The Five Biggest Failures From President Obama's Stimulus Law - US News

How the $800B stimulus failed | New York Post

The entire objective was to get people back to work (in gov jobs) yet unemployment rose. And we're calling this $800 billion waste a success?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

NY Times, Washington COMpost, and Paul Krugman. Glad you take a broad view of the spectrum lol. Let me show you the other side of the world:

Obama's Stimulus, Five Years Later - WSJ

Why the Stimulus Failed | National Review Online

The Five Biggest Failures From President Obama's Stimulus Law - US News

How the $800B stimulus failed | New York Post

The entire objective was to get people back to work (in gov jobs) yet unemployment rose. And we're calling this $800 billion waste a success?

So you respond to my biased sources (including a nobel laureate in economics and direct quotes from the CBO) by bringing me articles from two Rupert Murdoch owned publications, the national review, and an article by the chairman of the RNC?

I read your articles.

The national review basically talks about cash for clunkers. That was a small part of the stimulus (about .3%) at the time. It states that 45% of those who bought new cars would have done so anyway. Two points...
1. That means that 55% of those who bought new cars wouldn't have done so otherwise.
2. The people in the 45% were more financially solvent than they would have been otherwise.

Those points aside...
The other articles basically argue that Obama over-promised. That much seems clear. That is largely because the hole was much deeper than we thought at the time. That's why I posted the revised GDP numbers. And this is where I think you have selective memory. As the BEA noted...

How did the recent GDP revisions change the picture of the 2007–2009 recession and the recovery?

...both the revised and previously published estimates of GDP show that the recession was the deepest contraction since the beginning of BEA’s quarterly real GDP estimates in 1947.

That said, as the CBO noted in my other post...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/op...shed.html?_r=0

It’s probably too late for the White House to persuade skeptics about its program, but its assessment echoes the views of many independent economists and the independent Congressional Budget Office. “The Recovery Act was not a failed program,” the C.B.O.’s director, Douglas Elmendorf, told annoyed Republican lawmakers in 2012. “Our position is that it created higher output and employment than would have occurred without it.”

It worked. It wasn't as robust a success (i.e., unemployment climbed higher than Obama suggested it would) because we were in a bigger hole than anyone knew.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Oh great. Now since our points don't stand on their own merit, we are going to promote our numbers as fact. Just because they counteract your weak arguments and name calling a bit. But they still are bogus. Jayhawk uses the best numbers, but therein lies the real problem.

The recession was worse than anyone understood. Since the Regan era, everybody has been building their structures on a shit foundation. Since the post-Vietnam era, officials have urged us all to look at numbers the way we want, depending on what is going on at the time. This is called lying. Should the value increase of real estate be used? Should it not? In cost of living only? Etc., all the numbers you, I, and the other guy are used to looking at have been cooked for content so tragically that we cannot have an effective conversation about what is what. My father taught me this before he died. He predicted the dot bust. Got out of high tech, and put his money in Wal-Mart and one or two other real winners. He gave me a lesson because he wanted me to know when to pull out of Wal-Mart. It was about how the information we get is not correct. It says what those that have control of the line want us to hear.

The only thing you can say is when you reduce the real middle class, you put the economy into a negative growth situation (in post WW II America.) When talking about wealth preservation, the size or the health of the economy is almost immaterial. If we need 20 marbles to survive, and there are two hundred marbles, ten of us have 8, eight of us have 18 marbles, and one of us has 156, it doesn't matter. Even if you take another two marbles away from everybody. It does not make a difference.

 

[NDFan4Life]

 

[magogian]

Megyn Kelly interviewed Bill Ayers. The full interview is supposed to air Monday night. Should be hilarious.

Here's a clip: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YryEIJlRnMQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Bluto]

Megyn Kelly interviewed Bill Ayers. The full interview is supposed to air Monday night. Should be hilarious.

Here's a clip: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YryEIJlRnMQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I find it a bit interesting that a "news organization" that cheerleads for some rancher who hasn't paid his taxes and chooses to arm himself to the teeth to "defend his freedom" against federal agents would take issue with Bill Ayers.

 

[magogian]

Defending that rancher was stupid. Ayers is even worse.

 

[Bluto]

Defending that rancher was stupid. Ayers is even worse.

Two sides of the same coin in my opinion. The nut jobs of the modern day right (militia movement, patriot movement, ect...) appear to have taken most of their pages out of the nut job of the 60's left (weather underground, yippies, ect...) playbook.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Obama

 

[Rack Em]

Obama

Dawg, are you drunk or something? This is like the second thread where you've posted the word "Obama" or some other nonsense.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Obama

 

[dshans]

Dawg, are you drunk or something? This is like the second thread where you've posted the word "Obama" or some other nonsense.

He's a vinyl adherent. Something destructively heavy fell on his stylus. His groove got broken. Now he skips and repeats endlessly.

 

[pkt77242]

I have to admit that I am surprised that this thread isn't getting any action today after the Supreme Court ruling.

 

[Rack Em]

I have to admit that I am surprised that this thread isn't getting any action today after the Supreme Court ruling.

I guess we all agree on the ruling so there's nothing to talk about.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I have to admit that I am surprised that this thread isn't getting any action today after the Supreme Court ruling.

that discussion has been aborted.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I have to admit that I am surprised that this thread isn't getting any action today after the Supreme Court ruling.

I guess we all agree on the ruling so there's nothing to talk about.

It was a relief to see the ruling and I hope to see it upheld in future challenges. We'll see how long the Church can withstand in the courts, the pendulum is swinging fast and hard and I don't believe it's near the apex yet, we have to experience the fallout before it's momentum ceases.

 

[Wild Bill]

Hilary and the democrats in DC are happy about this one, no doubt. We'll hear all about the war on women for the next two years. Never let a crisis go to waste.

 

[GoIrish41]

Hilary and the democrats in DC are happy about this one, no doubt. We'll hear all about the war on women for the next two years. Never let a crisis go to waste.

If it is handed to you it would almost be rude not to use it.

 

[Rack Em]

If it is handed to you it would almost be rude not to use it.

Because women don't have the option of working where they want? They can't choose to accept a job outside of the closely-held corporations this ruling applies to?

Because Hobby Lobby only protested a couple of the 20 (I believe) contraceptives the government forced private entities to pay for and "the pill" wasn't one of them?

Because women cannot purchase those drugs/procedures/etc. independent of their health insurer?


You can make this into a "War on Women" but it's going to be a steep hill to climb.

 

[Rack Em]

Hilary and the democrats in DC are happy about this one, no doubt. We'll hear all about the war on women for the next two years. Never let a crisis go to waste.

To be fair, both parties do this and they're dumb not to do so (because it's effective, not because it's pandering and appealing to the lowest common denominator).

But what sounds better to the voting bloc D's tend to do well with (Elites on the coasts, 20 somethings, minorities, and the poor)?

Republican line: "Eric Holder helped sell guns to Mexican drug cartels!"
Democrat line: "Crazy Evangelicals don't want women to have access to contraceptives!"

I'll take "What is Republicans want to tell women what to do with their bodies!!1!" for 1000. And that is today's Daily Double.

"Women's issues" is all the rage and the AG completely F-ing up is not all the rage. Therefore the Republicans won't get the same airtime.

 

[Wild Bill]

To be fair, both parties do this and they're dumb not to do so (because it's effective, not because it's pandering and appealing to the lowest common denominator).

Agreed.