Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in Bush's
klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in Bush's
klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

It's hard to believe that someone could be more embarassing that Bush, but this
guy might be able to pull it off.

On Nov 10, 9:28*am, "Bob F" wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in Bush's
klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

It's hard to believe that someone could be more embarassing that Bush, but this
guy might be able to pull it off.

Yep, he did pull a blunder but then one has to wonder how Obama keeps
from having such blunders...oh wait, he never says anything without
his teleprompters, even when he talked to a classroom full of kids.
When he does say something without his teleprompter he usually tries
to make sure there is nobody there to hear him or they have been sworn
to not report it.

Except when talking with the French President about Israel, then he
got caught with his size 12's in his mouth.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:48:11 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

Yep, he did pull a blunder but then one has to wonder how Obama keeps
from having such blunders...oh wait, he never says anything without
his teleprompters, even when he talked to a classroom full of kids.

A couple weeks ago his TP's were stolen. Might have been in Virginia.

sigh

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 07:48:11 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

Except when talking with the French President about Israel, then he
got caught with his size 12's in his mouth.

He showed his tell (as in poker).

In essence, he will not fuel IDF jets into Tehran.

On 11/10/2011 10:28 AM, Bob F wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in Bush's
klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

It's hard to believe that someone could be more embarassing that Bush, but this
guy might be able to pull it off.


Ranks up there with Obama saying there are 57 states.

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2011 10:28 AM, Bob F wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in Bush's
klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

It's hard to believe that someone could be more embarassing that Bush,
but this
guy might be able to pull it off.


Ranks up there with Obama saying there are 57 states.

You have to admit that poor Rick seems to have a lot of "deer in the
headlights" moments. Many more than the Speechifier in Chief who *got* the
job primarily because of his oratorial abilities. It certainly wasn't
because of his years of executive experience.

Now if Rick could somehow wife swap his way to Katy Perry, singer of the
infamous "I Kissed a Girl . . " he might jump back up in the ratings.

http://www.google.com/images?q=katy+...&hl=en&safe=of

What we need is a superhot first lady to "absorb" all the interest of
pseudo-reporters/gossip columnists so that her husband can govern the
country unbothered by the paparazzi press. Maybe he could adopt her as the
superhot first daughter . . . Hey, if Romney, Perry and Cain are all they've
got, the Republicans are in trouble.

(-:

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" wrote:
Hey, if Romney, Perry and Cain are all they've
got, the Republicans are in trouble.


Nah-- At this time in 2003 the Ds were trying to decide between Dean,
Clark and Gebhardt. It wasn't until Feb. that Kerry arose to
'save' them. So don't count out grandpa M. . . Ron Paul. At
least it should be entertaining for the next year.

Jim

"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote:
Hey, if Romney, Perry and Cain are all they've
got, the Republicans are in trouble.


Nah-- At this time in 2003 the Ds were trying to decide between Dean,
Clark and Gebhardt. It wasn't until Feb. that Kerry arose to
'save' them. So don't count out grandpa M. . . Ron Paul. At
least it should be entertaining for the next year.

Kerry "arose" - an interesting word choice considering he was sunk somewhat
later by the Swiftboat campaign. "Entertaining" might not be what I call it
because the stakes are so damn high. Obama's success or lack thereof should
serve as a reminder that the ship of state is so large that no one man can
really turn it much in four years, especially if the ship's got a huge hole
in it and "not sinking" trumps "being lost." We've got a world that's got
many more simmering "hot spots" than we did before either WWI or WWII and
any one of them could boil over and rewrite history in just a few days.

I saw an interesting program about why the Nazis didn't rise up against
Hitler once their cities began burning from endless night bombing raids. It
fits perfectly with why the Afghans didn't throw out the Taliban. When
people are under constant life-threatening attack they enter the "survival
mode" and their main interests tend to be those of staying alive. In Nazi
Germany, anyone talking about overthrowing Hitler and ending the war after
Hamburg, Dresden and even Berlin were bombed to rubble ended up worse than
dead - along with his family. The Taliban did the same to the Afghanis.

The only time I've really felt that kind of pressure living in America (and
mildly) was when the Beltway Sniper was active in the DC area, shooting
people at shopping malls and gas stations. Even then I couldn't really
conceive of what it must have been like to be an Iraqi, trying to "get by"
and wondering whether the next trip to the market would be the last one.

As for late saviors for the Republican Party, I think the time has come and
gone. Late entrants now won't be able to get their names on many state
ballots so that tends to rule out a real 11th hour attempt from Palin or
anyone else. So we're stuck with the rather large field we have, but I sure
don't see Newt or Ron leapfrogging to the top.

The field for the R's looks just as bleak as it did for the D's in 2003 but
I must agree, the R's have made it "entertaining" to say the least. And
just so Trader can say "race card" I really wonder if Cain isn't an example
of how far affirmative action can bring someone less that 100% competent in
the US corporate world. He's more of what I'd call "oriented strand board"
rather than "presidential timber." Maybe that should be "flake board."

"Order Cain for President today and get a free 32 ounce Pepsi and a coupon
good for 9% off on your next Godfather's Pizza!"

If only Ron Paul had a handler that communicated with him by earphone who
could say "Ix-nay the weird stuff" whenever his locomotive leaves the
tracks. There are a lot of good ideas in among the bizarro ones, but alas,
he comes in a single person package, Twilight Zone economic theories and
all. What I don't get is how the Republicans expect to create more jobs and
reduce unemployment after they fire all the "excess" government workers
they're so fond of dissing.

--
Bobby G.

Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in Bush's
klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23 consecutive
quarters of economic growth, low interest rates, virtually no inflation,
dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

I miss Bush. Sniff.

On Nov 10, 11:18*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in Bush's
klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23 consecutive
quarters of economic growth, low interest rates, virtually no inflation,
dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

I miss Bush. Sniff.

yep bush was wonderful he set the stage creating a false economy that
began crashing as he departed the white house, and started 2 wars, all
on borrowed money and ione for totally bogus reasons.

by removing sadam he empowered iran, and created the conditions for WW3

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:02:38 -0800 (PST), bob haller wrote:

On Nov 10, 11:18*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in Bush's
klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23 consecutive
quarters of economic growth, low interest rates, virtually no inflation,
dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

I miss Bush. Sniff.

yep bush was wonderful he set the stage creating a false economy that
began crashing as he departed the white house, and started 2 wars, all
on borrowed money and ione for totally bogus reasons.

As opposed to three wars, still on borrowed money, $5T more debt and an
(optimistic) expectation of another $1.5T per year as far as the eye can see.

by removing sadam he empowered iran, and created the conditions for WW3

Pull your dress down. Your ignorance is showing.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:02:38 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

yep bush was wonderful he set the stage creating a false economy that
began crashing as he departed the white house, and started 2 wars,
all on borrowed money and ione for totally bogus reasons.

As opposed to three wars, still on borrowed money, $5T more debt and
an (optimistic) expectation of another $1.5T per year as far as the
eye can see.


Without Bush's start, we'd be in neither Iraq or Afganistan now. Everytime Obama
talks about getting out, Republicans have a fit. And you claim it's all Obama's
fault.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:45:22 -0800, "Bob F" wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:02:38 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

yep bush was wonderful he set the stage creating a false economy that
began crashing as he departed the white house, and started 2 wars,
all on borrowed money and ione for totally bogus reasons.

As opposed to three wars, still on borrowed money, $5T more debt and
an (optimistic) expectation of another $1.5T per year as far as the
eye can see.


Without Bush's start, we'd be in neither Iraq or Afganistan now. Everytime Obama
talks about getting out, Republicans have a fit. And you claim it's all Obama's
fault.

Everyone here knows you're illiterate. No further proof needed.

Bob F wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:02:38 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

yep bush was wonderful he set the stage creating a false economy
that began crashing as he departed the white house, and started 2
wars, all on borrowed money and ione for totally bogus reasons.

As opposed to three wars, still on borrowed money, $5T more debt and
an (optimistic) expectation of another $1.5T per year as far as the
eye can see.


Without Bush's start, we'd be in neither Iraq or Afganistan now.
Everytime Obama talks about getting out, Republicans have a fit. And
you claim it's all Obama's fault.

What's all Obama's fault? That the Republicans have fits? They don't have
fits like the liberals do (contrast Tea Party gatherings with the Occupy
crowd).

The question for this election is: "Are you better off today than you were
$4 trillion ago?"

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:17:25 -0600, "
wrote:


Pull your dress down. Your ignorance is showing.

You don't see any flies on my watermelon, do you?

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:22:20 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:17:25 -0600, "
wrote:


Pull your dress down. Your ignorance is showing.

You don't see any flies on my watermelon, do you?

No, just Haller.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in Bush's
klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23
consecutive
quarters of economic growth, low interest rates, virtually no inflation,
dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

It was just an illusion, Bub. The magical numbers sprouted from all of that
from the Feds spending trillions on post 9/11 security, wars, TSA, etc.
It's amazing how a little government deficit spending can falsely goose the
economic numbers. Now we're experiencing the crash of the speculative
bubble and runaway defense spending that made those high-flying numbers
possible - but not real. We also destroyed Iraq, the country that had the
most to gain from keeping Iran nuke free because they'd be one of the first
victims of Iranian nuclear aggression.

I don't miss Bush one tiny bit. I just wonder how long it will take to pay
off the mountain of debt Bush's incredible spending sprees and cowboy
diplomacy have left us? When will the Republican Tax Cut Fairy come and
wave her magic wand and make 10 years of war debt disappear?

I noticed that voters in Ohio have said "we didn't give the Republicans a
mandate to go union busting" and rolled back the changes that the Tea Party
& Co. tried ramming down their throats. How many times do they have to get
bitch-slapped to realize that NO ONE has a mandate when elections are won by
tiny margins? It was pretty easy to see by the tenor of the protests when
that law was passed that the Republicans had made a serious error in
estimating the support they'd garner for union hatchetwork.

In other news, Republican overreach around the US got knuckle-slapped in a
number of states. An anti-abortion amendment in Mississippi got trounced,
voting restrictions in Maine got overturned. The seething southwestern
anti-immigrantion agenda took a hit as Arizonans recalled the State Senate's
president, Russell Pearce and other elections indicated that the day of the
Tea Party may have come and gone. Now we will have to wait to see if
Wisconsin's Gov. Scott Walker will face a recall vote in the spring. As my
very wise journalism prof. said "the pendulum always swings."

With only Romney and P - p - p - Perry looking like they'll survive the
"Quickening" and Obama undoubtedly having some pre-election trick up his
sleeve comparable to capturing Osama, it's going to be an interesting year
ahead.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in
Bush's klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23
consecutive quarters of economic growth, low interest rates,
virtually no inflation, dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

It was just an illusion, Bub. The magical numbers sprouted from all
of that from the Feds spending trillions on post 9/11 security, wars,
TSA, etc. It's amazing how a little government deficit spending can
falsely goose the economic numbers. Now we're experiencing the crash
of the speculative bubble and runaway defense spending that made
those high-flying numbers possible - but not real. We also destroyed
Iraq, the country that had the most to gain from keeping Iran nuke
free because they'd be one of the first victims of Iranian nuclear
aggression.

I don't miss Bush one tiny bit. I just wonder how long it will take
to pay off the mountain of debt Bush's incredible spending sprees and
cowboy diplomacy have left us? When will the Republican Tax Cut
Fairy come and wave her magic wand and make 10 years of war debt
disappear?

I noticed that voters in Ohio have said "we didn't give the
Republicans a mandate to go union busting" and rolled back the
changes that the Tea Party & Co. tried ramming down their throats.
How many times do they have to get bitch-slapped to realize that NO
ONE has a mandate when elections are won by tiny margins? It was
pretty easy to see by the tenor of the protests when that law was
passed that the Republicans had made a serious error in estimating
the support they'd garner for union hatchetwork.

In other news, Republican overreach around the US got knuckle-slapped
in a number of states. An anti-abortion amendment in Mississippi got
trounced, voting restrictions in Maine got overturned. The seething
southwestern anti-immigrantion agenda took a hit as Arizonans
recalled the State Senate's president, Russell Pearce and other
elections indicated that the day of the Tea Party may have come and
gone. Now we will have to wait to see if Wisconsin's Gov. Scott
Walker will face a recall vote in the spring. As my very wise
journalism prof. said "the pendulum always swings."

With only Romney and P - p - p - Perry looking like they'll survive
the "Quickening" and Obama undoubtedly having some pre-election trick
up his sleeve comparable to capturing Osama, it's going to be an
interesting year ahead.

You make some good points, especially about Ohio. Although I think the
over-all result is more mixed.

Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards of $34
million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I was in charge in
Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting cops and firemen, and
encourage the unions to spend another $34 million. Eventually the'd run out
of money to defeat it.

As to Wisconsin, local governments are already saving bags of money because
of the new laws on collective bargaining. For example, in the past, as part
of the collective bargaining agreements, teachers got their health care
insurance through a wholly-owned subsidary of the state's teacher's union.
Now that insurance is open for bids, the premiums are only ONE-THIRD what
they were under the collective-bargain mandated vendor.

If savings like that continue, statutes of the governor will be erected in
every public square.

Regarding a possible "October Surprise" by the Obama crew, you may be
overestimating them. Chicago politics has never been known for subtlety. The
"surprise" will be an obviously Photoshopped picture of the GOP nominee
delicately removing a woman's garter belt from a goat, the spouse eating
monkey brains, or him (or her) carrying a big bag with a big "$" on it away
from the Chinese Embassy.

No, don't look for any finesse from the current White House crew.

As for a mandate, that may be in the eye of the beholder. In 2010, the GOP
picked up six seats in the Senate and sixty-three in the House. Last
Tuesday, the GOP gained control of both houses of the Virginia Assembly to
go along with the governorship.

HeyBub wrote:
Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in
Bush's klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23
consecutive quarters of economic growth, low interest rates,
virtually no inflation, dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

It was just an illusion, Bub. The magical numbers sprouted from all
of that from the Feds spending trillions on post 9/11 security, wars,
TSA, etc. It's amazing how a little government deficit spending can
falsely goose the economic numbers. Now we're experiencing the crash
of the speculative bubble and runaway defense spending that made
those high-flying numbers possible - but not real. We also destroyed
Iraq, the country that had the most to gain from keeping Iran nuke
free because they'd be one of the first victims of Iranian nuclear
aggression.

I don't miss Bush one tiny bit. I just wonder how long it will take
to pay off the mountain of debt Bush's incredible spending sprees and
cowboy diplomacy have left us? When will the Republican Tax Cut
Fairy come and wave her magic wand and make 10 years of war debt
disappear?

I noticed that voters in Ohio have said "we didn't give the
Republicans a mandate to go union busting" and rolled back the
changes that the Tea Party & Co. tried ramming down their throats.
How many times do they have to get bitch-slapped to realize that NO
ONE has a mandate when elections are won by tiny margins? It was
pretty easy to see by the tenor of the protests when that law was
passed that the Republicans had made a serious error in estimating
the support they'd garner for union hatchetwork.

In other news, Republican overreach around the US got knuckle-slapped
in a number of states. An anti-abortion amendment in Mississippi got
trounced, voting restrictions in Maine got overturned. The seething
southwestern anti-immigrantion agenda took a hit as Arizonans
recalled the State Senate's president, Russell Pearce and other
elections indicated that the day of the Tea Party may have come and
gone. Now we will have to wait to see if Wisconsin's Gov. Scott
Walker will face a recall vote in the spring. As my very wise
journalism prof. said "the pendulum always swings."

With only Romney and P - p - p - Perry looking like they'll survive
the "Quickening" and Obama undoubtedly having some pre-election trick
up his sleeve comparable to capturing Osama, it's going to be an
interesting year ahead.

You make some good points, especially about Ohio. Although I think the
over-all result is more mixed.

Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards
of $34 million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I was
in charge in Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting cops
and firemen, and encourage the unions to spend another $34 million.
Eventually the'd run out of money to defeat it.

You and the Koch brothers. Standard repub behavior. Just keep ignoring the
public response to your actions, and throw money at it to kill the results of
Democracy. Furtunately, the public is rapidly catching on to the reality that
Repubs don't give a hoot about the workers of the US. All they do is for the
billionaires and corporations. I think the repubs are seeing the beginning of
the end.

On Nov 10, 7:23*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:V8ednd2Gu73EZCbTnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@earthlink. com...
Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in
Bush's klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23
consecutive quarters of economic growth, low interest rates,
virtually no inflation, dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

It was just an illusion, Bub. *The magical numbers sprouted from all
of that from the Feds spending trillions on post 9/11 security, wars,
TSA, etc. It's amazing how a little government deficit spending can
falsely goose the economic numbers. *Now we're experiencing the crash
of the speculative bubble and runaway defense spending that made
those high-flying numbers possible - but not real. *We also destroyed
Iraq, the country that had the most to gain from keeping Iran nuke
free because they'd be one of the first victims of Iranian nuclear
aggression.

I don't miss Bush one tiny bit. *I just wonder how long it will take
to pay off the mountain of debt Bush's incredible spending sprees and
cowboy diplomacy have left us? *When will the Republican Tax Cut
Fairy come and wave her magic wand and make 10 years of war debt
disappear?

I noticed that voters in Ohio have said "we didn't give the
Republicans a mandate to go union busting" and rolled back the
changes that the Tea Party & Co. *tried ramming down their throats.
How many times do they have to get bitch-slapped to realize that NO
ONE has a mandate when elections are won by tiny margins? *It was
pretty easy to see by the tenor of the protests when that law was
passed that the Republicans had made a serious error in estimating
the support they'd garner for union hatchetwork.

In other news, Republican overreach around the US got knuckle-slapped
in a number of states. *An anti-abortion amendment in Mississippi got
trounced, voting restrictions in Maine got overturned. *The seething
southwestern anti-immigrantion agenda took a hit as Arizonans
recalled the State Senate's president, Russell Pearce and other
elections indicated that the day of the Tea Party may have come and
gone. *Now we will have to wait to see if Wisconsin's Gov. Scott
Walker will face a recall vote in the spring. *As my very wise
journalism prof. said "the pendulum always swings."

With only Romney and P - p - p - Perry looking like they'll survive
the "Quickening" and Obama undoubtedly having some pre-election trick
up his sleeve comparable to capturing Osama, it's going to be an
interesting year ahead.

You make some good points, especially about Ohio. Although I think the
over-all result is more mixed.

Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards
of $34 million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I was
in charge in Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting cops
and firemen, and encourage the unions to spend another $34 million.
Eventually the'd run out of money to defeat it.

You and the Koch brothers. Standard repub behavior. Just keep ignoring the
public response to your actions,


Hmmm. I think the best example of that behavior is Obama.
Despite polls showing that the public doesn't like everything
from Obamacare, to his reckless spending, he just keeps
on keeping on.....




and throw money at it to kill the results of
Democracy.

The ones throwing money at killing Democracy are the Dems.
They threw $4tril away since Obama came to office. And their
increasing the size and scope of govt is leading Americans down
the path of becoming serfs for the state. How many days does
one need to work now to pay for it all in taxes?




Furtunately, the public is rapidly catching on to the reality that
Repubs don't give a hoot about the workers of the US. All they do is for the
billionaires and corporations. I think the repubs are seeing the beginning of
the end.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's why the Dems take just as much money from those
billionaires and corporations, right? And that's why in the
whole subprime mortgage fiasco not one person of any
significance has been indicted, right? What are Obama
and Holder doing? Under Bush, when we had the internet
stock market scandal, execs from Enron, Tyco, WorldCom,
etc were tried and are now in prison.

"Bob F" wrote:
stuff snipped

Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards
of $34 million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I was
in charge in Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting cops
and firemen, and encourage the unions to spend another $34 million.
Eventually the'd run out of money to defeat it.

You and the Koch brothers. Standard repub behavior. Just keep ignoring the
public response to your actions, and throw money at it to kill the results
of
Democracy. Furtunately, the public is rapidly catching on to the reality
that
Repubs don't give a hoot about the workers of the US. All they do is for
the
billionaires and corporations. I think the repubs are seeing the beginning
of
the end.

My favorite slogan: "Republicans only care about people until they are
born." I think, contrary to HeyBub, that the Republicans will come to
realize that Gov. Walker's attack on the Wisconsin unions will be their
undoing, and not their salvation. Especially as more and more US workers
are struggling to make ends meet. While they're still hoping, in many
cases, to get back jobs that have been lost to robotics and the cheap labor
of the third world, many now realize those jobs may be gone forever.

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

In other news, Republican overreach around the US got knuckle-slapped
in a number of states. An anti-abortion amendment in Mississippi got
trounced, voting restrictions in Maine got overturned. The seething
southwestern anti-immigration agenda took a hit as Arizonans
recalled the State Senate's president, Russell Pearce and other
elections indicated that the day of the Tea Party may have come and
gone. Now we will have to wait to see if Wisconsin's Gov. Scott
Walker will face a recall vote in the spring. As my very wise
journalism prof. said "the pendulum always swings."

With only Romney and P - p - p - Perry looking like they'll survive
the "Quickening" and Obama undoubtedly having some pre-election trick
up his sleeve comparable to capturing Osama, it's going to be an
interesting year ahead.

You make some good points, especially about Ohio. Although I think the
over-all result is more mixed.

Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards of $34
million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I was in charge
in
Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting cops and firemen, and
encourage the unions to spend another $34 million. Eventually the'd run
out
of money to defeat it.

Maybe, maybe not. When people or organizations feel they are fighting for
their lives, they get some serious motivation. The union business was
"sprung" on people without much discussion. After that much avoided
discussion it turned out that not as many voters were for gutting the unions
as were their representatives - a growing problem in the US.

Remember, too, that unions have access to some pretty large national
fundraising - namely other union workers afraid it will happen to them. I
don't know who would run out of money first, but with Wisconsin in the
miserable financial shape it's in, I'm betting the unions can outlast them,
especially with national support.

As to Wisconsin, local governments are already saving bags of money
because
of the new laws on collective bargaining. For example, in the past, as
part
of the collective bargaining agreements, teachers got their health care
insurance through a wholly-owned subsidary of the state's teacher's union.
Now that insurance is open for bids, the premiums are only ONE-THIRD what
they were under the collective-bargain mandated vendor.

What's always surprised me, particularly in this group, is that most people
know that complicated systems often break down or need periodic maintenance
and adjustments - yet they seem to expect government to run perfectly year
after year. When it does break down, some people now want to just eliminate
it instead of fixing it. Your example shows that we always need to review
existing systems and practices to determine which need improving, which need
eliminating and which new programs need creating.

Sweetheart deals form in almost every corner of the economy and are not just
related to unions or collective bargaining. I noticed the other day that
one of the biggest advocates for not retiring the dollar bill into a dollar
coin is the paper industry and the company that now supplies the paper for
printing US currency. The AfRaq war was/is riddled with non-compete
contracts and sweetheart deals. Government spending needs serious review -
exactly the kind it's NOT going to get from the partisan supercommittee.

If savings like that continue, statutes of the governor will be erected in
every public square.

"Statutes" indeed. More likely, that event will be largely forgotten in
short order, like the capture of OBL. It comes under that great line from
_The Usual Suspects_: "Sure you saved my life LAST week, but what have you
done for me lately?"

Regarding a possible "October Surprise" by the Obama crew, you may be
overestimating them. Chicago politics has never been known for subtlety.
The
"surprise" will be an obviously Photoshopped picture of the GOP nominee
delicately removing a woman's garter belt from a goat, the spouse eating
monkey brains, or him (or her) carrying a big bag with a big "$" on it
away
from the Chinese Embassy.

Obama's surprise could be something as simple as eliminating his health plan
in its present incarnation. I seem to recall a lot of pundits assuring us
that a smooth-talker with no particular executive experience could NEVER win
the Whitehouse. I'm not ruling him out yet, especially against the likes of
Romney, a candidate much unloved by his own party, and Perry, a candidate
much unloved by the press. And then there's Cain.

Perry is in trouble because the press is determined to give him as tough a
time as they feel they gave Bush an easy time - something I read in a
discussion of presidential election reporting by a roundtable of journalists
from the Texas Tribune and other major newspapers. I believe that they're
right (that the press will overscrutinize Perry) because the press has
already spent considerable time and effort analyzing his record looking for
inconsistencies between what he said and what he did. That's a bad thing
for *any* politician. They all say one thing to get elected and do another
to keep the job. It's like having your ex-wife become best friends forever
with your new fiancée. Nothing good can come of it.

No, don't look for any finesse from the current White House crew.

We'll see. They got into the job with a completely unknown newcomer. That
took lots of strategy and/or luck and/or bad actions by McCain. We'll get
more feedback on the ratio after 2012.

As for a mandate, that may be in the eye of the beholder. In 2010, the GOP
picked up six seats in the Senate and sixty-three in the House. Last
Tuesday, the GOP gained control of both houses of the Virginia Assembly to
go along with the governorship.

The 2010 vote was a whiplash vote by people stunned that Obama got elected.
It's a pretty common occurrence and one we've seen in the past. A Dem
state senator, Dave Hansen from Wisconsin, easily survived a recall
election, a clear reaction to a Republican-backed law that stripped most
public workers of their collective bargaining rights.

Hansen collected 66 percent of the vote and was the first of nine state
senators set for recall elections stemming from the bitter fight surrounding
Gov. Scott Walker's (R) collective-bargaining plan gutting. Eight
lawmakers - six Republicans and two Democrats - will face recall elections
next month. If Democrats pick up a net of three seats, they'll retake
control of the state Senate and gain key momentum in their efforts to recall
Walker next year. So it's far from over yet, and as I predicted earlier
this year, "Republican Overreach (tm)" once again could easily result in
negating any short terms gains they may have made across the nation.

As for Virginia, the outcome wasn't really a win for the Republicans since
the Senate is now split evenly between the two. The race was more about gun
laws than any broad indictment of either political party. Obviously,
Tuesday was not exactly the Democrats' night. Their biggest victory, repeal
of government-worker reform in Ohio, stands as a warning to pols like Walker
who believe a small lead equals a mandate.

Elsewhere, I will agree that the Dems barely held their own. But most of
them DID hold and the larger surprise was the absence of any major
Republican trend. The great Republican resurgence of 2009-10 has slowed to a
crawl. The vote against Obama's health plan was, as I'm sure you know,
completely symbolic and will have no effect, legally speaking.

Even Virginia, which has now come to nearly complete Republican control,
isn't the overwhelming win that most Republican strategists hoped for.
Republicans won six House of Delegates seats, giving them an unprecedented
two-thirds majority but they HAD hoped to win outright control of the
Senate. They needed three seats. They won only two and will have to rely on
the tie-breaking lieutenant governor's vote.

Past experience with such situations in the US Congress and the NY State
Assembly shows that when such even distributions exist, legislators switch
parties, turn independent, buck the party line and often hold up their own
legislative leaders for "greenmail" by threatening to break party ranks if
their pet projects go unfunded. Couple that to the typical "Republican
Overreach (tm)" and we might be coming into 2012 with the tables turning.

It's going to be an interesting election. What I find saddest is that this
election, like the last one, will come down to something that happened three
months or less before the November vote. Something related to either the
economy or the five or six really "hot" hot spots around the world. Our
presidential elections are making us look more and more like the ancients of
Great Britain who killed their kings (or not) depending on the year's
harvest or outcomes of battles with neighboring clans.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

You make some good points, especially about Ohio. Although I think
the over-all result is more mixed.

Regarding Ohio, specifically, the unions, I believe, dumped upwards
of $34 million in the campaign to revoke the anti-union law. If I
was in charge in Ohio, I'd pass the bill again, this time exempting
cops and firemen, and encourage the unions to spend another $34
million. Eventually the'd run out of money to defeat it.

Maybe, maybe not. When people or organizations feel they are
fighting for their lives, they get some serious motivation. The
union business was "sprung" on people without much discussion. After
that much avoided discussion it turned out that not as many voters
were for gutting the unions as were their representatives - a growing
problem in the US.

Remember, too, that unions have access to some pretty large national
fundraising - namely other union workers afraid it will happen to
them. I don't know who would run out of money first, but with
Wisconsin in the miserable financial shape it's in, I'm betting the
unions can outlast them, especially with national support.

Not only that, but unions can impose additional mandatory contributions on
their members to fund these ancillary programs.


As to Wisconsin, local governments are already saving bags of money
because of the new laws on collective bargaining. For example, in
the past, as part of the collective bargaining agreements, teachers
got their health care insurance through a wholly-owned subsidary of
the state's teacher's union. Now that insurance is open for bids,
the premiums are only ONE-THIRD what they were under the
collective-bargain mandated vendor.

What's always surprised me, particularly in this group, is that most
people know that complicated systems often break down or need
periodic maintenance and adjustments - yet they seem to expect
government to run perfectly year after year. When it does break
down, some people now want to just eliminate it instead of fixing it.
Your example shows that we always need to review existing systems and
practices to determine which need improving, which need eliminating
and which new programs need creating.

You're right. But once in place, a system, agency, or department is
virtually impossible to dislodge. I think the last major entity to go
bye-bye was the Interstate Commerce Commission which regulated railroads and
trucking. It didn't completely go away, though. It's duties were transferred
to the Surface Transportation Board of the Department of Transportation.


Sweetheart deals form in almost every corner of the economy and are
not just related to unions or collective bargaining. I noticed the
other day that one of the biggest advocates for not retiring the
dollar bill into a dollar coin is the paper industry and the company
that now supplies the paper for printing US currency. The AfRaq war
was/is riddled with non-compete contracts and sweetheart deals.
Government spending needs serious review - exactly the kind it's NOT
going to get from the partisan supercommittee.

Now there's a conflict worth watching. When the Fed prints a dollar bill,
the federal government earns a couple of pennies for doing the printing.
When the U.S. Mint punches out a dollar coin and puts it into circulation,
the federal government makes about ninety-seven cents profit.


Regarding a possible "October Surprise" by the Obama crew, you may be
overestimating them. Chicago politics has never been known for
subtlety. The "surprise" will be an obviously Photoshopped picture
of the GOP nominee delicately removing a woman's garter belt from a
goat, the spouse eating monkey brains, or him (or her) carrying a
big bag with a big "$" on it away from the Chinese Embassy.

Obama's surprise could be something as simple as eliminating his
health plan in its present incarnation. I seem to recall a lot of
pundits assuring us that a smooth-talker with no particular executive
experience could NEVER win the Whitehouse. I'm not ruling him out
yet, especially against the likes of Romney, a candidate much unloved
by his own party, and Perry, a candidate much unloved by the press.
And then there's Cain.

Yep. Wishful thinking on the part of semi-blind GOP partisans. Those of us
with a more pragmatic and less parochial view were saying: "A smooth-talker
with no executive experience SHOULD [not "could"] never win the White
House".


No, don't look for any finesse from the current White House crew.

We'll see. They got into the job with a completely unknown newcomer.
That took lots of strategy and/or luck and/or bad actions by McCain.
We'll get more feedback on the ratio after 2012.

If they have such elan and sophistication, how come they didn't notice that
all four of their Cain accusers came from Chicago?


As for a mandate, that may be in the eye of the beholder. In 2010,
the GOP picked up six seats in the Senate and sixty-three in the
House. Last Tuesday, the GOP gained control of both houses of the
Virginia Assembly to go along with the governorship.

The 2010 vote was a whiplash vote by people stunned that Obama got
elected. It's a pretty common occurrence and one we've seen in the
past. A Dem state senator, Dave Hansen from Wisconsin, easily
survived a recall election, a clear reaction to a Republican-backed
law that stripped most public workers of their collective bargaining
rights.

Uh, we haven't seen a whiplash of this magnitude since 1948 when the
Democrats picked up 75 seats in the House and 9 in the Senate.


As for Virginia, the outcome wasn't really a win for the Republicans
since the Senate is now split evenly between the two. The race was
more about gun laws than any broad indictment of either political
party. Obviously, Tuesday was not exactly the Democrats' night.
Their biggest victory, repeal of government-worker reform in Ohio,
stands as a warning to pols like Walker who believe a small lead
equals a mandate.

It was a win in Virginia. The Lt. Governor, a Republican, will cast the
tie-breaking vote for organization of the Senate. The subsequent
organization will control who sits or chairs what committees and they, in
turn, control which bills come up for a vote. Should a partisan vote
actually take place, the Lt. Governor will again cast the tie-breaking vote.

On Nov 10, 2:03*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...

Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in Bush's
klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23
consecutive
quarters of economic growth, low interest rates, virtually no inflation,
dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

It was just an illusion, Bub. *The magical numbers sprouted from all of that
from the Feds spending trillions on post 9/11 security, wars, TSA, etc.
It's amazing how a little government deficit spending can falsely goose the
economic numbers. *Now we're experiencing the crash of the speculative
bubble and runaway defense spending that made those high-flying numbers
possible - but not real.

I keep telling you to go take a course or two in economics
so you can stop making an ass of yourself. To attribute the
decent economy during the Bush years to govt spending
on security is totally bogus. And what exactly would you libs
have done after 911 Sent a cake to Bin Laden?


*We also destroyed Iraq, the country that had the
most to gain from keeping Iran nuke free because they'd be one of the first
victims of Iranian nuclear aggression.

Exactly how was Iraq going to prevent Iran from developing
nuclear weapons? The more logical scenario would be for
Iraq to acquire their own nukes. As for destroying Iraq, polls
of the Iraqis show the mahjority think the liberation of Iraq
was a good thing. Why is it that the libs, who are supposed
to be so concerned about everyones rights, usually wind up
siding with dictators?




I don't miss Bush one tiny bit. *I just wonder how long it will take to pay
off the mountain of debt Bush's incredible spending sprees and cowboy
diplomacy have left us?

We can start working on that right after we get done paying off
the $4tril that Obama has added in just 3 years. And the $10tril
his last budget forecast adding over the next 10 years.




*When will the Republican Tax Cut Fairy come and
wave her magic wand and make 10 years of war debt disappear?

Why is it only war debt that concerns you? The cost of both
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan come to about $1.3 tril. That
is for two wars lasting a decade. Obama managed to add
$4tril in new debt, so war is clearly not the major cause of
deficits and the national debt.




I noticed that voters in Ohio have said "we didn't give the Republicans a
mandate to go union busting" and rolled back the changes that the Tea Party
& Co. *tried ramming down their throats. *How many times do they have to get
bitch-slapped to realize that NO ONE has a mandate when elections are won by
tiny margins?

The debacle the Dems suffered a year ago was NOT by
tiny margins.



*It was pretty easy to see by the tenor of the protests when
that law was passed that the Republicans had made a serious error in
estimating the support they'd garner for union hatchetwork.

Get over it. Union membership has been steadily declining
since the 70s. Voters in many states have had enough of
paying generous salaries, full health care benefits, then seeing
civil service folks retire at 50 to take on a second civil service
position while collecting a generous pension for the first. Of
of holding down TWO civil service jobs at the same time. Or
of toll collectors making $100K+, as is going on here in NJ.
So politicians are making some changes, like asking those
civil service workers to pay part of their medical insurance
costs, just like most of the taxpayers who are paying their
salaries do.




In other news, Republican overreach around the US got knuckle-slapped in a
number of states. *An anti-abortion amendment in Mississippi got trounced,
voting restrictions in Maine got overturned. *The seething southwestern
anti-immigrantion agenda took a hit as Arizonans recalled the State Senate's
president, Russell Pearce and other elections indicated that the day of the
Tea Party may have come and gone. *Now we will have to wait to see if
Wisconsin's Gov. Scott Walker will face a recall vote in the spring.

I'll just wait for the election that's less than a year away.



*As my
very wise journalism prof. said "the pendulum always swings."

With only Romney and P - p - p - Perry looking like they'll survive the
"Quickening" and Obama undoubtedly having some pre-election trick up his
sleeve comparable to capturing Osama, it's going to be an interesting year
ahead.

--
Bobby G.

So, now it was a trick capturing Bin Laden?

Robert Green wrote:

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23
consecutive quarters of economic growth, low interest rates,
virtually no inflation, dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

It was just an illusion, Bub. The magical numbers sprouted from all
of that from the Feds spending trillions on post 9/11 security, wars,
TSA, etc. It's amazing how a little government deficit spending can
falsely goose the economic numbers. Now we're experiencing the crash
of the speculative bubble and runaway defense spending that made
those high-flying numbers possible - but not real. We also destroyed
Iraq, the country that had the most to gain from keeping Iran nuke
free because they'd be one of the first victims of Iranian nuclear
aggression.


Boy, you sure don't understand economics. Government spending drives DOWN
the GDP and destroys wealth.

We saw that when Roosevelt implemented all manner of government jobs
programs back in the 30's and we see it now with stimulus and government
subsidy money.

On 11/11/11 04:20 pm, HeyBub wrote:

Boy, you sure don't understand economics. Government spending drives DOWN
the GDP and destroys wealth.

We saw that when Roosevelt implemented all manner of government jobs
programs back in the 30's and we see it now with stimulus and government
subsidy money.

So the construction workers who find themselves employed again -- by
companies that bid successfully on govt. projects -- building and
repairing roads and bridges, etc. don't have "real jobs" -- they would
be better off doing something else?

But that is not to say that the projects might cost less if they were
built by government employees instead of being contracted out.

Perce

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 11/11/11 04:20 pm, HeyBub wrote:

Boy, you sure don't understand economics. Government spending drives
DOWN the GDP and destroys wealth.

We saw that when Roosevelt implemented all manner of government jobs
programs back in the 30's and we see it now with stimulus and
government subsidy money.

So the construction workers who find themselves employed again -- by
companies that bid successfully on govt. projects -- building and
repairing roads and bridges, etc. don't have "real jobs" -- they would
be better off doing something else?

But that is not to say that the projects might cost less if they were
built by government employees instead of being contracted out.


I didn't say construction workers didn't have "real" jobs. I said government
spending destroys wealth.

These "real" workers are getting paid by tax money. This tax money was
extracted from citizens (or borrowed) and thereby removed from the GDP. SOME
of it, less a handling charge, graft, waste, redundancy, and lack of
necessity, was, admittedly, put back in to the economy.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:16:38 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 11/11/11 04:20 pm, HeyBub wrote:

Boy, you sure don't understand economics. Government spending drives DOWN
the GDP and destroys wealth.

We saw that when Roosevelt implemented all manner of government jobs
programs back in the 30's and we see it now with stimulus and government
subsidy money.

So the construction workers who find themselves employed again -- by
companies that bid successfully on govt. projects -- building and
repairing roads and bridges, etc. don't have "real jobs" -- they would
be better off doing something else?

Look up "The Broken Window fallacy". It'll open your eyes (if you have a
brain).

But that is not to say that the projects might cost less if they were
built by government employees instead of being contracted out.

OTOH...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23
consecutive quarters of economic growth, low interest rates,
virtually no inflation, dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

It was just an illusion, Bub. The magical numbers sprouted from all
of that from the Feds spending trillions on post 9/11 security, wars,
TSA, etc. It's amazing how a little government deficit spending can
falsely goose the economic numbers. Now we're experiencing the crash
of the speculative bubble and runaway defense spending that made
those high-flying numbers possible - but not real. We also destroyed
Iraq, the country that had the most to gain from keeping Iran nuke
free because they'd be one of the first victims of Iranian nuclear
aggression.


Boy, you sure don't understand economics. Government spending drives DOWN
the GDP and destroys wealth.

Oy. So how did all the Bush government spending on the TSA, Homeland
Security, two different wars and the Medicare Drug plan create all those
wonderful numbers you continually crow about? You can't have it both ways,
as much as you seem to want it. Your own previous examples put the lie to
your current contentions.

According to your latest wild theory, those glowing (yet false) numbers you
keep touting should have been impossible. If government spending destroys
wealth, the trillions of dollars we owe or have deficit spent should have
driven us to extinction by now. Only you could posit a theory that
immediately trashes your previous theories. You've gone and HeyBubbed
yourself! (-: In trying to figure out how you can came by the unusual and
"new for you" concepts you have about creating and destroying wealth, I
started out with a simple Google query:

http://www.google.com/search?q=gover...estroys+wealth

That lead to Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh sites, so I knew I was getting ready
for a visit to the Economic Twilight Zone. At least I know how this bizarre
idea gained enough traction to be adopted by you.

http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/10/...stroys-wealth/

"Maintaining a high level of employment is one of the main objectives of The
Federal Reserve, which is just one reason it is ill conceived at its very
core. "

Cue Twilight Zone theme song. High UN-employment is a good thing, it
seems, according to Paul. No wonder why he's got the "destruction of
wealth" idea as ass-backwards as you do.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/tag/budget/

Mr. Johnston has quite a bit to say about the issue and debunks the
assertion that you and others (mostly Republicans) make concerning the
"destruction" of wealth. He makes a lot of the same points I have that
don't seem to get through to you, the most important being that you're
calling wealth transfers "wealth destruction" and that's just not correct.

Giving a guy a job to help rebuild a highway or bridge *transfers* the
wealth from money collected from taxes to that person. It's not lost. He
doesn't burn the money. He spends it. At the local grocer. At the gas
pump. On insurance. Car payments. Rent. Spending it "primes the pump" and
helps get stalled economies rolling again. It's remarkably similar to the
Republican "trickle down" theory except that unlike the "trickle down"
theory, this "wealth transfer" actually works and gets money into the
economy.

Explain to me again how this "transfer" destroys wealth? Maybe you can find
someone on the web with a degree or credentials in economics to support your
rather whimsical theory. I certainly couldn't. But maybe I didn't look
hard enough. All I found were politicians like Paul and pundits like
Limbaugh, all with a very obvious political axe to grind.

Johnston says: In general the market does a better job of allocating
capital for investment than government does. But when the market fails, as
with the unregulated insurance and bad loans that destroyed so much value in
the last decade, then the only way to stop the vicious cycle of decline is
for government to temporarily make up the difference through more spending.
Saying otherwise is the economic equivalent of arguing that water and flour
make steak. . .

He furthers his argument with examples of the quite idiotic statements of
our Republican politicians:
"We need to cut spending now in order to create jobs in America" - House
Speaker John Boehner on the floor of the House of Representatives in July
2010. "If government spending would stimulate the economy, we'd be in the
middle of a boom" - Senator Mitch McConnell in March 2011. "Government doesn
't create jobs, you do" - Representative Nan Hayworth, M.D., speaking in
January to business leaders in her New York district.

None of the comments makes sense. The first violates the accounting identity
that spending equals income. The second assumes that the stimulus was big
enough to make up for the fall in private sector jobs, when it was less than
half what accounting identity algebra showed was needed. The third is just
plain nonsense.

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

(Johnston received the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting "for his
penetrating and enterprising reporting that exposed loopholes and inequities
in the U.S. tax code, which was instrumental in bringing about reforms." He
was a Pulitzer finalist in 2003 "for his stories that displayed exquisite
command of complicated U.S. tax laws and of how corporations and individuals
twist them to their advantage." He was also a finalist in 2000 "for his
lucid coverage of problems resulting from the reorganization of the Internal
Revenue Service.")

We saw that when Roosevelt implemented all manner of government jobs
programs back in the 30's and we see it now with stimulus and government
subsidy money.

Sweet Jesus Monroe! You don't have one ounce of shame, do you, comparing
the GDP of the worst period in American economic history with normal growth
periods? That dog won't hunt. GDP, aside from being an imperfect measure
of the economic health of a nation, always tends to fall during periods of
extreme economic distress. Especially a collapse caused by an imprudent
financial industry, leveraged to the max.

To blame that on FDR's programs is more than dubious, it's dishonest. In
fact, it's the remaining social net programs like the FDIC and Social
Security that kept this last recession from collapsing the economy. Of the
many economists I've read who have commented on that period and the current,
nearly all of them say the same thing.

They believe the problem, then AND now, was that the opposition party was
determined to keep the government stimulus packages well below the level
that would match the damage business had done. They do that primarily, it
seems, to keep the party in power from getting credit for ending the
recession/depression. They're also motivated to starve the stimulus to try
to recapture the leadership position no matter what harm it does to the
citizens.

Bombs destroy wealth. Hurricanes destroy wealth. Fires destroy wealth.
Governments *transfer* wealth.

--
Bobby G.

On Nov 13, 2:47*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





Robert Green wrote:

We can only hope. Unemployment at 4%, DOW-Jones above 12,000, 23
consecutive quarters of economic growth, low interest rates,
virtually no inflation, dead Mohammadens piled up like cordwood.

It was just an illusion, Bub. *The magical numbers sprouted from all
of that from the Feds spending trillions on post 9/11 security, wars,
TSA, etc. It's amazing how a little government deficit spending can
falsely goose the economic numbers. *Now we're experiencing the crash
of the speculative bubble and runaway defense spending that made
those high-flying numbers possible - but not real. *We also destroyed
Iraq, the country that had the most to gain from keeping Iran nuke
free because they'd be one of the first victims of Iranian nuclear
aggression.

Boy, you sure don't understand economics. Government spending drives DOWN
the GDP and destroys wealth.

Oy. *So how did all the Bush government spending on the TSA, Homeland
Security, two different wars and the Medicare Drug plan create all those
wonderful numbers you continually crow about? *You can't have it both ways,
as much as you seem to want it. *Your own previous examples put the lie to
your current contentions.

According to your latest wild theory, those glowing (yet false) numbers you
keep touting should have been impossible. *If government spending destroys
wealth, the trillions of dollars we owe or have deficit spent should have
driven us to extinction by now. *Only you could posit a theory that
immediately trashes your previous theories. *You've gone and HeyBubbed
yourself! *(-: *In trying to figure out how you can came by the unusual and
"new for you" concepts you have about creating and destroying wealth, I
started out with a simple Google query:

http://www.google.com/search?q=gover...estroys+wealth

That lead to Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh sites, so I knew I was getting ready
for a visit to the Economic Twilight Zone. *At least I know how this bizarre
idea gained enough traction to be adopted by you.

http://logisticsmonster.com/2010/10/...ent-destroys-w...

"Maintaining a high level of employment is one of the main objectives of The
Federal Reserve, which is just one reason it is ill conceived at its very
core. "

Cue Twilight Zone theme song. * High UN-employment is a good thing, it
seems, according to Paul. *No wonder why he's got the "destruction of
wealth" idea as ass-backwards as you do.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/tag/budget/

Mr. Johnston has quite a bit to say about the issue and debunks the
assertion that you and others (mostly Republicans) make concerning the
"destruction" of wealth. *He makes a lot of the same points I have that
don't seem to get through to you, the most important being that you're
calling wealth transfers "wealth destruction" and that's just not correct..

Giving a guy a job to help rebuild a highway or bridge *transfers* the
wealth from money collected from taxes to that person. *It's not lost. *He
doesn't burn the money. *He spends it. *At the local grocer. *At the gas
pump. *On insurance. *Car payments. *Rent. Spending it "primes the pump" and
helps get stalled economies rolling again. *It's remarkably similar to the
Republican "trickle down" theory except that unlike the "trickle down"
theory, this "wealth transfer" actually works and gets money into the
economy.

Explain to me again how this "transfer" destroys wealth? *Maybe you can find
someone on the web with a degree or credentials in economics to support your
rather whimsical theory. *I certainly couldn't. *But maybe I didn't look
hard enough. *All I found were politicians like Paul and pundits like
Limbaugh, all with a very obvious political axe to grind.

Johnston says: In general the market does a better job of allocating
capital for investment than government does. But when the market fails, as
with the unregulated insurance and bad loans that destroyed so much value in
the last decade, then the only way to stop the vicious cycle of decline is
for government to temporarily make up the difference through more spending.
Saying otherwise is the economic equivalent of arguing that water and flour
make steak. . .

He furthers his argument with examples of the quite idiotic statements of
our Republican politicians:
"We need to cut spending now in order to create jobs in America" - House
Speaker John Boehner on the floor of the House of Representatives in July
2010. "If government spending would stimulate the economy, we'd be in the
middle of a boom" - Senator Mitch McConnell in March 2011. "Government doesn
't create jobs, you do" - Representative Nan Hayworth, M.D., speaking in
January to business leaders in her New York district.

None of the comments makes sense. The first violates the accounting identity
that spending equals income. The second assumes that the stimulus was big
enough to make up for the fall in private sector jobs, when it was less than
half what accounting identity algebra showed was needed. The third is just
plain nonsense.

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

(Johnston received the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting "for his
penetrating and enterprising reporting that exposed loopholes and inequities
in the U.S. tax code, which was instrumental in bringing about reforms." He
was a Pulitzer finalist in 2003 "for his stories that displayed exquisite
command of complicated U.S. tax laws and of how corporations and individuals
twist them to their advantage." He was also a finalist in 2000 "for his
lucid coverage of problems resulting from the reorganization of the Internal
Revenue Service.")

We saw that when Roosevelt implemented all manner of government jobs
programs back in the 30's and we see it now with stimulus and government
subsidy money.

Sweet Jesus Monroe! *You don't have one ounce of shame, do you, comparing
the GDP of the worst period in American economic history with normal growth
periods? *That dog won't hunt. *GDP, aside from being an imperfect measure
of the economic health of a nation, always tends to fall during periods of
extreme economic distress. *Especially a collapse caused by an imprudent
financial industry, leveraged to the max.

To blame that on FDR's programs is more than dubious, it's dishonest. *In
fact, it's the remaining social net programs like the FDIC and Social
Security that kept this last recession from collapsing the economy. *Of the
many economists I've read who have commented on that period and the current,
nearly all of them say the same thing.

They believe the problem, then AND now, was that the opposition party was
determined to keep the government stimulus packages well below the level
that would match the damage business had done. *They do that primarily, it
seems, to keep the party in power from getting credit for ending the
recession/depression. *They're also motivated to starve the stimulus to try
to recapture the leadership position no matter what harm it does to the
citizens.

Bombs destroy wealth. *Hurricanes destroy wealth. *Fires destroy wealth.
Governments *transfer* wealth.


You are right and wrong at the same time. Right, government transfers
weath but in order to do so must confiscate the wealth from those who
earn it in order to give it to those who do nothing in return. That
process destroys the incentive of those who create wealth and thus
eventually results in the destruction of wealth or at the very least
the removal of the wealth from the governments rule. In any case. the
end result is the destruction of wealth.

--
Bobby G.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

HeyBub wrote:

Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in
Bush's klownish footsteps?

We can only hope.
I miss Bush. Sniff.

Why does Texas have a habbit of electing numbskulls for governor?

Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in
Bush's klownish footsteps?

We can only hope.
I miss Bush. Sniff.

Why does Texas have a habbit of electing numbskulls for governor?

Story: Some years ago, a black minister named Lee Otis Johnson was caught
selling a single Marijuana cigarette to an undercover narc. At trial, the DA
insisted that the jury return a sentence of five years probation as a notice
to the community that power or position was no defense.

The jury was out for 20 minutes and came up with a sentence of 15 years hard
time. No probation.

Two days later, our then-governor, Preston Smith, was to give a talk at the
University of Houston. As he approached the lecturn, about 50 black youth in
the audience jumped to their feet and began loudly chanting "Free Lee Otis,
Free Lee Otis,..." (say this to yourself rapidly, over and over - 'why' will
shortly become clear)

The governor, to his credit, simply walked off the stage.

On his way to his vehicle, the governor was surrounded by reporters who
insisted on knowing his reaction to the melee.

Governor Smith shook his head and said: "I have no idea why those coloreds
were yelling about beans (frijoles)".

If you think the "coloreds" were upset about Reverend Johnson, when they
heard the governor's remarks they started stabbing each other.

As for "numbskulls," I have another story:

On a second date with a lovely woman a few years back, she had me sit on the
sofa in her apartment while she skinned another muskrat or whatever women do
when they say "I'll be ready in just a minute." Suddenly there's a blast
from the bedroom: "That goddamn George Bush should learn some history!" (She
was evidently monitoring the nightly news on her bedroom TV).

"Uh, he has a degree from Yale," I volunteered. "In history."

"That's a goddamn lie," came the somewhat louder reasoned response.

[tap-tappity-tap on her computer]

"Ah, here it is," I pointed out. "He also has an MBA from Harvard."

By this time, she's looking over my shoulder, her little fists clenched into
white-knuckled balls. "The ****in' Republicans have taken over the
internet!' she hissed.

At this point, I concocted a complicated, but believable, excuse for
leaving. I think it was "I have to go."

HeyBub wrote:

Why does Texas have a habbit of electing numbskulls for governor?

Story: Some years ago, a black minister named Lee Otis Johnson was
caught selling a single Marijuana cigarette to an undercover narc.

The jury was out for 20 minutes and came up with a sentence of 15
years hard time. No probation.

Your story seems to lack certain details:

http://www.hippy.com/modules.php?nam...rticle&sid=156

In 1968 (when Otis would have been 29 years old) he was given a sentence
of 30 years (not 15) for selling a joint to an undercover cop.

=========
Unfamiliar with Lee Otis' case, Smith asked a reporter, "What in the
world do they have against beans?" When the reporter explained what the
crowd was shouting, Smith said, "I thought they were saying 'frijoles.'"
The papers loved it, and the Lee Otis story took on yet another bit of
symbolic cachet, providing a perfect example of the clueless politician.
=========

Your "enhancement" that he was a minister and that the prosecutor wanted
to go easy on him, or that the sentence was "hard labor" doesn't appear
anywhere that I can find.

===========
Lee Otis was released after four years when a federal judge ruled that
his trial should not have been held in Houston.
===========

But stripping away all your added hyperbole, if you wanted to make the
point that Texas Gov. Smith was clueless, that much is apparently true.

As for "numbskulls," I have another story:

(lame story)

Bush was (still is) a numbskull, and so is Perry.

When they say "It's the sizzle, not the steak" - you Texans fall for it
every time.

You'd vote for a fence post as governor (or president) if it had
good-ol-boy painted on it. Brains don't matter to you as much as
swagger. In fact, having brains is a turn-off for Texas voters.

Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Why does Texas have a habbit of electing numbskulls for governor?

Story: Some years ago, a black minister named Lee Otis Johnson was
caught selling a single Marijuana cigarette to an undercover narc.

The jury was out for 20 minutes and came up with a sentence of 15
years hard time. No probation.

Your story seems to lack certain details:

http://www.hippy.com/modules.php?nam...rticle&sid=156

In 1968 (when Otis would have been 29 years old) he was given a
sentence of 30 years (not 15) for selling a joint to an undercover
cop.

=========
Unfamiliar with Lee Otis' case, Smith asked a reporter, "What in the
world do they have against beans?" When the reporter explained what
the crowd was shouting, Smith said, "I thought they were saying
'frijoles.'" The papers loved it, and the Lee Otis story took on yet
another bit of symbolic cachet, providing a perfect example of the
clueless politician. =========

Your "enhancement" that he was a minister and that the prosecutor
wanted to go easy on him, or that the sentence was "hard labor"
doesn't appear anywhere that I can find.


Thank you for the corrections to my admittedly porous memory. I hope you'll
permit some modest corrections to your corrections. 1) I didn't mean to
infer the prosecutor wanted to go "easy" on Johnson, just the reverse. 2) I
said "hard TIME" not "hard labor." 3) Fifteen years, 30 years, or life, he
still got a sentence far in excess of the usual one-year probation normally
assessed for a single joint. 4) It's my life observation that most
self-proclaimed black community leaders are pastors of one stripe or
another. I made a regrettable association for which I am truly sorry. As
soon as I finish this post, I intend to sit in the corner and feel shame.

But, all things considered, in the words of a great progressive: "The facts
may be wrong, but the narrative is correct."


(lame story)

Bush was (still is) a numbskull, and so is Perry.

When they say "It's the sizzle, not the steak" - you Texans fall for
it every time.

You'd vote for a fence post as governor (or president) if it had
good-ol-boy painted on it. Brains don't matter to you as much as
swagger. In fact, having brains is a turn-off for Texas voters.

You say that like you think it's a bad thing. Swagger always beats sagacity.

I'd much rather have a politician that says "You **** with me and you're
****ing with the whole damn trailer park" than one who imposes a tax on
Christmas trees then says no, we'll delay it until we make a decision on the
Keystone XL pipeline (sometime after the next election).

Specifically, Ronald Reagan told the Soviets: "Tear down that wall." Jimmy
Carter, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, pulled the U.S. out of the
Olympics(??!).

Teddy Roosevelt (is reported to have said) "The future of this country will
be decided in November by the voters; the fate of Morocco will be decided
tomorrow by me."

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
HeyBub wrote:

Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in
Bush's klownish footsteps?

We can only hope.
I miss Bush. Sniff.

Why does Texas have a habbit of electing numbskulls for governor?

Have you ever been to Texas or met any Texans? 'Nuff said.

h wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:

Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in
Bush's klownish footsteps?

We can only hope.
I miss Bush. Sniff.

Why does Texas have a habbit of electing numbskulls for governor?

Have you ever been to Texas or met any Texans? 'Nuff said.

You mean like Dwight Eisenhower, Howard Hughes, Walter Cronkite, or Janis
Joplin?

On Nov 10, 2:50*pm, Home Guy wrote:
Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in Bush's
klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related

That was on even over here on the box.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:43:47 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

That was on even over here on the box

Stop getting your news from a cereal box.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:50:29 -0500, Home Guy wrote:

Will Perry become the next idiot republican prez, following in Bush's
klownish footsteps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-...eature=related


I don't like the guy and would never vote for him. That said, the
media is making a big deal of this. Sure, it is embarrassing, but
what politician has not blundered? How many of us could be out there
repeating the same worn out mantra dozens of times a day, days on end,
and not screw up?

My guess is that the guy is tired and had a bad moment. Move on, try
to find what the politicians are really going to do and what they
think policy should be. Then make an informed decision.

If the media did not sensationalize every tiny error or personality
flaw, maybe we'd have a better pool of candidates to choose from. Even
if they did inhale once or twice.