The more things "Change" the more things stay the same! Where is the liberal media screaming and crying about this??? Not a word!!! That is hypocritical!!!

So what excuse do you have for this one? I'm sure you libs will come up with some reason why this is okay. What ever you do make sure you blame it on the republicans. Maybe Bush used mind control on Obama and made him sign it, yeah that's it.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/anthony-kan...ay-night-course

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms

As a liberal I'm not surprised by this.
IMO Obama has repeatedly shown by his actions that he's a centrist.
Can't say I'm happy about it, but I certainly don't blame GW for Obama's actions.

As disappointed as I may be with Obama's conservative leanings I'm still convinced he was the only rational choice within the limited ones presented to us on election day.

How about your freedom? What about liberty? How about Eric Holder??? Justice Dept. wants phone locales without warrant.

Now why would they want to do this? Do you want to be tracked?

See what this administration is up to.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100212/D9DQS4QG1.html

I am just glad we are out of Iraq like he (and every other Demopublican) promised.

What?

OK then, at least we have less troops in Afghanistan.

What?

Please don't tell me Guantanamo is still operating.

Crap.

Let's see .. Bush creates this bill - it's a great idea
Obama reauthorizes it and it's a travesty ...

yep .. I understand perfectly

Justin.... time to lock down this thread -- I just insulted your hero

Just like a lib to not take responsibility and blame someone else. Obama is driving the bus now. I knew Bush would get blamed, that's your party doctrine, "it's all Bush's fault", well that is only going to go so far now. Obama signed the Patriot Act extension, not Bush.

Sorry, Obama is not conservative leaning, another lame excuse.

Yeah, you don't like this thread very much, do you? So your going to try to pull Justin in to this, and get under his skin to get this thread shut down. Some of you guys can sure dish it, but when you have to face the facts you can handle it, you got to blame someone else. It doesn't go along with your lib doctrine. What Obama did makes him no different than bush in his actions, there is your change.

Can't we just all get along? You've made your points, no need to continue, ranting and bickering with each other. Leave that to the pros in Congress

Well he's certainly not leaning liberal.

And I wasn't making an excuse. I'm sick about it.

Exactly. The one important thing about this thread isn't the subject, it's that knuckle-dragging people like ExcelAV make the same moronic comments when Obama does something they like! He's still a communist supported by the liberal media who blame Bush for everything - as if there weren't enough terrible things to blame him for without inventing others - even when he demonstrates that he's actually center-right.

Really, the national debate in this country has been defined by the biggest bunch of moronic assholes in our history. It's just pathetic.

Oh and by the way, ExcelAV, you need to get out more. Obama is getting LOTS of criticism from the left. The difference is that it's based on thought, something you're clearly not acquainted with.

So, once again you prove that you are unable to have a conversation with out be-littling someone. Excelav never said anything about you, or your character, or your personal life and yet you cannot make a point with out tearing the other person down personally.

Because he's posting stupid, offensive, inflammatory crap about liberals in general that makes me mad. And why shouldn't it?

This is the stuff we have to listen to all over the place, and it sucks. There's no civics test to have a vote in this country, and that shows.

It's your problem if you can't see that.

That's just Nick's way. I find it amusing, in a weird way. The irony of preaching a "progressive" and "tolerant" view - EXCEPT what he doesn't agree with. That, he's got no tolerance - and no courtesy - for.

Anyway...




Actually, what this thread seems to show, quite nicely is that it's really very hard to paint people into neat little boxes like "Democrat" or "Liberal" and "Republican" or "Conservative."

"Liberal," "Progressive" "Democrats" (supporters of Obama) derided the Patriot Act for years and years. The fact that Obama has extended it, much to the chagrin of many liberal Democrats, shows that you can't call all liberals or Democrats "the same."

Likewise, the fact that certain Republicans and/or "conservatives" supported Bush or some Bush policies doesn't mean all "Republicans" or "conservatives" supported everything he did and are "the same."

Let's start talking about THE ISSUES, individually, and STOP talking about party lines and politics.

Do you seriously thing those that call the shots in this country at the moment care about any ISSUES? You have a jerk that now single handedly denies unemployment benefits? Who's interests is he serving? Nothing but partisan BS.

If you want to talk about the issues, fine, but then don't smear poop about courtesy.

I'm extremely tolerant of rational views that oppose mine when it's a reasonable difference of opinion. But I don't suffer fools gladly, and what ExcelAV posted is way beyond foolish. Courtesy is not appropriate as a response to goat custards being slung in your face.

As to the issues, I'm not in favor of extending the "Patriot Act" unchanged. But the Christian Science Monitor article is presenting a lot of opinion as fact. For example:



Obama "even" once claimed bla bla bla "during the Bush administration?" Who are the "experts"? The Heritage Foundation they go on to quote? The healthcare "debate" is the cause of failing ratings -as if they're unanimous - rather than the fact that we have massive unemployment and people always oppose incumbents under those conditions? And this is because of the healthcare "debate"?!

Come on. The article does go on to present the ACLU point of view, but it's still slanted heavily to the right - i.e. to the wrong.

OK, I'll bite (not that it will get anywhere but)...



NO ONE "slung a goat custard in your face."

He made a post about a political topic. A post that you disagree with (we know...).

He said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about you, your personal character or your intellect. Indeed, he SAID NOTHING about ANYONE'S personal character, morals or intellect.

It was YOU, Nick - and YOU ALONE - that immediately dragged the discourse down into childish, personal, ad-hominem attacks on people's state of evolution, intellect and personal matters.

ONLY YOU.

I know you like to say that it was those general points that he made that YOU found somewhat offensive, and so you your directly personal and pointedly and intentionally offensive remarks in response are somehow warranted, but, as we've all been telling you, that's just not so.

Grow up. Learn how to have a civil discourse and maybe you'll actually get somewhere with people, instead of having to constantly bemoan the fact5 that you're surrounded by "knuckle dragging imbeciles" or the like.



I guess we don't know, from that little snippet you quoted exactly who they are referring to but, I imagine it's pretty much EVERY SINGLE WASHINGTON OBSERVER (other than perhaps your precious and somewhat dimented Mr. Krugman). Since there's a sh|t-ton of political analysts and pundits - Republican/conservative and Democrat/liberal, alike - who have observed the exact same thing.



Um, NO.

You're an "editor"?

Please show us where it says: ...experts cited unanimous results indicating that that a string of foiled terrorist plots over the past year combined with the Democrats' falling ratings amid the healthcare debate.."

Does it say that?

NO.

It specifically says: "...experts suggest that a string of foiled terrorist plots over the past year combined with the Democrats' falling ratings amid the healthcare debate..."

So, for those of us who don't have a simple command of the English language, the use of the word "suggest" right there means that these are just SOME of the POSSIBLE reasons. And it specifically AVOIDS any implication that these issues are definitive or somehow unanimous or even easily isolatable or identifiable.

But hey, you go on arguing with precisely what WASN'T said in the article.

And as we all know "Experts" is the keyword for "a bunch of bullshit that no one would ever go on record with follows", and the "suggests" just confirms that.

Thanks, Mark!

I try.



Joe, that may be true but, in the instance in question, I don't know why Nick (or you?) would really try and dispute what is implied to "the experts" here, namely:

That the Obama administration is having a tough time in the polls right now and that is in part due to the nation's frustration with the Health Care issue. Direct data shows it. You don't need vague references to "expert suggestions" to make the point.

Many in support of Obama's planned healthcare reform are on record saying they are frustrated that it hasn't gotten done yet. Some of those and others are also on record saying they are displeased that it seems to be descending into a series of watered-down compromise.

Some who championed the Obama administration are finding the handling of the issues - with the President leaving it up to Congress until it was already a bad firefight - frustrating and have announced that they are displeased with the way that has played out.

Those who don't want it are naturally unhappy about the fact that it continues.

Polls pretty uniformly show (i.e. including "Democratic" or "liberal" polls - not just anti-healthcare reform polls) seem to show that the majority of American's do NOT want healthcare reform, at least not as has been outlined thus far.

Do you guys really think that it's just made up, that these are problems that the administration is facing and knows it's facing?

post deleted. conversation is lame

Goat custards:

"

For once I agree with Mark.

No.

"Goat custards" being thrown at someone are things like:












That's what we're talking about.

PERSONAL attacks. YOU started those. NOBODY else.



Way to keep it on topic, discuss the issues and intelligently state your case.

Knife, you are a roguish white-livered bear-whelp, rancorous base-court worms-meat, obscene plume-plucked horn-beast, meddling rump-fed miscreant, fobbing onion-eyed fustilarian, fobbing common-kissing bear-whelp, bawdy clay-brained puttock, meddling dread-bolted carrion, and impertinent puke-stockinged bladder.

What's more, you're also an abominable decayed withered-hag, yeasty tallow-faced eunuch, warped sheep-biting foot-licker, bootless tardy-gaited strumpet, spleeny dread-bolted punk, saucy weather-bitten barnacle, loggerheaded tardy-gaited giglet, degenerate base-court foul adulterer, qualling half-faced joithead, impertinent dizzy-eyed execrable-wretch, greasy dismal-dreaming fustilarian, fobbing common-kissing barnacle, and a fobbing common-kissing barnacle.

And a putz.

Could it be that Nick is now possessed by Rider? Rider used to post in 3s right?? hmmmmm

Wow.. Check this out..

USA TODAY REPORT


"The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000."

The rest I can't abide by, but this:



I might tolerate.


Jeff, are you surprised that the Federal government gets bigger and the Washington do-nothings (that's BOTH Republicans AND Democrats) get fatter when things like stimulus plans get enacted? I know I'm not.

Im not surprised.. but that much? Its like they think we are blind! Both sides of the isle..

Jeff

No Jeff, not blind - they know they can count on the public being apathetic, ignorant, and alzheimered.

...except that the stimulus was the right thing to do (as that link shows), in fact we need another one.

With what money?? There is nothing left to tax..

Just bizarre!

It's not just bizarre at all.

This is why God created deficit spending. It really works. The economy will pick up and we'll be better off in the long run.

Right now is not the time to worry about the deficit.

It's not like I'm not alone on this - some pretty heavy-duty economists are saying this, and it really does make sense. You have to look at the national debt as a percentage of GNP. If the GNP goes up, the percentage goes down while the tax base goes up.

Meanwhile the human costs of mass unemployment are horrendous.

But it's not possible to convince conservatives of that. They just oppose oppose oppose.

Yes, I vehemently oppose this! (among other things)

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Then where were you for the past 8 years when this debt was being rung up?

Kecinzer, that is the Republican hype. There's a huge difference between government spending when nobody else is spending and government spending when they are. Right now we need the spending we're doing - and more. The first stimulus wasn't big enough, so we need another one. Hopefully it will be targeted well, but it is necessary.

And this not the sudden emergency the Republicans are screaming about any more than the Iraq war was.

And by the way, why is it that the same people who are opposed to spending to keep the economy afloat are opposed to raising the marginal tax rates back to where they were before the Bush tax cuts? That and the two wars is responsible for a lot of the debt.

But I have to repeat, the numbers look frightening until you look at the payment amount vs. our GNP. $800B debt service in order to avoid a lost generation isn't bad when we have a $14 trillion economy. The debt was much higher after the Great Depression, yet we had decades of incredible growth.

What's really at the root of this is that conservatives want a world in which it's okay for other people to suffer as long as they're okay. I hear the responses to that, but that's what it comes down to.

How much are these wars costing per day again? Where is that money coming from? And how come every time there is a photo of our troops in Afghanistan, there is never an enemy in the photo? Why are we there again? WMDs? Al Quaeda? Taliban now? Training? Hmmm.

Those politicians waste zero time voting for hugely expensive wars, but take a year to fix our own problems at home with healthcare, white-collar crime, etc., all while saying it costs too much money. Riiiight.

Yeah, that debt clock is interesting. War (both started under Bush) is listed under "largest budget items". Good thing we were debt-free and war-free until Obama took office!

All those that vote for war should serve in the war. I'd wager that if you personally had to go to war if you vote "yes" for a war, there would be a lot less of that going on.

And of course, the wars and the Patriot Act all commenced due to 9/11, where miraculous feats of physics defying, mind bending "heroism and horror" took place.

Best government money can buy.

Naturally ... that is the end result of being able to purchase your own politicians - now improved with more corporate buying power!

...thanks to our radical conservative Supreme Court, which is the real legacy of Bush that's going to take forever to clean up. We'll eventually recover from most of the other things he did (I'm optimistic), but I'm not so sure about the Roberts Supreme Court. Their latest move to allow corporations to buy elections is especially outrageous.

You REALLY think our current national debt was "rung up over the last 8 years"?

Not saying that Bush was any model of fiscal conservativism but, Obama has presided over the single largest deficit increase - by FAR - in history.

Below is a Washington Post (read: Liberal, Democratic -supporting Anti-Bush/pro-Obama paper) graphic on the deficit between '02 and projected (favorably) to 2019






Just to keep it CURRENT: The Obama Administration's $708 billion war budget for fiscal 2011 (released February 1) is higher than the $680 billion Obama approved for 2010.

The 2010 Obama budget was already 4.1% higher than President George W. Bush's $651 billion funding for fiscal 2009.

Sure Bush started it but,...

Im so sick of this crap...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1217

FIRE THEM ALL

Of course he did! He had to avoid having our economy totally collapse!

And how exactly did he pay for the wars he started? Oh yeah .. he kept them off the books.

At least it does show that he was handed a 236 Billion surplus. I also would like to know how much of the 09 number covers the bailouts that Bush initiated (although I agree they were needed).

Okay, let me elaborate.

It's important to understand that there's a big difference between running up a deficit during normal times and during an emergency. During normal times you'd be taking money out of the economy to do that (economists call it "crowding out private investment"), but during an emergency when the private and business sectors aren't spending money, the government is putting money *into* the economy to keep it moving.

And it would stop moving if the government tried to cut the deficit now. The longterm consequences of higher national debt are nowhere near as bad as a lost generation. When things return more or less to normal is the time to start cutting back. But then the economy will be able to withstand that.

This isn't just fantasy. You only have to look at, say, Argentina to see what happens when countries go on austerity programs in the middle of a crisis. It's a disaster. On the other hand, the chart I linked above shows how much worse we'd be without the stimulus.

The other point is that right now disinflation is the worry, not inflation. That means the economy slows to a halt.

As I've said before, there really is a big difference between your and my household budgets and the country as a whole. Macroeconomics is very complicated.

http://robertreich.org/post/358773967/obama-needs-to-teach-the-public-how-to-get-out-of-the

Excerpt:

"His political advisors are telling him to emphasize deficit reduction instead. And that’s what he did Wednesday night when he talked about a “freeze” on discretionary spending, and a “commission” to look for ways to cut the deficit.

I can understand why Obama’s political advisors are pushing him in this direction. Many Americans borrowed too much during the boom years before the Great Depression, and now they’re paying the price. So they naturally analogize their own plight to that of the federal government and the economy as a whole. The government is too deep in debt, they reason. Logically, that means the only way out of the nation’s economic doldrums is for the government to mend its ways. The government has to reduce its budget deficit just like American families have to reduce theirs.

This analogy is faulty, of course. If John Maynard Keyenes taught us anything, it’s that a federal budget is not at all like a family budget. In fact, it’s precisely because families have to pull in their belts that the federal government has to let its belt out. When consumers and businesses aren’t buying much of anything, the government has to fill the gap. That’s the only way to get jobs and get the economy moving again. Once the economy is percolating, the government can pull back. By then, tax revenues will soar, and the long-term deficit will shrink. (And yes, entitlement reform is probably necessary in the long term. But here again, it’s vitally important to separate the long term from the now.)

But if the public learns the wrong set of lessons — that tax cuts for businesses are good, and deficit reduction starting now is good — there’s no hope for getting wise policies out of Congress. The debate is framed all wrong."

The current geopolitical trends compounded by the greatest de-industrialization of our country - the most dramatic in the modern world history, will bring USA down to the third world country level.

One day we'll consider ourselves lucky If we'll end up with chinese type of socialist dictatorship.

Pay attention my friends....

This was a program developed by the Clinton administration to satisfy the tree huggers. We export all the manufacturing capabilities that made America a power to 3rd world countries so that they pollute their local environments instead of ours, then we become a "Service Provider" and all's good? Not! The rest of the world can't afford our services any longer because we can't afford to buy the products they make unless they're from a slave labor state like China and everybody knows the Chinese are tight as bark on a tree (they're saving up to buy America and have already made a substantial down payment).

I am currently employed in the services industry so to say and the trend as of late is to hire only part-time employees, no benefits, little money. I have a part-time co-worker who has to quit her job because she found out she has breast cancer and if she's working she can't get help from the government with her medical bills as she has no insurance. If Obama Care passes with a public option I'll quit my job the next day so I can sign up and then get my check from Nick every month. I'll just sit around, making records for fun and watch the rest of America swirl right down the toilet, but I'll have health insurance and my check from Nick. Y'all have fun.

I thought it was Pelosi Care? Which bumper sticker am I supposed to use here? I think she is referring to Medicaid, no? Income based government help? No insurance company would touch her due to her pre existing condition, and in the current system, that is her only option for help, as treatment is extremely expensive. If you were to (oh so intelligently) quit your job, how could you pay the premiums on your public health insurance? Or are you saying you would quit so you could qualify for Medicaid under the current system?

The deindustrialization started with Clinton? He just made it official with globalization, a trend that I don't see how we could have stopped, for better and worse - although if the Chinese keep the Yuan artificially low, we're going to see protectionism come back.

Our industrial base was declining for years, and in fact it was Paul Volker's austerity program to fight inflation, when he raised interest rates in I believe 1980, that put the nail in its coffin.

Josef, I don't have 2-1/2 hours to watch a video. Can you summarize it?

And here you go:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/debt-is-a-political-issue/



And in case anyone didn't follow this:

"right now r-g looks, ahem, negative"

he's saying that disinflation is the worry - as I posted earlier

Nick, I know you like to rely on opinions of liberal economists... not saying they are all wrong. Sure they're smarter than I'm. But I do prefer to read wide variety of opinions with emphasis on real numbers and historical facts.

Here is an example: HERE

The problem is that those aren't the real numbers.

A quick search of the CBO turned up this, for example:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/03-05-apb.pdf

Of course it's not looking good, but going on an austerity program in the middle of the second worst financial crisis in our history is a terrible idea.

Nick, it's pretty well explained in the video (above) why the CBO numbers don't represent the actual reality.

But it's 2-1/2 hours.

You don't understand it? It's called being fiscally responsible!
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100306/D9E8RNPG0.html

He says it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08rx3JmspnI

This thread will be shut down for sure now; ) Lol!

Brilliant.

It's all hype.

And I'm not sitting through Rush Limbaugh saying anything. He's earned the right to be ignored by me.

By the way, ExcelAV: YOU don't get it. Cutting back now would be fiscally irresponsible. Period.

Look what happened to Argentina when they went on an austerity program in the middle of a crash.

I qualify for Social Security disability now which includes Medicare/Medicaid. The reason to quit my job is to get coverage on my wife & kid which would be under the public option if available and should be of no cost with no income. The only reason I really keep working is to provide insurance for them as I would be covered. Plus, I want the monthly check Nick is gonna send me since he's such a benevolent soul.

Hallmarks of an individual that wants to be objective and stay informed, on all sides:







How many hours do you spend reading Krugman and Reich and simply re-confirming to yourself that you agree with what they are saying?

How does that keep you truly INFORMED?

Any attempt to draw an analogy between the U.S. and Argentina - in ANY measure of economics - serves to show a complete lack of understanding of the very fundamentals of economics, in the first place.

Thanks for playing...

NEXT!

Knife, you are incapable of discussing any issues without being a dick. And an asshole, so please fuck yourself.