PDA

View Full Version : Five Myths About the GOP that Just Won't Die



resolve
9th August 10, 10:45 AM
I came across this article from a friend's FB page. I thought it interesting enough to bring forth attention on it. Note that I do not like the Republican party almost as much as I don't like the Democrat party and I have voted Independent on the last several elections simply as a means of protest to the two party system.

But this was interesting. I found that I too had believed some of this:


Many Americans today are unhappy with the Democratic Party.

Yet according to a Gallup poll conducted in July 2010, Democrats were still ahead of Republicans, 49% to 43%, in voters’ generic ballot preferences for the 2010 congressional elections.

Why? A big part of the reason is voter dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. And a major reason for that dissatisfaction is that over the years voters have been fed numerous lies by Democrats and the mainstream media to discredit the GOP.

Here are five of those lies:

1. The Bush administration lied about the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War.

Two bipartisan investigations demanded by Democrats refute this myth. In 2004, the Robb-Silberman Report, along with a separate Senate Intelligence Committee report, both concluded that there was no evidence that administration officials manipulated intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq.

I didn't know this. However, my beef with the Bush administration wasn't the Iraq war... it was the timing and the shifting away from Afghanistan (and the botched capture of Osama... we had that bastard, we had him and knew where he was then they sent in Afghani troops instead of the Marines because we didn't want any more casualties... somehow Osama just "slipped through").



2. Republicans caused the mortgage crisis.

In reality it was the Democrats who caused the mortgage crisis and stifled Republican efforts to prevent it.

First, Bill Clinton broadened the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), bypassing the Republican-led Congress and ordering the Treasury Department to rewrite the CRA rules to force banks to fulfill loan “quotas” in low income neighborhoods.

Eventually, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were required by HUD to show that 55% of their mortgage purchases were to low and moderate income borrowers, and lending standards were lowered to meet those goals.

Intense competition caused by Fannie and Freddie’s increasing appetite for loans caused investment and commercial banks to compete for borrowers, and the looser lending standards eventually spread to higher-income and prime borrowers as well.

Then came Clinton’s most disastrous decision: he legalized the securitization of subprime mortgages that allowed the market to soar from $35 billion in risky loans in 1994 to $1 trillion by 2008, thus poisoning the entire mortgage industry.

Republicans tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie’s purchases of subprime mortgages. In both 2003 and 2005, they introduced legislation that would have required Fannie and Freddie to eliminate their investments in them. Both times their attempts were opposed by the Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee, so the bills never made it to Senate floor.

I knew there was more to the mortgage crisis than the Dems were letting on in the press. But I didn't know it could be traced back to the Clinton administration.



3. Eight years of Republican deregulation caused the financial crisis.

Some myths die harder than others. This is certainly one of them. Financial services
were not deregulated during the Bush administration.

The repeal of the Depression-era Glass–Steagall Act in 1999, allowing banks and securities firms to be affiliated under the same roof, was supported by the Clinton administration and signed into law by the president.

Moreover, that was not the cause of the financial crisis. The crisis was caused by banks and investment firms purchasing vast numbers of bad mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.

What contributed to such a high volume of purchases? In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Democrat Annette Nazareth, who ran the market regulation division at the time, unanimously adopted a rule change known as Basel II.

Adopted by all of the world’s central bankers, Basel II was an attempt to provide greater regulation of investment firms by more accurately evaluating the types of assets they held.

Unfortunately, AAA-rated mortgages were incorrectly considered to be some of the safest assets an institution could own. As a result, Basel II allowed investment banks to leverage their assets of mortgage-backed securities at a ratio as high as 30 to 1. Thus, although Basel II wasn’t the cause of the financial crisis, it certainly contributed to the size of it.

The financial crisis still gives me headaches, but I am slowly finding out the reasons behind it.



4. Republicans are the “party of Wall Street, big business and special interest groups.”

In the 2008 national election cycle, more campaign donations from the largest banks and Wall Street firms went to Democrats, not Republicans.

Ninety of the top one hundred corporate donors leaned Democratic, and nearly 75 percent of all hedge fund donations in that same period went to presidential candidate Obama.

Furthermore it is the Democratic Party which has deep-rooted unholy alliances with special-interest groups—labor unions, teachers unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, community organizations such as ACORN and welfare beneficiaries—that often places the interests of those groups ahead of what’s best for the country. Their alliance with trial lawyers, for example, is why tort reform, an effective way to lower health care costs, was not included in the health care bill.


I knew this beforehand. Although the Republican party is not innocent of this either, and seems to enjoy projecting this image.



5. Democrats have always stood up for black Americans—and Republicans are either uncaring at best, or overt racists at worst.

Many Americans would be surprised to know that Martin Luther King, Jr. embraced conservative ideals.

Yet King’s choice of political affinity made perfect sense: it was Republicans, not Democrats, who consistently fought for freedom and civil rights for blacks since their founding in 1854—as the anti-slavery party.

In fact, the Democrats tried to filibuster and stop the 1964 Civil Rights Act from passing.

Republicans also established the NAACP and founded and financed all the earliest black schools and colleges.

I did not realise that the Republican party was founded as an abolitionist movement or that the NAACP was founded by them.



The fact that most Americans still believe these five myths is a stark reminder that voters can be manipulated by a mainstream media and a Democratic Party who believe “a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.”

Richard Bernstein, a former life-long Democrat, is the author of "Duped America: How Democrats and the Mainstream Media Have Duped the American People and Are Harming Our Country" (Forrester, 2010).

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
9th August 10, 10:59 AM
What does "GOP" stand for????

Cullion
9th August 10, 11:03 AM
Two bipartisan investigations demanded by Democrats refute this myth. In 2004, the Robb-Silberman Report, along with a separate Senate Intelligence Committee report, both concluded that there was no evidence that administration officials manipulated intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq.

Bipartisan doesn't mean much when so many Democrats voted for the war too.
Read Lt. Colonel Kwiatowski for more background on the abuse of intelligence in the Pentagon in the build-up to the invasion.

EuropIan
9th August 10, 11:04 AM
"Tu quoque"

nihilist
9th August 10, 11:11 AM
Yes, it's true it took Clinton AND Bushes to destroy the economy.
Still, the sheeple sleep.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th August 10, 11:12 AM
... MLK was a radical Marxist...

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
9th August 10, 11:14 AM
So does everybody else know what GOP stands for?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th August 10, 11:15 AM
^ grinches on parade lol!!!

resolve
9th August 10, 11:17 AM
... MLK was a radical Marxist...

You'd be surprised what christianity truly is.

Cullion
9th August 10, 11:18 AM
So does everybody else know what GOP stands for?

Grand Old Party.

nihilist
9th August 10, 11:18 AM
Mr Bush's State of the Union address, 29 January 2003:
Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder...
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.
For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country...
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

Cullion
9th August 10, 11:20 AM
Yellow Cake from Nigeria ?

And let's not ask too many questions about poor old Dr. Kelly.

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 11:27 AM
The wiki for the sub prime mess is more comprehensive and telling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 11:32 AM
wall street journal article on CRA performance.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/12/03/feds-kroszner-defends-community-reinvestment-act/

nihilist
9th August 10, 11:35 AM
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/niger.htm

nihilist
9th August 10, 11:37 AM
GkAtUq0OJ68

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 11:38 AM
Let me introduce to you Republican senator Phil Gramm.

The Glass-Steagall Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) was enacted after the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression). It separated commercial banks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bank) and investment banks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_bank), in part to avoid potential conflicts of interest between the lending activities of the former and rating activities of the latter. Economist Joseph Stiglitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz) criticized the repeal of the Act. He called its repeal the "culmination of a $300 million lobbying effort by the banking and financial services industries...spearheaded in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm)." He believes it contributed to this crisis because the risk-taking culture of investment banking dominated the more conservative commercial banking culture, leading to increased levels of risk-taking and leverage during the boom period.[117] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-vanityfair.com-116) The Federal government bailout of thrifts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_association) during the savings and loan crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis) of the late 1980s may have encouraged other lenders to make risky loans, and thus given rise to moral hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard).[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-brown1-37)[118] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#cite_note-117)

WarPhalange
9th August 10, 11:39 AM
The article should have been


1 Myth about the GOP that just won't die:

THe GOP do bad things. Not true. In fact, it's the Democrats that do bad things.
#4 in particular got to me. "After getting raped by the financial crisis with a GOP in charge, Wall Street went to the Democrats!"

It's lies by omission. #5 is something that I see a lot and want to strangle people over. "Dems were racist 40 years ago, ergo they are racist now!"

Yeah, I'm sure you can find a bunch of evidence supporting the idea that the Dems are racist hypocrites, but the above reasoning is just stupid.

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 11:40 AM
^ beat me to it.

The assertion that Bush didn't lie but was "mislead" is a just something that shouldn't be entertained at all.

nihilist
9th August 10, 11:42 AM
It's a propaganda piece to keep the two parties at odds.

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 11:52 AM
Alan Greenspan is not blameless here.

Kiko
9th August 10, 11:53 AM
Both sides need to be scrapped and we need to have other alternatives...

EuropIan
9th August 10, 11:57 AM
you might want to try a non two-party system?

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 11:57 AM
Thats why there is this supposed "rage against incumbency" movement. (even though incumbents have been winning many primaries)

I can't say that I wouldn't like to see term limits in the house and the senate. Some of these fuckers die in one seat or a another.

Kiko
9th August 10, 11:57 AM
Yeah, I might. Where can I get one?

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 11:59 AM
walmart?

Kiko
9th August 10, 12:00 PM
Hell, no, not Walmart!

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 12:01 PM
Well thats what cha gonna get.

Kiko
9th August 10, 12:02 PM
So who wrote the article, or is it the standard chain-email kinda thing?

EuropIan
9th August 10, 12:03 PM
The Walmart party would be powerful.

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 12:03 PM
this all leads to the #1 double entendre.

Bush wasn't responsible for anything.

Kiko
9th August 10, 12:04 PM
Nah, it would be cheap, break easily and have to be replaced very often.

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 12:06 PM
Nah, it would be cheap, break easily and have to be replaced very often.I.E. replaced being repurchased by the consumer while walmart makes billions.

Kiko
9th August 10, 12:07 PM
Wait, don't we have this now?

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 12:09 PM
http://robertrosenthal.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/shhh.jpgshhhhhhhhhhhhh its a secret.

nihilist
9th August 10, 12:09 PM
Alan Greenspan is not blameless here.

Hey, the banks, oil companies and insurance companies are doing just fine.

Greenspan helped his buddies plunder social security, export jobs and destroy the economy.

Also:David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, has dared to call out his own party for creating our current economic problems. His NYT op-ed, “Four Deformations of the Apocalypse,” begins:

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing.

Given our long-term deficit problem, Stockman said it is “unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.”

UPDATE: Huffpost reports that in an interview today on NBC’s Meet the Press, “Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the push by congressional Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the costs elsewhere could end up being ‘disastrous’ for the economy.”

Here are some more excerpts from Stockman’s must-read piece:


More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one….

The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

Good to see Stockman abandon his infamous “starve-the-beast argument, that tax cuts would force government to cut spending.”

… when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.

The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector. Here, Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation.

There’s only one piece of GOP orthodoxy even Stockman can’t bring himself to take on — the need for government policy to rebuild the U.S. industrial base:

The fourth destructive change has been the hollowing out of the larger American economy. Having lived beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore. In the past decade, the number of high-value jobs in goods production and in service categories like trade, transportation, information technology and the professions has shrunk by 12 percent, to 68 million from 77 million. The only reason we have not experienced a severe reduction in nonfarm payrolls since 2000 is that there has been a gain in low-paying, often part-time positions in places like bars, hotels and nursing homes.

Well, the bold-face identification of the problem is right, but a major reason we have hollowed out the larger American economy is that the GOP have succeeded in blocking almost every major progressive effort to increase investment in infrastructure and R&D and other key aspects of a 21st century economy when Democrats were in charge, and they cut funding in those crucial areas when they were in charge. This effort will only intensify in the coming years.

So Stockman has only this solution:

It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.

The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing — as suggested by last week’s news that the national economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Under these circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline — is needed more than ever.




Both sides need to be scrapped and we need to have other alternatives...

Sadly this won't happen.

ICY
9th August 10, 12:09 PM
They both did it. All of it.

The shift between Reps and Dems when it comes to niggers came with Reagan. Before Reagan, the Dixiecrats were still the worst of anything anywhere for niggers, but in the '80s they were pretty much gone and Reagan was fucking the poor in the ass...and niggas be po'.

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 12:20 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Moleculo again.

resolve
9th August 10, 03:43 PM
I'm glad this piece has brought up so much enlightening bits from the bunch of you.

Also, Kiko, the author of the article is at the bottom. He was a noted democrat for most of his life before "switching teams" so to speak.

I just wish all this nonsense would end. But what kind of impetus would bring about REAL change?

Kiko
9th August 10, 03:45 PM
Ooooh. So he's selling a book.

*sigh*

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 03:46 PM
asteroid

ICY
9th August 10, 03:47 PM
War, famine, pestilence...you know...the things that usually bring about change...

Commodore Pipes
9th August 10, 04:26 PM
I second the motion for term limits. No one can make the hard decisions if they are trying to woo their constituency. I'd rather a one-night stand - at least we're only getting fucked once.

Seriously, though, who's going to cut the defense spending monstrosity? We need to get that fucking beast under control. And I'm not saying that we arm our troops with rocks and sticks, I'm saying we need defense spending to operate under the same market forces everyone touts instead of having a non-competitive, subsidized defense industry. There's no penalty for incompetence, missed deadlines, fucking SYSTEMS THAT DON'T FUCKING WORK. How does that reflect a free market? The government rarely exercises its perogative to buy elsewhere. It's a defacto subsidy.

fes_fsa
9th August 10, 05:27 PM
screw the 2 party system.

we only need one party.

like China.

since we'll be speaking their language eventually, anyway.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th August 10, 05:31 PM
I second the motion for term limits. No one can make the hard decisions if they are trying to woo their constituency. I'd rather a one-night stand - at least we're only getting fucked once.

Seriously, though, who's going to cut the defense spending monstrosity? We need to get that fucking beast under control. And I'm not saying that we arm our troops with rocks and sticks, I'm saying we need defense spending to operate under the same market forces everyone touts instead of having a non-competitive, subsidized defense industry. There's no penalty for incompetence, missed deadlines, fucking SYSTEMS THAT DON'T FUCKING WORK. How does that reflect a free market? The government rarely exercises its perogative to buy elsewhere. It's a defacto subsidy.

I think the current bidding system is the only way the military-industrial complex can justify their massive R&D budgets.

Hedley LaMarr
9th August 10, 06:49 PM
Thats why there is this supposed "rage against incumbency" movement. (even though incumbents have been winning many primaries)

I can't say that I wouldn't like to see term limits in the house and the senate. Some of these fuckers die in one seat or a another.
Rage against incumbency should be more accurately called "rage against other district's incumbents."

ICY
9th August 10, 07:07 PM
The two party system can easily be traced back to the split between Protestants and Catholics. To think that our Anglo-Saxon heritage is going to disappear overnight is a little ridiculous.

HappyOldGuy
9th August 10, 08:14 PM
This is a fox news editorial and is 100% bullshit. That doesn't mean that there aren't any grains of truth in it, but the true bits are used as part of the telling of "the big lie."

The first claim is the one that I would curbstomp the cunt over. The hearings he lists weren't even over whether the administraiton lied. The pubs successfully delayed those hearings till after the 2006 election (and would have almost certainly killed them if they had won control). Here is the report on the truthfullness of administraiton claims.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

Ajamil
9th August 10, 08:23 PM
Rage against incumbency should be more accurately called "rage against other district's incumbents."Hey we got rid of our old hats.

Robot Jesus
9th August 10, 08:32 PM
I get my news online mostly and try to avoid the cable networks if I can. my perception of them is that CNN in trying to be unbiased, MSNBC has a left wing bias, and fox makes up most of it's "news". is this largely accurate?

Ajamil
9th August 10, 08:42 PM
CNN isn't trying too hard, then. At least from the snippets I see at work. I hate cable news - they covered Wyclef for Pres. for an hour or two, and then called the fires in Moscow breaking news. They cover only the shallowest bits of the news, the commentaries and specialists (lol - meteorologist talking as a specialist on the oil cleanup) are pointless, and they keep repeating themselves like they think there isn't enough shit goin down in the world to fill 4 hours of broadcasting, let alone 24.

HappyOldGuy
9th August 10, 09:07 PM
I get my news online mostly and try to avoid the cable networks if I can. my perception of them is that CNN in trying to be unbiased, MSNBC has a left wing bias, and fox makes up most of it's "news". is this largely accurate?

Pretty much, MSNBC and CNN have both played around with their ideological stance trying to steal ratings from FOX, but that's about how it has wound up at the present.

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 10:33 PM
Msnbc is basically the "can you believe what the idiots on FOX said today?!?!?!?" network.

TheMightyMcClaw
9th August 10, 10:39 PM
I just wish all this nonsense would end. But what kind of impetus would bring about REAL change?


Nothing will. Our government is designed to move at a monolithic pace. Even when the same party controls the legislature and the executive branch, their ability to change the operating parameters of the nation is mild at best.
I think part of the problem is we expect the President to BE the government, and that a new chief executive will lead to an overhaul of the system (which, to be fair, they all promise); but this discounts the role of legislatures, judiciaries, states, local government, and the million other elements that power is spread out between.

HappyOldGuy
9th August 10, 10:42 PM
Msnbc is basically the "can you believe what the idiots on FOX said today?!?!?!?" network.

Yeah, but remember that for awhile they were trying to be the other right wing station when they had Tucker Carlson and Greta Van Sustren. And CNN played footsie by having Lou Dobbs around.

They're all whores other than FOX. FOX is retarded on principle.

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 11:12 PM
That was just the whole token republican thing. MSNBC still has Pat Buchanan as a contributor as well as Joe Scarborough.

Its just amazing how many people watch FOX, that short bus of a network, exclusively.

They sure don't let a little thing like facts get in the way.

HappyOldGuy
9th August 10, 11:38 PM
That was just the whole token republican thing. MSNBC still has Pat Buchanan as a contributor as well as Joe Scarborough.

Its just amazing how many people watch FOX, that short bus of a network, exclusively.

They sure don't let a little thing like facts get in the way.

Smart and stupid is a different axis than conservative and liberal.

The Economist is conservative and smart. Frontline is liberal and smart.

FOX is conservative and stupid. MSNBC is liberal and mediocre. CNN is centrist and mediocre, although I think that Fareed Zakaria often flirts with smart.

SifuAbel
9th August 10, 11:49 PM
Do you watch Maddow? She's no dummy. I don't see her as too left wing at all.

HappyOldGuy
10th August 10, 12:12 AM
I'm sure she's a very bright gal in person. So are a couple of the FOX talking heads. But her material is strictly knee jerk, "hey, look at the redneck retards."

Now that is certainly better than actually being a retard on FOX, but it's intellectually cowardly, since it tries to paint all conservatives with the retard brush instead of engaging with the ones who actually have something to say.

WarPhalange
10th August 10, 01:09 AM
Now that is certainly better than actually being a retard on FOX, but it's intellectually cowardly, since it tries to paint all conservatives with the retard brush instead of engaging with the ones who actually have something to say.

Sadly, the ones who actually have something smart to say are drowned out more and more by the retards each day.

SifuAbel
10th August 10, 06:13 AM
No dude, you don't watch the show. You may have watched a segement here or there but itellectually cowardly is not even close to the issues she tackles nightly.

SifuAbel
10th August 10, 06:14 AM
Here's the number 1 myth about the GOP that won't die. :

That they are conservatives.

SifuAbel
10th August 10, 06:57 AM
Check out the "Republicans succeed in starving states" segment and you tell me if she is intellectually cowardly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

Cullion
10th August 10, 07:11 AM
Here's the number 1 myth about the GOP that won't die. :

That they are conservatives.

That's very true.

The modern Republican party is a fairly radical, big government party that supports all kinds of domestic surveillance and foreign policy adventures.

nihilist
10th August 10, 07:17 AM
Myth: GOP stands for smaller government.

resolve
10th August 10, 08:24 AM
True true true. We should publish our own myths about each party (including the Third parties like Green and Libertarian) that won't die. Would be awesome.

Wounded Ronin
10th August 10, 10:22 AM
Hey, the banks, oil companies and insurance companies are doing just fine.

Greenspan helped his buddies plunder social security, export jobs and destroy the economy.

Also:David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, has dared to call out his own party for creating our current economic problems. His NYT op-ed, “Four Deformations of the Apocalypse,” begins:

IF there were such a thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing.

Given our long-term deficit problem, Stockman said it is “unseemly for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, to insist that the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.”

UPDATE: Huffpost reports that in an interview today on NBC’s Meet the Press, “Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the push by congressional Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the costs elsewhere could end up being ‘disastrous’ for the economy.”

Here are some more excerpts from Stockman’s must-read piece:


More fundamentally, Mr. McConnell’s stand puts the lie to the Republican pretense that its new monetarist and supply-side doctrines are rooted in its traditional financial philosophy. Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

This approach has not simply made a mockery of traditional party ideals. It has also led to the serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations that have crippled our economy. More specifically, the new policy doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one….

The second unhappy change in the American economy has been the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40 percent of gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion, it will be 40 times greater than in 1970. This debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.

Good to see Stockman abandon his infamous “starve-the-beast argument, that tax cuts would force government to cut spending.”

… when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax cuts.By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than they had been since the 1940s. Then, after rarely vetoing a budget bill and engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures, George W. Bush surrendered on domestic spending cuts, too — signing into law $420 billion in non-defense appropriations, a 65 percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.

The third ominous change in the American economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector. Here, Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time, removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation.

There’s only one piece of GOP orthodoxy even Stockman can’t bring himself to take on — the need for government policy to rebuild the U.S. industrial base:

The fourth destructive change has been the hollowing out of the larger American economy. Having lived beyond our means for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and production offshore. In the past decade, the number of high-value jobs in goods production and in service categories like trade, transportation, information technology and the professions has shrunk by 12 percent, to 68 million from 77 million. The only reason we have not experienced a severe reduction in nonfarm payrolls since 2000 is that there has been a gain in low-paying, often part-time positions in places like bars, hotels and nursing homes.

Well, the bold-face identification of the problem is right, but a major reason we have hollowed out the larger American economy is that the GOP have succeeded in blocking almost every major progressive effort to increase investment in infrastructure and R&D and other key aspects of a 21st century economy when Democrats were in charge, and they cut funding in those crucial areas when they were in charge. This effort will only intensify in the coming years.

So Stockman has only this solution:

It is not surprising, then, that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.

The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of debt liquidation and downsizing — as suggested by last week’s news that the national economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter. Under these circumstances, it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline — is needed more than ever.





Sadly this won't happen.

This. Also the op caused me to lose IQ.

Hedley LaMarr
10th August 10, 11:17 AM
I'm sure she's a very bright gal in person. So are a couple of the FOX talking heads. But her material is strictly knee jerk, "hey, look at the redneck retards."

Now that is certainly better than actually being a retard on FOX, but it's intellectually cowardly, since it tries to paint all conservatives with the retard brush instead of engaging with the ones who actually have something to say.
I think you are confusing Maddow with Olbermann.

HappyOldGuy
10th August 10, 11:53 AM
Check out the "Republicans succeed in starving states" segment and you tell me if she is intellectually cowardly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

You think it takes guts for someone who is paid to be a liberal to dish out a one sided attack on the congressional republicans? I think you are missing the point here. If she wasn't a coward she would have had someone smart talking about deficits.

nihilist
10th August 10, 12:03 PM
She is hired as entertainment. In broadcasting you do as the producer says.

I liked her radio show because it was filled with interviews with politicians, activists and thinkers.

resolve
10th August 10, 12:12 PM
This. Also the op caused me to lose IQ.


Just a few more IQ points to go and you will have ascended WR!!!

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/8e/Dera.jpg

HappyOldGuy
10th August 10, 12:12 PM
She is hired as entertainment. In broadcasting you do as the producer says.

I liked her radio show because it was filled with interviews with politicians, activists and thinkers.

It's not a personal thing. I would happily convert her to the dickside. But it's important not to mistake smug condescension for debate. And that's all she delivers on MSNBC.

Trust me, I'm kindof an expert on the subject.

EuropIan
10th August 10, 12:38 PM
You would still drink with her.

nihilist
10th August 10, 12:45 PM
It's not a personal thing. I would happily convert her to the dickside. But it's important not to mistake smug condescension for debate. And that's all she delivers on MSNBC.

Trust me, I'm kindof an expert on the subject.


I agree. She is more than capable of not relying on mockery, so it's kind of sad.

EvilSteve
10th August 10, 01:35 PM
She's also quite possibly the only person who never gets narked on in her Encyclopedia Dramatica entry.

SifuAbel
10th August 10, 01:42 PM
Speaking of deficits , you just hate this one. LMAO.

DOK-Qy7jskk

SifuAbel
10th August 10, 01:47 PM
Another deficit show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/15/proposed-gop-deficit-incr_n_647580.html

This one shows how all these GOP tax cuts will increase the deficit by 3.2 trillion . I'm assuming you all will actually watch the segment before commenting.

You guys don't like the humor? Please, go buy a funny bone at walmart.

SifuAbel
10th August 10, 02:12 PM
ANOTHER deficit show On Orin Hatch.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-orrin-hatch-candid-deficit-s

Some Republicans say they don't believe the CBO's projections that the health care overhaul will pay for itself. As for their newfound worries about big government health expansions, they essentially say: That was then, this is now.
Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good."

SifuAbel
10th August 10, 02:14 PM
Republicans crowing about deficit spending is a giant LARK.

HappyOldGuy
10th August 10, 02:17 PM
Pointing out hypocricy in your opposition is valid in one context. In another, it's a cheap way to avoid discussing the underlying issues.

Q. Should we be increasing our deficit right now?

A. You made deficits too!

See the non sequitor.

SifuAbel
10th August 10, 02:22 PM
A. Thanks to your last boy, rep., we don't have a CHOICE.

So what it gonna be? Enact stimulus packages, which are already paid for, for states so they don't FIRE countless police, fire, teachers, workers, etc, turn off services, and unpave the roads.
vs..........................
700 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy?

Like I said, if you're not actually viewing the clips then this exercise is pointless.

HappyOldGuy
10th August 10, 02:29 PM
You're really not following. I support the recent package of aid for the states. But Rachel Maddow is not contributing anything useful to the debate.

Many idiots oppose the package for many idiotic reasons. Rachel makes fun of them on her TV show.

Some very bright boys and girls oppose them for some very rigorously researched and valid reasons. But you could watch Maddow for a thousand years and you would never know they exist.

And since she doesn't bring in the smart boys and girls from the opposition, she doesn't need to bring in the smart boys and girls who agree with her. And she mostly doesn't. Her entire premise assumes that everyone watching already agrees with her.

SifuAbel
10th August 10, 04:22 PM
That is absolutely not true. She brings in people from the right all the time. At least the ones that are brave enough to come on the show.

She brings in MANY of the "smart B's and G's" that agree with her. I don't think you're watching the show at all.

SifuAbel
10th August 10, 04:27 PM
A. Thanks to your last boy, rep., we don't have a CHOICE.

So what it gonna be? Enact stimulus packages, which are already paid for, for states so they don't FIRE countless police, fire, teachers, workers, etc, turn off services, and unpave the roads.
vs..........................
700 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy?

Like I said, if you're not actually viewing the clips then this exercise is pointless.

What I mentioned basically is the choice we're up against. This IS the republican stance. Idealizing a situation will not change the very basic and simple choice above. In fact the biggest problem the dems have, besides a minority party practically stopping all momentum, is paralysis by analysis.

Cullion
10th August 10, 06:37 PM
Are you being presented with a choice between adding to the federal deficit to maintain state-worker's current pay and bonuses, or adding to the federal deficit so you can slash those benefits whilst lowering some taxes ?

How does Maddow present this Hobbesian choice?

SifuAbel
10th August 10, 07:58 PM
You're not paying attention that closely. The stimulus to keep state jobs and services is not a defit adding "special interest bailout". It was totally paid for in a "pay as you go" fashion by using monies that were already allocated to the budget.

The republicans push for the permanent renewal of the bush tax cuts would ADD 700 billion to the deficit.


They want to halt helping states but at the same time want to give 700 billion to the wealthiest Americans that would otherwise get a 3% hike on taxes that would put them back in the dreaded Clinton era.

WarPhalange
10th August 10, 08:47 PM
She's also quite possibly the only person who never gets narked on in her Encyclopedia Dramatica entry.

From her ED article:

"Rachel is a minority among liberal (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Liberal) television personalities in that she is the only commentator who has tasted pussy."

Cullion
11th August 10, 05:04 AM
You're not paying attention that closely. The stimulus to keep state jobs and services is not a defit adding "special interest bailout". It was totally paid for in a "pay as you go" fashion by using monies that were already allocated to the budget.

I didn't suggest it was a 'special interest bailout'. The monies allocated to the federal budget for this purpose constitute part of the deficit, yes ?

So the choice you're being presented with is between two means of increasing your national debt.



The republicans push for the permanent renewal of the bush tax cuts would ADD 700 billion to the deficit.

Yes. Note I didn't pick either option as better for the deficit.



They want to halt helping states but at the same time want to give 700 billion to the wealthiest Americans that would otherwise get a 3% hike on taxes that would put them back in the dreaded Clinton era.

So, would you agree that you're being presented with a choice between increasing the deficit by transferring state liabilities to the federal budget, or between cutting taxes when the federal government is already spending more than it's revenue ?

SifuAbel
11th August 10, 11:13 AM
No, there is no "increase" in the budget deficit, its already been paid for in monies that have already been allocated. Any and All spending will increase the debt. Ideally, its in having a budget surplus that we will see a reduction in national debt.

Don't be naive, debt makes the world go round. Politicians seem to love to use the words debt and deficit interchangeably.

Its a complete sham this "cut taxes/reduce spending" malarkey the reps are trying to sell us yet again. Considering that they cut taxes, but spend anyway, and how. then they raise taxes after the elections. Reagan raised taxes 7 out of 8 years.

SifuAbel
11th August 10, 11:22 AM
http://www.taxguru.net/comix/hw-bush-mccain-web.jpg

SifuAbel
11th August 10, 12:05 PM
nDoqU9QDIeg

Cullion
11th August 10, 12:15 PM
No, there is no "increase" in the budget deficit, its already been paid for in monies that have already been allocated. Any and All spending will increase the debt. Ideally, its in having a budget surplus that we will see a reduction in national debt.

You can only do that by raising revenue or cutting spending. The republicans want to cut spending and taxes at the same time, the democrats want to raise spending and revenues. Neither wants to cut the deficit. That's why you're being presented with Hobbeson's choice.



Don't be naive, debt makes the world go round. Politicians seem to love to use the words debt and deficit interchangeably

That's a subject for another thread.



Its a complete sham this "cut taxes/reduce spending" malarkey the reps are trying to sell us yet again. Considering that they cut taxes, but spend anyway, and how. then they raise taxes after the elections. Reagan raised taxes 7 out of 8 years.

You've just stated a very harsh false dichotomy. It's quite possible to disagree with both main parties economic policies.

SifuAbel
11th August 10, 12:25 PM
The republicans want to cut spending and taxes at the same timeNo, they don't. They may say it, yet they've not done it. Its a lie played out in history.

Cullion
11th August 10, 02:55 PM
You're right, I should rephrase that:

'The Republicans want to cut aid to the states and taxes at the same time'.

I totally agree that the Republicans are not a small government party any longer.

Zendetta
11th August 10, 08:03 PM
Myth 1) They're Straight

Apparently, GOP stands for "Gay Old Perverts".

SifuAbel
11th August 10, 09:32 PM
You're right, I should rephrase that:

'The Republicans want to cut aid to the states and taxes at the same time'.

I totally agree that the Republicans are not a small government party any longer.
You could also say the reps want to cut aid were its desperately needed and give the wealthiest 2% a tax break which would ad an additional 700 billion to the deficit.

700 billion that would not ultimately trickle in to the economy in any significant way. Worse than that are all the corporate tax breaks. The republican bicycle only has one wheel.

SifuAbel
11th August 10, 09:32 PM
Myth 1) They're Straight

Apparently, GOP stands for "Gay Old Perverts".
ROFL!!!

SifuAbel
11th August 10, 10:31 PM
tap tap tap

Cullion
12th August 10, 04:20 AM
You could also say the reps want to cut aid were its desperately needed and give the wealthiest 2% a tax break which would ad an additional 700 billion to the deficit.

700 billion that would not ultimately trickle in to the economy in any significant way. Worse than that are all the corporate tax breaks. The republican bicycle only has one wheel.

I don't believe in 'trickle down' economics, but I do believe in careful budgeting and light-touch government. The Republicans haven't been a genuine party of small government since the start of the Reagan era.

SifuAbel
12th August 10, 09:05 AM
Careful budgeting and light touch government is a nice idea. We really had none of the former and too much of the LATER.

WarPhalange
12th August 10, 10:38 AM
Careful budgeting and light touch government is a nice idea. We really had none of the former and too much of the LATER.

*LATTER

SifuAbel
12th August 10, 12:58 PM
thank you easy reader

Commodore Pipes
12th August 10, 01:02 PM
See you latter, alley catter.

SifuAbel
12th August 10, 02:16 PM
Hey, It could have been worse; I could have said 'ladder'.

Spade: The Real Snake
12th August 10, 04:44 PM
*Latte

WarPhalange
12th August 10, 09:09 PM
Hey, It could have been worse; I could have said 'ladder'.

*Lader.

Zendetta
12th August 10, 09:14 PM
tap tap tap

I see that your Position on this issue involves taking a Wide Stance.

SifuAbel
12th August 10, 10:37 PM
Any wider and he would have spilled over into the ladies room.

Kiko
13th August 10, 09:47 AM
Hey, It could have been worse; I could have said 'ladder'.

*Leder(hosen)?

EuropIan
13th August 10, 06:29 PM
Lieder

Cullion
13th August 10, 07:37 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lederhosen