The biggest scandal in 50 years, right before your eyes
If you start naming the biggest political scandals of the past 50 years, Watergate and Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman” mistake would have to be included. So would Ronald Reagan’s decision to secretly trade arms for hostages, along with the mass deception and self-deception perpetrated by the Bush administration to get us into Iraq.
However, while presidents Nixon and Clinton were led astray by their weakness for power and sex, neither consciously put the security of the country at risk. Reagan made a serious mistake, but he was at least motivated by sincere concern for the lives of U.S. hostages. The invasion of Iraq is a closer call, but even there, President Bush and his administration weren’t consciously choosing to do damage to our country.
By that standard, the most disturbing political scandal of the past half century is playing out today before our very eyes, to too little notice or comprehension. Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and now a columnist for the Washington Post, lays the plot out there for everyone to see:
“Today, Obama is perfectly willing to go over the fiscal cliff and blame the GOP for the resulting tax increases on the middle class. But when it comes to the debt limit, he does not have that luxury. He can’t default on our debt — the consequences are too catastrophic. So in the end he will cave.
Indeed, he would have caved during the last debt-limit stand-off, in the summer of 2011. According to Bob Woodward, when Obama told his advisers he intended to veto the debt-limit bill the Republican-controlled House had passed, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told him he couldn’t — that if Republicans didn’t give in, he had no choice but to sign their bill. “You can’t veto,” Geithner reportedly told Obama, because the consequences “would be indelible, incurable. It would last for generations.”
Republicans had Obama cornered and didn’t know it — so they let him off the hook. When the next debt-limit increase comes in February, they will know better. The president’s current negotiating leverage dissipates as soon as we go over the fiscal cliff. Come February, the tables will be turned — and Republicans will hold all the cards in the debt-limit negotiations.”
If I may, I would like to offer a pithier but still entirely accurate version of Thiessen’s advice to Republicans*:
That fool Obama cares too much about what happens to this country and its people. That is his fatal weakness. You, on the other hand, don’t care about “catastrophic” consequences that would be “indelible, incurable” and “last for generations.” Your amorality is your strength. Use it to demand what you want, or else.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find the whole idea extraordinary. Since when is the willingness to inflict “indelible, incurable” damage on our country something to be bragged about and used as leverage? Since when is it OK for a major political party to hold a gun to the country’s head, figuratively speaking of course? Has patriotism become so diluted by cynicism that such strategies can now be publicly embraced and advocated?
And of course, it’s not just some former speechwriter advocating this strategy. This is the course that the Washington Republican establishment seems ready to adopt. As Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox Monday, “In February or March you have to raise the debt ceiling. And I can tell you this, there is a hardening on the Republican side. We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling.”
You’re not? What’s next? “We won’t pay the troops, even if it leaves the nation defenseless, unless you surrender to us on the budget?” How would that be substantively different?
Of course, Republicans have talked themselves into believing that this is all justified. They are so absolutely certain that they are correct about the budget that they are willing to knock the United States to its knees to get their way. It requires an enormous amount of self-righteousness and grandiosity to think that way, but they seem up to the task.
Somehow, it doesn’t seem to have crossed their minds that the U.S. Constitution offers an alternative means of resolving such disputes. It’s called free and open debate. It’s called elections. We just had one, focused largely on the issues at stake here; they spent well over $1 billion trying to sell their viewpoint, and they lost.
Now, having failed to convince the rest of their country of their wisdom, they believe that their desperation gives them the right to impose it under threat of grievous harm?
That isn’t leadership. That isn’t patriotism. It is the act of a petulant, frustrated three-year-old threatening to hold his breath until the country turns blue.
Which, now that I think about it, it may very well do.
– Jay Bookman
* A more risque, profane and metaphorical version of the strategy is available here.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
762 comments Add your comment
Adam
December 11th, 2012
1:54 pm
They BOTH suck: How do you figure that Democrats don’t handle governing any better? I do believe there are numbers and figures out there that show Democrats in power means that government run programs, overall, work more efficiently and “better” in most senses of the word, except for the general conservative argument that “better” means elimination of said programs. Republicans, on the other hand, seem intent on reducing or eliminating as much of government as they possibly can and routinely create problems and red tape to help accomplish this, even if only to point at it and say “see? government can’t do ANYTHING right” after they have screwed up the program.
Mick
December 11th, 2012
1:57 pm
doom
Sorry, but the voter suppression tactic was an epic fail in florida with a 12 page ballot, decreased early voting days, the scheme was blatant. In the end it was kind of like shooting yourself in the foot, all it accomplished was pissing off every african american voter in the state who promptly showed up to vote no matter how long the wait, and in many cases because of the long lines, romney voters gave up. Careful what you wish for…
Adam
December 11th, 2012
1:58 pm
Thulsa: What you say only SEEMS bad. If someone doesn’t want to join a union in order to work, they are not required to, and at least 90% of all other jobs out there do not even have unions associated with them. Sometimes a union is necessary for the work we are talking about thanks to the employer we are talking about. I see no problem signing a contract that includes me in a union as a condition to do a specific job, nor do I see a problem with many other contractual requirements to specific jobs. Is there something YOU don’t understand about THAT?
They BOTH suck
December 11th, 2012
1:58 pm
Bro
You may have seen it, but if I can find it I will post a link showing pics of Saban’s vacation home on Lake Burton in Na GA. He may have sold it. That place his HUGE.
Brosephus™
December 11th, 2012
1:58 pm
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm
Question: Can I be required to be a union member or pay dues to a union?
Answer: You may not be required to be a union member. But, if you do not work in a Right to Work state, you may be required to pay union fees.
Employment relations for almost all private sector employees (other than those in the airline and railroad industries) are covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Under the NLRA, you cannot be required to be a member of a union or pay it any monies as a condition of employment unless the collective bargaining agreement between your employer and your union contains a provision requiring all employees to either join the union or pay union fees.
Even if there is such a provision in the agreement, the most that can be required of you is to pay the union fees (generally called an “agency fee.”) Most employees are not told by their employer and union that full union membership cannot lawfully be required. In Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that union members have the right to resign their union membership at any time.
If you are not a member, you are still fully covered by the collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated between your employer and the union, and the union is obligated to represent you. Any benefits that are provided to you by your employer pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (e.g., wages, seniority, vacations, pensions, health insurance)are not affected by your nonmembership. (If the union offers some “members-only” benefits, you might be excluded from receiving those.) If you are not a member, you may not be able to participate in union elections or meetings, vote in collective bargaining ratification elections, or participate in other “internal” union activities. However, you cannot be disciplined by the union for anything you do while not a member.
The Supreme Court, in Communication Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), a lawsuit that was supported by the Foundation, ruled that objecting nonmembers cannot be required to pay union dues. The most that nonmembers can be required to pay is an agency fee that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment with their employer.
Republicans who are passing Right-to-work laws or cheering them on are doing nothing more than advocating and legally sanctioning freeloading. Anybody who does that and then b*tches about 47% or any other “leech” rhetoric is a hypocrite of the highest order.
Morality?
December 11th, 2012
1:59 pm
Jay – Obama ain’t the hero you make him out to be – he helped create this mess – while in Congress Obama voted for this mess – it took BOTH sides years to bring us to this disaster. Going over the FISCAL cliff will destroy your beloved SOCIALIST social programs. Ironically the SOCIALIST social programs are the #1 reason we are at this point now. Most people, like clueless lemmings, honestly believe the gub’ment can take care of any problem – not this time. Pray for a miracle.
Thulsa Doom
December 11th, 2012
1:59 pm
“And it seems you are deliberately avoiding it in favor of hyperbole.”
Adam,
That’s just ridiculous. Its a simple point. Private equity I don’t care about as a taxpayer. If they lose money they lost their private investor’s money. Why the hell would I care if Mitt Romney lost money in a private investment? But if its my taxpayer money and the govt is putting it at risk in investments and they lose then guess what? That’s public money they are gambling with and losing. That’s a big deal. And its a helluva lot different than investing in basic research. Can you not see the inherent conflict in govt and business getting together and private businesses taking our money and just blowing it? As much as you guys rail about private business why do you not see a problem with our govt Dem or Rep handing out loans to businesses and putting our tax money at risk? It seems to me that you’re just mad cause this happened under Obama. Doesn’t matter. If it happened under W it would be every bit as wrong.
alex
December 11th, 2012
1:59 pm
@ Fly, completely different battle, the pendulum swung, it swings again…
Joe Hussein Mama
December 11th, 2012
2:00 pm
E. Cat — “How is a right-to-work state an assault on your rights exactly?”
Two ways.
First, it’s a state infringement on the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of freedom of association. State laws can’t override or infringe Constitutionally-guaranteed rights without a specific, compelling and *narrowly-drawn* state interest. The fact that the state is simply *invalidating* labor unions wholesale rather than crafting a narrow restriction to serve whatever the *state* interest is constitutes a prima facie case for the appellants.
Secondly, it posits that business *management* can promulgate an artificial person (a corporation) for the purpose of conducting business, yet denies that same right to business *labor* to promulgate an artificial person (a labor union) to represent and speak for its collective membership. Such an explicit denial creates an unconstitutional separate-but-equal class distinction in the workplace and a second prima facie case for the appellants.
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:00 pm
Mick: Romney voters didn’t give up. Romney got more votes than McCain, and Obama got less votes than in 2008. This shows that Republicans will vote reliably for Republicans come hell or high water, and that any vote for a third party candidate does not diminish any Republican votes, but Democratic votes instead. I am convinced it’s why a lot of third party people push this. It would not surprise me to find out that many of them did not practice what they preached.
They BOTH suck
December 11th, 2012
2:00 pm
Adam
IMO Democrats play some of the same games that Republicans play with their egos and bullying when they have the chance. Does this fit every Democrat or Republican? By all means no, however that is how I see it.
They both can be big babies with their power trips.
getalife
December 11th, 2012
2:02 pm
We need a grover norquist for the dems caving on SS and Medicare.
Like him or not, his tactics did work on the gop and taxes.
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:03 pm
Thulsa: That’s just ridiculous. Its a simple point. Private equity I don’t care about as a taxpayer.
You’re still shifting this onto your point, a point that I was not making and am not denying. You have not at all even addressed the point I was actually making. I can only conclude it is either deliberate, or that you truly do not understand my point.
And no, I am not mad at all. And I am not equating Obama with another President, I am equating public with private. Again, you don’t seem to understand, so I’ll drop it. I have no need to convince you, as your continued insistence on being incorrect loudly and often serves my interests more than if you and other conservatives started to actually make sense.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 11th, 2012
2:03 pm
MostSome people, like clueless lemmings, honestly believethe gub’menttax cuts can take care of any problem…Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 11th, 2012
2:04 pm
MostSome people, like clueless lemmings, honestly believethe gub’mentTERM LIMITS can take care of any problem…alex
December 11th, 2012
2:05 pm
@ Bro the supreme court ruling and partial explanation does not appear to support your “free-loading” assertion. Appears to be “ala Carte”, , Hmmm, pass the cherries Jubilee,we’re gonna celebrate!
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:05 pm
They BOTH suck: Perhaps they can be bullies and play power games on both sides of the aisle, but I am talking about historically, which administrations and Congresses have run the government programs better? As in, made sure they did what the government programs were supposed to do in more efficient ways than the other “team”? If you were not making the point regarding who actually has a better record of governance then I apologize, but I thought that was what you were trying to say, that they both suck at it more or less equally. I disagree and have stated why I think so.
Thulsa Doom
December 11th, 2012
2:08 pm
“What you say only SEEMS bad.”- In your “opinion”.
“If someone doesn’t want to join a union in order to work, they are not required to, and at least 90% of all other jobs out there do not even have unions associated with them.”
What kind of kool-aide are you drinking and how much time have you spent up north? Ever heard of union shops?
“Sometimes a union is necessary for the work we are talking about thanks to the employer we are talking about.”
Really? Give me an example of where, why, and how a particular job can only be done by a union member as opposed to a non union worker.
“I see no problem signing a contract that includes me in a union as a condition to do a specific job, nor do I see a problem with many other contractual requirements to specific jobs. Is there something YOU don’t understand about THAT?”
Yeah. There is something I don’t understand about that. As you pointed out “you” see no problem with the union requirement. That’s “you”. Not everyone is “you” and not everyone sees union membership in the same vein that “you” do. In other words “you” do not speak for everyone and not everyone thinks or believes the same things “you” do or feels the same way “you” do about being forced to join a union.
F. Sinkwich
December 11th, 2012
2:10 pm
The thugs are out and about. Never saw that coming.
“What began as a peaceful protest this morning became testy this afternoon, prompting Michigan State Police officers to don their riot gear to control an increasingly angry crowd. Tear gas was sprayed at least once. “
barking frog
December 11th, 2012
2:10 pm
If the Republicans refuse to fund unemployment benefits and then
government paychecks they will reap the consequences in 2014.
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:11 pm
Thulsa: “Sometimes a union is necessary for the work we are talking about thanks to the employer we are talking about.”
Really? Give me an example of where, why, and how a particular job can only be done by a union member as opposed to a non union worker.
There you go again….
Deliberately missing my point. I’ll give you another chance. Here’s what I said, with the part you ignored bolded: Sometimes a union is necessary for the work we are talking about thanks to the employer we are talking about.
Yeah. There is something I don’t understand about that. As you pointed out “you” see no problem with the union requirement. That’s “you”. Not everyone is “you” and not everyone sees union membership in the same vein that “you” do.
And no one has to. They are free to seek other employment if they do not like the terms of the employment they are applying for. Isn’t that what you conservatives are always saying on other employment issues?
Welcome to the Occupation
December 11th, 2012
2:11 pm
Thulsa: “Adam, Being forced to join a union that you don’t want to join in order to work is bullying Adam”
But being forced to sell your labor for bread to eat, that’s the biggest form of bullying of all.
Thulsa Doom
December 11th, 2012
2:12 pm
“As in, made sure they did what the government programs were supposed to do in more efficient ways than the other “team”?”
Oh my God. Adam do you actually believe one party has a better track record of “administering” govt bureaucracies? Seriously? Once a bureaucracy is created it grows a life of its own. If you think the presidents of one party historically have a better job of micro managing all the various agencies and govt departments than the presidents of another party then you are truly delusional.
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:12 pm
F. Sinkwich thinks there is something funny about Michigan legislators bringing us ever closer to a Marxist revolution.
Regnad Kcin
December 11th, 2012
2:13 pm
“This shows that Republicans will vote reliably for Republicans come hell or high water, and that any vote for a third party candidate does not diminish any Republican votes, but Democratic votes instead”
It does no such thing. It’s silly to believe that if something happens once, it will always happen. They must LOVE you in Vegas!
getalife
December 11th, 2012
2:13 pm
filky,
Back in the day, heads would be busted open.
“They both can be big babies with their power trips.”
It is called tit for tat politics .
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:13 pm
Thulsa: Oh my God. Adam do you actually believe one party has a better track record of “administering” govt bureaucracies?
Yes, and there is data to support this. I have seen no data suggesting the opposite. And I did not say the President himself micromanages all this. But his administration is full of people that are mostly picked by him or at least retained because they are trusted and are general exceptions to the bell curve.
Thulsa Doom
December 11th, 2012
2:15 pm
“But being forced to sell your labor for bread to eat, that’s the biggest form of bullying of all.”
Isn’t that what mankind has done since the dawn of history. Sell his labor for bread to eat? Or if he hasn’t sold his labor he used his own labor to produce something that he could sell in order to buy bread to eat. Or he used his own labor to grow his own grain for bread.
Just more of occupation’s oppressed workers of the world unite crap.
F. Sinkwich
December 11th, 2012
2:15 pm
Thugs are getting political support from the usual suspects and are promising violence:
“As protests against Michigan’s right-to-work laws swelled, pro-union Democrat legislator Douglas Geiss took to the state House floor – and Twitter – to promise violence. “We are going to undo 100 years of labor relations,” said Geiss. “And there will be blood. We will relive the Battle of the Overpass.””
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:15 pm
Regnad: It does no such thing. It’s silly to believe that if something happens once, it will always happen. They must LOVE you in Vegas!
Actually data suggests this more often than just this once. As for your gambling reference, i am reasonably sure inTrade did not like me for accurately picking the winner months out, based on solid proven data.
Brosephus™
December 11th, 2012
2:16 pm
the supreme court ruling and partial explanation does not appear to support your “free-loading” assertion.
I didn’t claim that the SCOTUS rulings had any bearing on the “free-loading”. Right-to-work laws do not make unions illegal. They merely enshrine the ability for one to work and directly benefit from union negotiated benefits without having to pay anything in response to those negotiated benefits. In non-RTW states, people who benefit from negotiated benefits do not have to join unions or pay union dues. They may, however, have to pay for the cost of the negotiations. RTW laws remove the requirement for the payment for the negotiations, hence legislating free-loading. In other words, alex, you and your fellow conservatives are actively cheering on free-loading all the while being hypocritical about people freeloading off the government.
Thulsa Doom
December 11th, 2012
2:17 pm
“Yes, and there is data to support this. I have seen no data suggesting the opposite”
Sorry but that is utter nonsense. There is no data that empirically proves that one party over time effectively manages govt bureaucracies better than the other. The suggestion in and of itself is patently absurd.
getalife
December 11th, 2012
2:18 pm
HSBC got busted for money laundering 8 billion from the drug cartels and not one criminal charge filed.
Our justice system is if you have money, pay the fine and do no time.
Regnad Kcin
December 11th, 2012
2:18 pm
“If you think the presidents of one party historically have a better job of micro managing all the various agencies and govt departments than the presidents of another party then you are truly delusional.”
====================
Don’t understand why you assert that it is impossible for “the presidents of one party” to do a better job managing “all the various agencies and govt departments than the presidents of another party .” Please explain.
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:20 pm
Thulsa: There is no data that empirically proves that one party over time effectively manages govt bureaucracies better than the other.
Actually there is. You must be thinking that there is no data to prove they run them the same, or that Republicans run them better. Because that’s where the truth is.
Again, you’re free to look this up. I’d provide you my ready links if my laptop had not just died this morning. Again, I trust you know how to use The Google. And if your previous responses are any indication, you will actually look for and find this data, and come back with a snarky comment not addressing the issue because you don’t want to admit you found me correct again.
oops
December 11th, 2012
2:21 pm
bye bye Michigan unions.
sorry dems. you lose on that one.
Thulsa Doom
December 11th, 2012
2:21 pm
“pro-union Democrat legislator Douglas Geiss took to the state House floor – and Twitter – to promise violence”
Isn’t that what they always do?- resort to violence or threats of violence? Talk about knuckle draggers. “No justice. No peace”. OWS riots, rapes, assaults of policeman, and property damage.
oops
December 11th, 2012
2:22 pm
non union members aren’t freeloading
they’re making an intelligent decision on what to do with THEIR money.
Regnad Kcin
December 11th, 2012
2:23 pm
“Actually data suggests this more often than just this once. As for your gambling reference, i am reasonably sure inTrade did not like me for accurately picking the winner months out, based on solid proven data”
I am not saying you are wrong, but bald assertions sometimes set me off. Congratulations on your InTrade success. Amazing what you can accomplish with real data, over wishful thinking, isn’t it?
St Simons - aboriginal BOOTAKOOK 2014
December 11th, 2012
2:23 pm
We need a grover norquist for the dems…’
-the new acorn panthers.
josef
December 11th, 2012
2:23 pm
Speaking of those auto plants relocating down in Uncle Sam’s Oldest Colony. Unmentionable just got back from his home town which is the site of a Nissan plant in the process of expanding. I was looking through the pictures. The town is now nothing like I remember. The town square which used to look like something from a Yankee photographer’s wet dream on conditions in the South has now been refurbished, properly and correctly time period, the Courthouse in the center of the square has undergone a great restoration process befitting its landmark status. The town is now known as “the film capital of Mississippi” due to the number of movies being made there taking advantage of the breaks, reception by the locals, the services available and, of course, the great stage. The “quarters” have not been overlooked. In addition to plenty of new, modern housing, the community has made endeavors to make sure that there, too, the old style architecture of the district has also been preserved while at the same time bringing the buildings up to modern standards. None of this could have been done without the cooperative effort between the locals and Nissan. The American companies which left the town to wallow in its decline and misery are not missed. Oh, yes, and local property taxes are, well, next to nothing.
Just saying…
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:23 pm
Thulsa: “Isn’t that what they always do?- resort to violence or threats of violence?”
Actually no. In most cases that doesn’t happen. It may make you feel comfortable to assert that this happens in response to everything, but you shouldn’t, because that is not the truth. If they do resort to violence in a concerted effort, you should be concerned that people are willing to fight and die for their rights. Just as you would expect me to be concerned if the Tea Party actually decided to make good on all their threats of violence over election outcomes they don’t like.
Thulsa Doom
December 11th, 2012
2:24 pm
Regnad,
The assertion was made that one party effectively manages govt bureaucracies better than the other. The onus is on you guys to prove it true. But if you want some proof from my end then I’ll give you some.
If Dems are so efficient managing govt and govt bureaucracy then why have we added an unprecedented 6-7 trillion in new spending under this potus in only 4 years? Is that your idea of effectively managing governement?
B
O
O
M
!
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:25 pm
Regnad: Yes, yes it is. I am not sure how much I can really call it gambling if the risk is so minimal, however
I would be providing links if I could, by the way. Anyone else is free to go and find this info. I’m not making it up, honest.
oops
December 11th, 2012
2:25 pm
Santa is a Republican
he doesn’t give gifts to those who’ve been naughty
Thulsa Doom
December 11th, 2012
2:25 pm
Correction. Make that 6-7 trillion in new debt- not new spending.
alex
December 11th, 2012
2:26 pm
@ joe, I am NO constitutional lawyer and I did not sleep at a holiday-in express, but your arguement of loss of right to association is not plausible, even for me. Anyway unless you’ve argued this case in front of the Supreme court neither of our opinions carry much ….
getalife
December 11th, 2012
2:27 pm
St. Simons,
Ted Kennedy was the grover for SS and Medicare.
We need to replace him with somebody like grover that goes on all the talk shows and threaten dems not to cave on SS and Medicare.
oops
December 11th, 2012
2:27 pm
“The American companies which left the town to wallow in its decline and misery ”
call the unions to cry, they killed the auto companies
just saying
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:27 pm
Thulsa: If Dems are so efficient managing govt and govt bureaucracy then why have we added an unprecedented 6-7 trillion in new spending under this potus in only 4 years?
Well, first of all, most of those trillions are not “new spending.” Secondly, the remaining amount of increase does not indicate one way or the other how efficient a program is at its intended purpose. You will need to look at other data besides dollar amounts if you want to get at the truth of efficiency and whether or not the programs are better run. You also have to take into account deliberate sabotage attempts on programs, rather than skipping over those changes during Republican administrations in order to make a half century comparison, as I have seen others try to do with certain things.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 11th, 2012
2:28 pm
Doom — “Isn’t that what mankind has done since the dawn of history. Sell his labor for bread to eat?”
Seems like someone slept through several semesters of History.
“Or if he hasn’t sold his labor he used his own labor to produce something that he could sell in order to buy bread to eat.”
You’d have to have a medium of exchange for that, and that came along much later than agriculture in human history. FWIW, barter was actually a fairly rare economic system.
“Or he used his own labor to grow his own grain for bread.”
Working for oneself is all well and good, but considering you’re throwing the term ‘bully’ around as heedlessly as you are, perhaps you should consider whether or not people take jobs they don’t really want (as far as the conditions and compensation are concerned) just so they can feed themselves and their family. If there’s only one employer paying a living wage in the area but he works his employees to exhaustion, how’s that *not* bullying?
Regnad Kcin
December 11th, 2012
2:28 pm
“No justice. No peace”.
Mr. Doom thinks justice is over-rated…I guess it’s not really necessary (except to those unspeakable folks… the have-not types…you know, “those” people).
josef
December 11th, 2012
2:29 pm
Oh, yes, and as for Kyle’s…whenever Jay’s blog runs into a shut down for whatever reason, we pretty much go over there to hang out, and I, just speaking for myself, have always been made to feel welcome and at home. Of course, I do try to remember that I am a guest, and to act like one.
Bruno is fine, btw, still full of p*ss and vinagre. As for those who emigrated from here to there, we lost the finest blogger we ever had in my several years of coming to Jay’s Place when Hillbilly Deluxe moved. A courtly Southern gentleman, a wit without a mean streak in him, and more knowledgeable of history than most of the MAJOR historians combined, and a fellow who has forgotten more about music than the rest of us at FNM ever learned…
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:29 pm
JHM: FWIW, barter was actually a fairly rare economic system.
As it should be again. “You owe me” is something that needs to be eliminated from our minds.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 11th, 2012
2:30 pm
Doom — “If Dems are so efficient managing govt and govt bureaucracy then why have we added an unprecedented 6-7 trillion in new spending under this potus in only 4 years? Is that your idea of effectively managing governement?”
Obama’s doing the same thing Reagan did; massive deficit spending to kick-start the economy. Why do you hate Ronald Reagan?
F
L
O
P
alex
December 11th, 2012
2:30 pm
@ Josef , did you see elvis?
Thulsa Doom
December 11th, 2012
2:30 pm
“Just as you would expect me to be concerned if the Tea Party actually decided to make good on all their threats of violence over election outcomes they don’t like”
Sure buddy. Those middle aged to old folks in their lawn chairs making all sorts of threats of violence election. Uh-huh. Oh I’m sure you could find some examples on youtube but nothing compared to the ACTUAL violence of the ows protestors, their riots(over 2,000 of them arrested), the rapes, property damage, etc. And we can find lots and lots of examples of ows folks making threats. A lot more than tea party folks. I know cause me and taxpayer started trading video of such things one day. He ran out of ammo fairly quickly. But I had plenty videos of ows violence and threats of violence to go all day long.
Brosephus™
December 11th, 2012
2:31 pm
non union members aren’t freeloading
they’re making an intelligent decision on what to do with THEIR money.
If they earn their money/benefits via wages/benefits negotiated for by a union, and they don’t pay a single penny for those negotiations, they are freeloading. Plain and Simple.
Face it Conservatives. If you cheer for RTW legislation, YOU ADVOCATE FREELOADING!!
Regnad Kcin
December 11th, 2012
2:32 pm
“If Dems are so efficient managing govt and govt bureaucracy then why have we added an unprecedented 6-7 trillion in new spending under this potus in only 4 years? Is that your idea of effectively managing governement?”
Mr Doom – that was completely non-responsive to the question. You asserted that it was impossible for one party to manage the programs better than another. I asked why.
I’ll assume you have no answer – it’ll save us both time.
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:33 pm
Thulsa: Those middle aged to old folks in their lawn chairs making all sorts of threats of violence election.
Look up “Woman Killed After Car, Motorized Wheelchair Bump” and then tell me the middle aged people just have no way of executing violence.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 11th, 2012
2:33 pm
alex — “@ joe, I am NO constitutional lawyer and I did not sleep at a holiday-in express, but your arguement of loss of right to association is not plausible, even for me.”
Not to be argumentative, but it doesn’t *have* to be plausible to *you.*
“Anyway unless you’ve argued this case in front of the Supreme court neither of our opinions carry much ….”
Tell you what. Make a note of what I said. Then, when the SCOTUS releases its decision, let’s go through it (the long version) and see if what I said makes an appearance in there.
I feel pretty confident that you’ll see both of my points making an appearance in the decision.
Mick
December 11th, 2012
2:34 pm
josef
Yes, HD was really cool and did possess that backwoods wisdom, but why did he leave?
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:34 pm
Has kayaker returned yet?
Wait a minute
December 11th, 2012
2:34 pm
Thank God Timothy Geitner was able to explain to the 4th grader in charge that the debt limit had to be raised. I worried when President Reagan gave missles to Iran that he 1) either didn’t know about it, scary enough; or 2) knew about it and approved it (just plain bad policy).
Now I’m reading that President Obama was ready to stop the government borrowing a year and a half ago because he doesn’t know how our government operates? Always knew (as a result of him never having held any sort of substantive job) that he had no business or operational experience whatsoever, but reading that scares the daylight out of me, that someone so fundamentally clueless is in charge. We get what we vote for at the polls, I’m afraid. It’s really scary when someone with a massive ego and such little brainpower is in charge. Very scary.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 11th, 2012
2:35 pm
Doom — “Uh-huh. Oh I’m sure you could find some examples on youtube but nothing compared to the ACTUAL violence of the ows protestors, their riots(over 2,000 of them arrested), the rapes, property damage, etc.”
You’ve been debunked on this point by Jay many times. Doom. Move along.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 11th, 2012
2:36 pm
Adam — “Has kayaker returned yet?”
He popped in again one morning last week, but he only had time for a couple of ragey screeds before he split again.
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:38 pm
JHM: You’ve been debunked on this point by Jay many times. Doom. Move along.
Case in point of one of the rules of the conservative playbook: Pretend you were never proven wrong, and re-assert that you were right. Newt Gingrich did this on Sunday when Lawrence O’Donnell said to his face that he should apologize for predicting a recession as a resulting of raising taxes. Newt ignored the point completely, just like Thulsa has been doing with most of the points I am making, and Newt made his own point as though he was responding, just like Thulsa has been doing with most of his responses.
By the way Thulsa, if you’re starting to feel proud that you’re being compared to Newt, you shouldn’t be. First of all, you’re not making any money being wrong so often (or are you?
), and secondly, Newt Gingrich is a stupid person’s idea of what a smart person sounds like.
Thulsa Doom
December 11th, 2012
2:38 pm
“Obama’s doing the same thing Reagan did; massive deficit spending to kick-start the economy. Why do you hate Ronald Reagan?”
So did Reagan run up 6-7 trillion in debt? And since they’re the same I can safely assume that Obama has created the same number of jobs as Reagan? Right? You really want to go there missy? Cause I don’t think you do.
We can use total net new jobs which includes the recessions of both or we can use when jobs started picking up after the recessions ended. Reagan created 21 million new jobs if we go from the bottoming out of the 81-82 recession and 16.1 million if we are talking about overall including the recession. So where is Obama? I think he’s around 3 or 4 million according to the libs if we go from when the recession bottomed out and maybe positive by a few hundred thousand jobs if we include the recession.
Oh. I almost forgot. Where’s the 7% economic growth under O that we had under Reagan shortly after the 81-82 recession ended? Where is it Joe???
I remember in one month under Reagan we had something like a million jobs created in one month. So tell me Joe. Have we had a million jobs created in one month under O??? A simple yes or no will suffice. I thank you in advance.
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:40 pm
JHM: Mainly I just want to remind kayaker of our bet, not get on his case at all about the text we exchanged prior to the bet, and see what his response will be. If he wants to make good on the bet, I would be also happy to give him time to do so.
Jack ®
December 11th, 2012
2:40 pm
Regardless of the outcome of the current negotiations, upper-incomers will pay more Medicare surtax for 2013: a 3.8% tax on unearned income and a 0.9% levy imposed on their earned income. These taxes are supposed to help pay health insurance coverage for lower-income families. I’m not exactly sure how that’s gonna work since the new taxes will go into the general fund–not the Medicare fund.
Brosephus™
December 11th, 2012
2:41 pm
So did Reagan run up 6-7 trillion in debt?
Reagan did triple the debt from what it was when he entered office.
Just sayin’
josef
December 11th, 2012
2:41 pm
oops
Those companies that left weren’t auto companies. They were minimum wage consumer goods manufacturers. They relocated from Up North in the 1950s and 1960s taking advantage of the socio-economic conditions in the colonies at a time when the choice for hundreds of thousands of Mississippi’s population was to refugee north, starve or, if lucky, take one of those non-union jobs with American manufacturers, taking their profits and putting them in banks Up North. Then when they found they could get it even cheaper some place else, off they went.
Who knows what will happen with Nissan there, but mention certain of the Carpetbag companies to the locals and get a round of cussin.’ Mention Nissan and get a round of praise. See, Nissan respected the local culture, its pride, its value of the community, its work ethic and its stability. Their goal has been explicitly to encourage that sense as producing a loyal and willing to work labor force.
When a business does what it should, there is no need for unions. The unions didn’t give a sh*t about the locals back in the bad old days. Now that good times have come to Hard Times, the unions ain’t particularly popular.
Thulsa Doom
December 11th, 2012
2:41 pm
“You’ve been debunked on this point by Jay many times. Doom. Move along.”
Nope. The only place its been debunked is in liberal fantasyland. Truth hurts. Bring me back one a them chocolately unicorns when you return from kook fantasyland.
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:41 pm
So did Reagan run up 6-7 trillion in debt?
Well, let’s see. Prior to Obama taking office, the debt stood at roughly $10.7T It is now roughly $16T, or an increase of $5.3T, or a 49.5% increase over 4 years.
Would anyone from the class like to tell us what the percentage increase was under Reagan’s first 4 years?
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:43 pm
Thulsa: Nope. The only place its been debunked is in liberal fantasyland. Truth hurts. Bring me back one a them chocolately unicorns when you return from kook fantasyland.
Again, it suits me just fine that you do not realize that you’re the one in fantasy land and that a majority of the American public is not in there with you. I like being part of the majority that voted for the winners.
AmericaShrugged
December 11th, 2012
2:43 pm
Well empirical evidence shows one party is certainly better at CREATING government bureaucracies! Let’s see WPA, CCC, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, food stamps for the Dems and Medicare Part (D) for the Repubs.
Brosephus™
December 11th, 2012
2:43 pm
When a business does what it should, there is no need for unions.
THIS!!!!^^^^^^^^^^
Unions are nothing more than a free market answer to a problem. If employers treated their employees worth anything, there would be no need to collectively bargain for anything.
Ken
December 11th, 2012
2:44 pm
Higher taxes will fix nothing. They just get the President a trophy. Tough choices elude congress.
Mick
December 11th, 2012
2:44 pm
doom
Give it up on the reagan comparison, because there is none, kinda like cherries and grapefruits. The housing debacle is still reeking havoc, we are about half way out of it.
TaxPayer
December 11th, 2012
2:44 pm
Erwin’s cat
December 11th, 2012
11:31 am
TP…thanks for the non answer
A reply that meets with your disapproval is hardly the accepted definition of “non answer” but you’re welcome anyway.
Thulsa Doom
December 11th, 2012
2:44 pm
So did Reagan run up 6-7 trillion in debt?
Reagan did triple the debt from what it was when he entered office.
Just sayin’
I’ll ask it again. Did Reagan run up 6-7 trillion in new debt. A simple yes or no answer will suffice for any lib who cares to take up the question.
Adam
December 11th, 2012
2:44 pm
Unions are nothing more than a free market answer to a problem
Quoted for truth
Joe Hussein Mama
December 11th, 2012
2:45 pm
Doom — ““Obama’s doing the same thing Reagan did; massive deficit spending to kick-start the economy. Why do you hate Ronald Reagan?”
“So did Reagan run up 6-7 trillion in debt?”
I know you’re too young to remember it, Doom, but Reagan took us over the $1T debt line for the first time in our national history.
“And since they’re the same I can safely assume that Obama has created the same number of jobs as Reagan? Right? You really want to go there missy? Cause I don’t think you do.”
You know what you can do with your goalpost movement, Doom. YOU brought up large amounts of deficit spending as an example of poor government management and didn’t say JACK about jobs. Now that you’ve had Reagan’s profligate spending presented to you, you want to jump off spending and run straight to job creation.
Well, Sonny, you and your cherry-picked Heritage data AND your goalpost moving can go take a freakin’ hike.
“We can use total net new jobs which includes the recessions of both SNIP”
Or you can just shut your yap and recognize that you just got your argument and your head handed to you.
josef
December 11th, 2012
2:46 pm
Alex
“@ Josef , did you see elvis?”
When he was still alive, or after he was SUPPOSED to have died?
Actually, I lived in Memphis growing up. Had a friend who lived on Timothy Street in Whitehaven next to Graceland. Elvis would come down to the fence and talk to the neighbors. He would go to the late show at the Malco. My brother and brother-in-law’s firm did a lot of work with his enterprises. He was a major benefactor of the Baron Hirsch synagogue and the Memphis Jewish community. So, yeah, I saw Elvis!
Brosephus™
December 11th, 2012
2:47 pm
Doomy and Reagan sittin’ in a tree….
saywhat?
December 11th, 2012
2:47 pm
doom apparently thinks “heckuva job brownie” did as good a job or better managing FEMA than any Democrat appointed head of that department.
Can I get a
B
O
O
M
?
RF
December 11th, 2012
2:47 pm
“When a business does what it should, there is no need for unions”
Exactly. Simple as that, and no amount of union bashing and right to work BS will take away that simple, pure fact…
Of course, when your political ideology is take over by the extreme end (and this would be true for either party), then you lose your ability to reasonably discuss solutions. Right now, too many on the right would still “strain a gnat and swallow a camel” to get Obama and prove that a non-white man can’t effectively run the country. The debt deal, even if it costs us further loss of credit rating, and even if deep cuts to “entitlements” are given, will end up either keeping the country afloat or running its credit into the ground. Amazing they would risk that for a few political points against the black man.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 11th, 2012
2:47 pm
Doom — “Nope. The only place its been debunked is in liberal fantasyland.”
Nope. Jay’s pointed out several times that you’ve got no evidence whatsoever that the individuals arrested and charged were actually members or organizers of OWS. Even *prosecutors* in most of those cases have conceded that point in municipal court.
“Truth hurts.”
It usually hurts you, because when he debunks you, you change the subject.
“Bring me back one a them chocolately unicorns when you return from kook fantasyland.”
Ah! The mating cry of the Beaten Conservative! (laughing, pointing)
JKL2
December 11th, 2012
2:48 pm
getalife- Our justice system is if you have money, pay the fine and do no time.
Just following the fine example of Eric Holder. Social justice, not equal justice.
Morality?
December 11th, 2012
2:49 pm
Jay completely missed what the real scandal of the last 50 years is. What got us here – to this point where we are on the edge of bankruptcy? That is the real scandal. 50 year build up of SOCIALIST social programs (introduced primarily by the left leaning democrat party) that were and are unfunded or under funded…… and the raid, over many years by politicians in both parties , of the Social Security System. It’s fantasy 101. There is NO Social Security surplus NONE. The current checks sent out are being funded by tax dollars coming in and we have a short fall that is be covered up the Fed gub’ment and the politicians. Social Security is the largest PONSI scheme in the history of the world. That is the largest scandal of the last 50 years. Jay get honest for once.
RAMZAD
December 11th, 2012
2:49 pm
Republicans are only patriotic when it is convenient for Right Wing ideology. They really proved it to me when they outed CIA agent Valerie Plame as payback for her husband’s report that Iraqi attempt to acquire Yellow Cake uranium from Niger was a Republican hoax.
It is very clear that Republicans do not care about America where the country is not an economic gravy train for their economic and power hungry megalomania. Just look at their disdain for the 47% who built America in their heyday.
Thulsa Doom
December 11th, 2012
2:49 pm
Mick,
You’re right. There is no comparison between Reagan’s economic performance relative to Obama’s. NONE! And as far as debt goes if I remember correctly Reagan had to work with a full Democratic Congress. And Reagan’s biggest complaint later on after leaving office was that he agreed with the Dems to raise taxes to reduce the deficit and the Dems would reduce spending. Reagan did this twice. Did the Dems actually reduce spending? Nope.They just lied. Just like they are lying today about the cliff. If the Rs agree to tax increases the Ds will say that they will agree to spending cuts. But they are LIARS. They will take the tax increases but the spending cuts will never materialize. And yet some of the brainwashed on here blame Reagan. Hilarious.
They BOTH suck
December 11th, 2012
2:50 pm
Just don’t bring up the last President or say that more jobs were created under Clinton than Reagan and you will be ok……
Mick
December 11th, 2012
2:51 pm
**Social Security is the largest PONSI scheme in the history of the world**
Not intended to be a factual statement rather a showcase of ignorant ideology…
josef
December 11th, 2012
2:51 pm
RF
So, how went the interview?
Mick
December 11th, 2012
2:52 pm
doom
One could say that it was because of the democratic congress that it made reagan look successful. Turnabout is fair play…
They BOTH suck
December 11th, 2012
2:53 pm
Thulsa
Unless 6 years of a Republican Senate in your mind means a “full Democratic Congress”, then NO, you do not “remember correctly”.
Williebkind
December 11th, 2012
2:54 pm
Is Michigan a right to work state yet?
RF
December 11th, 2012
2:54 pm
“Social Security is the largest PONSI scheme in the history of the world”
Ponzi schemes are normally run by someone for a reason- to make money. Who’s getting the “profit” here???
“50 year build up of SOCIALIST social programs (introduced primarily by the left leaning democrat party)”
Actually, members of BOTH parties voted to create the social programs, and have voted to continue them. They are the product of a bipartisan agreement. I’m sure you’ll be right in line with the rest to receive when your time comes. Would you seriously turn down Medicare and Social Security?
saywhat?
December 11th, 2012
2:55 pm
does doom remember reagan’s wonderful choice for secretary of the interior, Watt, who managed his department so well that he spent millions and millions of taxpayer dollars changing the department seal- he changed the buffalo from left facing to right facing.
Yep, those Republicans sure do manage goverment efficiently.
Can I get another
B
O
O
M
?