Conservative VS Liberal

[pattygreen 5]

Could you believe Obama's SOTU address? While only a fool would argue that Bush doesn’t deserve some criticism for spending money like a Democrat while in office, there’s absolutely no way to blame him for the approximately $12 trillion dollar deficit Obama has racked up in just one year’s time.

That’s right, twelve trillion dollars.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Obama's SOTU address hit it out of the park. Also, when he met with the GOP the other day, another win for him.

Luke Russert nailed it...updated w/video

by Julie Gulden

Share this on Twitter - Luke Russert nailed it...updated w/video

Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 12:14:31 PM PST

Luke Russert just told Andrea Mitchell that a Republican told him, off record, that it was a mistake to allow cameras into the Republican Retreat Q&A with Obama.

Luke summarized by saying that it gave President Obama enough time

to strike down every single one of the Republican talking points.

The beauty of it is the youtubes will be shown endlessly on ALL channels (except Fox). And speaking of Fox, they discontinued their coverage somewhere in the middle! Scaredy cats.

• Julie Gulden's diary :: ::
  

Luke's tweet:

GOP aides telling me it was a mistake to allow cameras into Obama's QA with GOP members. Allowed BO to refute GOP for 1.5 hours on TV.

RussertXM_NBC

Luke Russert

He also said that the White House called last night and requested that the TV cameras be allowed. How smart was that?!

The impact of this is going to be HUGE. We love it because he's our guy.

To the folks out there who aren't as enamored with him as us, they will see the truth, even if they only see 1/2 of his answers...or 1/4 of his answers. There is now no denying that this President has brains and is using his brains for the good of ALL Americans.

The Republicans just got hood-winked royally.

Smart idea putting this on tv.

[BJean 16]

Cleo's: The Republicans just got hood-winked royally.

I do not look at it as hood-winking the Republicans. I look it as masterful strategy.

The only way to get Republicans to engage in the legislative process instead of the ignorant obstructionist, self-serving behavior they have exhibited since the president was elected, is for the president to confront them and dissect each of their "complaints" point by point so that they have to respond to the truth instead of making up stories.

Reagan was dealing with a lot of Democrats who didn't want to play Reagan ball when he took office. After a good bit of butting heads with no progress being made, he started meeting with them one-on-one or one-on-several at breakfasts at the White House. He convinced them, issue by issue, and many of them eventually played ball the Reagan way. If he had not been willing to do that, he would have spent his entire term of office like Jimmy Carter. That is, sitting in the White House griping about his detractors, telling everyone that they were wrong, but in the end not being able to get anything done.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Now, here's an independent conservative who "gets it" unlike the mean-spirited conservative republicans who are in lock step (all highlights are mine):

Fed up with the Republicans

'Independent conservative' DOUGLAS MACKINNON calls on Republican leaders to denounce the bigots in their midst

Sunday, January 31, 2010

With his book "The Tipping Point: How Things Can Make A Big Difference," mega best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell outlined real-world acts or issues which eventually became "tipping points" for action. With that immutable law of gravity in mind, I wonder if the latest outrageous, insulting and demeaning remark made by a Republican official at the expense of the poor and minority community will finally be the tipping point that forces the GOP "leadership" to scream enough is enough to such affronts.

In case you missed it, Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer of South Carolina compared people who take public assistance to stray animals. Stray animals.

With regard to such people -- more often devastatingly poor children in need -- Mr. Bauer said in part:

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed ... You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."

Are you kidding me? Is this 2010 or 1810? Are we talking about desperately hurting, frightened and humbled human beings here, or are we talking about livestock, or worse, the "possessions" from a shameful and destructive chapter of our history?

For the record, I grew up on welfare. Many times as a child, I was homeless, malnourished and petrified of what pain and humiliation the next day would bring. By the time I was 17 years of age, I had moved 34 times -- all of those moves being forced evictions with my family's belongings many times strewn across the sidewalk for all to see.

During many of those evacuations across the city of Boston and the face of New England, I encountered a number of people on "public assistance." Most, of course, being fellow innocent children who were hardly responsible for their plight or the fact that their parents "didn't know better and bred." Shame on those children for being the result of "that type of behavior" and for being hungry and in need of "ample food."

Ironically -- at least for most of my liberal friends -- from that horrific environment, I chose to become a Republican. The simple reason being that the GOP's core principles of self-responsibility, smaller government and lower taxes spoke to me at the time.

After 20 years in the "political" business, I officially gave up on the Republican Party and morphed into an "independent conservative." Like most politicians from both sides of the aisle, many Republican elected officials tend to put self-preservation or the interests of their party well before the needs of the people or their nation.

Fine, as depressing, deflating and dangerous as that is, I get it. That's the increasingly heavy burden we all carry which is grinding our future into a fine powder.< /span>

That said, an honorable way for any politician to stop or at least slow that suicidal progression is to challenge and rebuke those in his or her own party who gleefully turn the grind stone and shame themselves. That the lieutenant governor of South Carolina has done so is not in doubt. Unfortunately, what is in doubt is the resolve of Republican leaders to condemn Mr. Bauer's hurtful and obscene comparison while demanding an apology.

To Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin or any other Republican who occupies a leadership position within the party, I would tell you they don't come any more urgent or righteous than this. Mr. Bauer's disgusting attack upon the dignity of poor and minority Americans is a disgrace and must not go unanswered.

If Mr. Bauer's rhetorical assault is not "the tipping point" for Republican leaders to forevermore repudiate such vile language and bigoted and ignorant individuals, then theirs truly is the party of yesterday. Their demise will be dictated by hubris and simple math.

The complexion of America is growing darker and more diverse by the day. Soon, this minority will be the majority -- a majority which will remember who stood up to be counted when others looked the other way.

Douglas MacKinnon, a novelist, is a former White House and Pentagon official who also served as press secretary to former Sen. Bob Dole.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[LeighaMason 19]

Could you believe Obama's SOTU address? While only a fool would argue that Bush doesn’t deserve some criticism for spending money like a Democrat while in office, there’s absolutely no way to blame him for the approximately $12 trillion dollar deficit Obama has racked up in just one year’s time.

That’s right, twelve trillion dollars.

The the 2009 deficit was 1.42 trillion dollars not 12. Can you please let us know where the 12 trillion number was quoted from? Thanks, Leigha

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm

After fiscal year 2009 ended Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the actual deficit for the year was $1.42 trillion

[pattygreen 5]

The the 2009 deficit was 1.42 trillion dollars not 12. Can you please let us know where the 12 trillion number was quoted from? Thanks, Leigha

Monthly Budget Review

After fiscal year 2009 ended Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the actual deficit for the year was $1.42 trillion

National Debt Now Tops $12 Trillion - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I apologize. I read it too fast and got the wrong number. I found it at this website.It does state this however.

The latest high-point is not unexpected, considering the federal deficit for the just-ended 2009 fiscal year hit an all-time high at $1.42-trillion – more than triple the previous year's record high.

[LeighaMason 19]

I see the so you meant national debt is $12 T instead of the deficit.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

From allvoices.com (emphasis mine):

Senators Sponsor A Bill And Then Vote Against It...And Just How Are The Republicans Not Obstructionists?

By: amalgam80

Washington : DC : USA | about 9 hours ago

What kind of politician co-sponsors a bill in Congress and when it’s time to vote, votes against it?

The Republican type.

The Republican Party likes to act like they care about your financial situation. They want you to think that they are the Party of fiscal responsibility and “better solutions”, but when you look at their record, Republicans have initiated one horrible idea after another.

The first decade of the 2000s is becoming known as the lost decade of America.

You know how the Republicans and conservatives want you to forget that 9/11 happened on their watch. A lot of that comes from the thought that no one could have predicted such an attack (which is a complete lie, complete and horrible lie).

They want you to think the same thing about the economy. Everyone wants to act like no one had a clue how bad things were, which is also a complete and utter lie.

People from as early as the late 90s (probably even earlier), were warning about exactly the things that went wrong with the economy in the late 2000s. When GeorgeGeorge W. BushBush won his re-election in 2004, many economists and just normal people like you and me knew exactly what was going to happen.

In 1999, I graduated high school and started college at the University of Illinois at Chicago. My second semester there I took my first Economics course. There I was taught that the value of properties goes up and down. I was also warned of the coming economic crash (not the recessions that have happened since then, but an actual crash).

In the year 2005 I was interested in becoming a real estate agent and took a class so that I could take the state exam to get my license. This would be the second time I was taking a real estate class. I also took one at UIC, but had forgotten many things by that point(I was told property value goes up and down there as well and was warned of the real estate bubble that was forming).

During the class I took in 2005, both of my teachers were warning us that it was a bad time to be joining the real estate market. They warned us about sub-prime loans and what the big banks were doing with our loans. They warned us of the fact that there were regulatory institutions that were supposed to keep an eye on things but these institutions were either told not to do anything, didn’t want to do anything or were made weaker by cries of deregulation from the conservative movement.

During this timeframe many economists like Paul KrugmanPaul Krugman were also sounding the alarm, but because Krugman was saying something the Bush administration was against, he was painted as a loony liberal. Screw the fact that the man had gotten a Nobel Prize for Economics.

In 2006, many of the “conservative” economists were sounding the same alarms Krugman had been sounding for years. But the Republicans didn’t want to listen.

During the Republicans’ reign at the beginning of this millennium, they passed two tax cuts but didn’t cut any spending. The “across the board tax cut” (that’s Republican speak for “tax cuts for the rich”) added about a trillion dollars to the deficit and did nothing for the crashing economy. It just gave the rich more money to hide in offshore accounts.

These “tax cuts” were not really “tax cuts”. The way the Republican Congress paid for this tax cut was not by cutting taxes. No, they got a loan from China to pay for the tax cut. They also got a loan from China and other foreign countries to pay for the wars in Iraq (which was completely unnecessary) and Afghanistan (which was necessary and completely mishandled because the Republicans wanted you to think Iraq was more important than Afghanistan).

The two tax cuts and the two wars were and are paid for by getting loans from other countries. Our tax dollars right now are paying a lot of money on just the interest of these loans. But the spending doesn’t end there.

During the Republicans’ reign, they also decided they needed some seniors to vote for them, so they decided to pass Medicare Part D. This was supposed to help seniors get free or cheap prescription drugs. A worthwhile endeavor, but also a sloppy and corporate friendly endeavor.

You see the government with all the new purchasing power given to it by Medicare Part D should now be able to negotiate cheaper prices for the drugs right. I mean, that’s how Wal-Mart does it. It’s part and parcel with this whole free market thing right. The more stuff you buy, the cheaper you should be able to get it. But that’s not how things worked out.

As a favor to the drug companies, the federal government gave up their right to negotiate pricing. Isn’t that just great?

By the time Obama came into office, the U.S. was in the hole for $8 trillion dollars.

So what to do, what to do?

Well to answer that question the Senate decided to set up a commission. The commission’s job was going to be to find out what to do about all our debt.

The proposal to start this commission was bi-partisan. There were six Republican Senators that co-sponsored the bill with Democrat Senators.

And as the beginning of this article said, when it came time to vote, the same six Senators that co-sponsored the bill, voted against the bill.

The reason being that the commission was going to offer solutions, and that’s not what the Republicans want, not while there is a Democrat President and the Democrats also have the majority in Congress.

So what are the solutions that this commission might offer?

Well when it comes to budgets, you can either cut stuff out or get more revenue in, that’s about it.

This is what Steve Brenan of Washington Monthly has to say on the matter:

Look, if the federal government is eventually going to address the budget deficit, policymakers are going to have to a) bring in more money; :confused: spend less money; or c) some combination of the two. There are no other choices. The commission would ostensibly create the conditions for some kind of grand bargain -- Democrats would have to accept spending cuts they would otherwise oppose, and Republicans would accept tax increases they would otherwise oppose. Spread the pain around and everyone gets some political cover.

These six Republican senators said they'd welcome a commission -- it was, after all, their idea to co-sponsor the bill -- just so long as the GOP isn't asked to make concessions or compromises at all.

We've heard plenty of rhetoric of late about how President Obama just needs to reach out more to Republicans to strike bipartisan compromises. But how can anyone take such an approach seriously when leading GOP lawmakers oppose their own ideas because they may be asked to accept bipartisan concessions?

The answer to that last question, though I realize it was a rhetorical question, is you can’t. You stop working with them all together. Budget related bills can be passed using reconciliation and that’s what should be done.

Or let the Republicans filibuster whatever they want. Let them do it. Let them go on the floor of Congress and try to explain to the American people why we shouldn’t try to find solutions to budget deficits.

I, for one, thinks that’s a win-win for the Dems.

This author says much of what I have been posting on all these political threads because progressives speak to the truth. And this highlights more republican hypocrisy. I may have to start a new thread just for that since it is almost a daily occurance.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[pattygreen 5]

"Over budget" are familar words in government, and so it will be with pres. Obama's "stimulus". Despite having $787 billion at his disposal, Obama is on course to spend $862 billion because he is laying out an extra $75 billion to pay people not to work, on top of the hundreds of billions to indemnify government payrolls. This latest failure might be the cherry on top of the "stimulus", which did not keep unemployment under 8% as the pres. promised and did not stimulate economic growth. But it had some measure of success. It stimulated $862 billion, and counting, in new gov. debt for future generations to repay.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You forgot to quote your source for the above post, pattygreen:

 

Edited February 2, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[BJean 16]

When I read patty's post I was determined to ask her who she was quoting. It is in very poor form to post something that you've lifted somewhere else and hold out to all the world that they are your words.

Thanks for clearing it up for us, cleo's.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

When I read patty's post I was determined to ask her who she was quoting. It is in very poor form to post something that you've lifted somewhere else and hold out to all the world that they are your words.

Thanks for clearing it up for us, cleo's.

And just for the record, BJean, the Republican American is just another right-wing, republican ragsheet.

[BJean 16]

Yeah, and who's surprised that it is patty's "news" paper.

[pattygreen 5]

Yeah, and who's surprised that it is patty's "news" paper.

ALL people tend to read the things that they agree with. You do the same. I keep abreast of what other liberal papers share, and I watch MSNBC or CNN, but can't stand to linger there long since I rarely agree with what they have to report.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

ALL people tend to read the things that they agree with. You do the same. I keep abreast of what other liberal papers share, and I watch MSNBC or CNN, but can't stand to linger there long since I rarely agree with what they have to report.

Who people listen to is telling. Here's your lying Glenn Beck:

from Arianna Huffington: (emphasis mine)

Read More: Abc This Week , Ailes Fox News , Ailes Huffington , Beck White House , Fox News Beck , Glenn Beck , Glenn Beck Arianna , Glenn Beck Arianna Huffington , Paul Krugman , Roger Ailes , Media News

Following up on my back and forth with Roger Ailes yesterday on ABC's This Week, Glenn Beck went on his radio show today and attacked what I'd said about him -- and, in the process, ended up spewing a lot more misinformation.

Beck's key point of contention was over my assertion that he had warned people that they were in danger of being "slaughtered" by the Obama administration and its friends.

Ailes had insisted that Beck had been "talking about Hitler and Stalin slaughtering people, so I think he was probably accurate." Beck and his on-air partners, executive producer and head writer "Stu" Burguiere and contributing editor Pat Gray, tried to stick with that story. Press the play button below to listen and click here for the transcript.

BECK: I don't even know if I've ever used the word "slaughtered." And if I used the word "slaughtered," if it wasn't in a context of Mao, Stalin, or Hitler, it was in the idea that the truth is being slaughtered by this administration... not saying that this administration is going to slaughter anyone.

GRAY: Never, never.

Unfortunately for Ailes, Beck, and Gray -- but fortunately for fans of facts, reality, and the truth -- we live in the era of DVRs, YouTube, and embeddable video. And what Beck actually said is recorded for posterity.

Here is a rant Beck delivered on November 3, 2009 about SEIU's Andy Stern and the Obama administration (the "slaughtered" remark is at 9:30):

And here's the transcript:

BECK: I told you yesterday, buckle up your seatbelt, America. Find the exit -- there's one here, here, and here. Find the exit closest to you and prepare for a crash landing. Because this plane is coming down, because the pilot is intentionally steering it into the trees! Most likely, it'll happen sometime after Christmas. You're gonna see this economy come up -- we're already seeing it, and now it's gonna start coming back down again. And when you see the effects of what they're doing to the economy, remember these words: We will survive. No -- we'll do better than survive, we will thrive. As long as these people are not in control.

They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered!

Not Stalin. Not Hitler. Not Mao. Not "the truth" being slaughtered. YOU. "They are taking YOU to a place to be slaughtered."

Chiding me on This Week, Ailes said of Beck: "I think he speaks English. I don't know. I mean, I don't misinterpret any of his words."

Well, if Ailes didn't misinterpret what Beck was saying (and if Beck didn't misinterpret his own words), I suppose that means they either weren't paying attention -- or they are willfully walking away from the kind of paranoid statements that have become Beck's stock-in-trade.

And, perhaps, we also misunderstood or misinterpreted what was being said this morning when Beck's cohorts had so much fun mocking the suffering of millions of people all across this country.

After playing a soundbyte of me on This Week, saying: "There's a lot of suffering out there..." Pat Gray jumped in:

GRAY: What is this, Haiti?

BURGUIERE: What suffering?

I guess they missed that brief mention in the news about record unemployment, record foreclosures, record credit card failures, and the growing numbers of Americans going hungry.

That, Pat and Stu, is "suffering." Right here in America, not Haiti.

Finally, Beck asked me to explain why, in light of my criticism of him, I had invited him at last year's TIME 100 dinner to write a blog post for HuffPost.

First of all, let me re-issue my invitation. From the day we launched, HuffPost has always welcomed blog posts from people with whom we disagree, and preferred a full debate about the issues to just preaching to the converted.

At the same time, Glenn, as you would find out if you decided to take me up on my invitation and went backstage where our bloggers go to post, there are guidelines that have to be followed -- and they include a prohibition on conspiracy theories or inflammatory claims. So no post mentioning people being led to "slaughter" or being "the next victim" of an administration "killing spree." And no grand conspiracy theory in which you claim, as you did on your show back in August, to have deciphered a secret code proving that President Obama is trying to create an oligarchy -- although you spelled it "O-L-I-G-A-R-H-Y" on your chalkboard.

These are actually very good ground rules for Fox News to adopt. I'll send you a copy and cc Roger.

For context, it's good to remember that Glenn Beck didn't come out of nowhere. He's the latest example of what the great historian Richard Hofstadter called "the paranoid style in American politics," which he defined as angry minds that traffic in "heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy," and that see "the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms... always manning the barricades of civilization."

Sound familiar?

Beck preys on fear, political instability, and economic suffering, which, in turn, means that Fox News profits from fear, political instability, and economic suffering. The question I didn't get the chance to ask Roger Ailes is: you put Beck on the air -- would you want to live in a world in which Beck triumphed? In which his worldview won out? Is that a world you want your children to grow up in?

UPDATE, 2/2/10: "Glenn Beck Update: The Backpedaling Begins"

Secret codes, being led to slaughter? And these people get paid for this? That says a lot about Fox news.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Cleo's Mom