Rangerland Forum Information

[Ebase]

Ron Paul follower is trying to dig up dirt on Perry They are looking for anyone who might have slept with Perry.

Fox asks Paul about it and he hammers them for giving it air time.

No wonder they don't like him.

The more Rick Perry talks the scarier he gets and the more the evangelicals salivate.

Right now Ron Paul is the only idealogical true believer and while some on the right want him to move out of the picture I still want him there. He is the great balance to all the phonies because he preaches it, believes in it, and shows the hypocrisy of the rest of them.

I have how ever warmed to Jon Huntsman even though I would never want a mormon running the country. Of the bunch he is the only one of them right now who seems to have any real pulse of the country. I walked away from his interview on Pierce Morgan thinking to myself, "this guy isn't my guy but he could at least elevate the conversation." I know he is just a RINO to the true believers and that explains the idealogical temperature of the right in this country.

Its nice to know that there is somebody on the right who is speaking in terms that aren't so divisive. But he is a Mormon so fuck that....

[Mike B.]

I also liked how the Fox interviewer tried to bait Paul into condemning Obama for being on vacation (apparently he should have stayed in DC and talked to people a lot or something), and he ignored it. A lot of Paul's positions make sense to me, but I really disagree with his clear disdain of federal power. It has been shown, especially with respect to individual rights, that in certain circumstances a strong federal government is absolutely essential.

[leetchie69]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/r...e_n_935666.html

According to the notes, which were authenticated by a meeting participant, the Perry administration wanted to help Wall Street investors gamble on how long retired Texas teachers would live. Perry was promising the state big money in exchange for helping Swiss banking giant UBS set up a business of teacher death speculation.

All they had to do was convince retirees to let UBS buy life insurance policies on them. When the retirees died, those policies would pay out benefits to Wall Street speculators, and the state, supposedly, would get paid for arranging the bets. The families of the deceased former teachers would get nothing.

Just....wow

[Nilan 666]

How pro life of him.

[leetchie69]

Any debate watchers?

Not sure why Gingrich still shows up anymore...

He says he will not stand for the moderator trying to have republicans fight each other....does he understand the concept of a "GOP Debate"?
It is not the GOP field vs Obama debate.

[toph]

Poor Michelle Bachmann looks rough tonight. She should ask Romney for some hairstyle tips.

This post has been edited by toph: Sep 7 2011, 08:16 PM

[leetchie69]

I think Perry did not do himself any favors tonight either...

If I am someone who is considering jumping into the race...this debate just made my decision to get in the ring...

[the old mole]

Check out this clip from tonight's GOP debate:

[rightbug]

I love that clip.

Perry, defending his position on climate change, compared himself to Galileo. So, you know, he is immune to irony.

[Tex]

Perry should be rolled on the dirt to put out the fires. Fuck that sorry piece of shit.

[teddyc]

Debate Fact Check Article to enlighten the masses...who read AND comprehend.

PERRY: "What I find compelling is what we've done in the state of Texas, using our ability to regulate our clean air. We cleaned up our air in the state of Texas, more than any other state in the nation during the decade." He specifically mentioned successes in reducing nitrous oxide emissions by 58 percent and ozone levels by 27 percent.

THE FACTS: Texas has reduced emissions as Perry described, but most of those reductions were required under the federal Clean Air Act. However, the Environmental Protection Agency recently rescinded the state's authority to grant some air pollution permits because the state did not comply with federal regulations. Texas, home to America's oil and gas industry, still emits more carbon dioxide — the chief greenhouse gas — than any other state in the country, according to government data. Several metropolitan areas in Texas still violate health-based limits for smog, and the county that is home to Houston is one of the biggest emitters of hazardous air pollution in the country. The Texas Legislature also passed, and Perry signed, a law that will delay enforcing stiffer clean air regulations by two years..

[Mike18]

Any debate watchers?

Not sure why Gingrich still shows up anymore...

He says he will not stand for the moderator trying to have republicans fight each other....does he understand the concept of a "GOP Debate"?
It is not the GOP field vs Obama debate.

I thought Gingrich did a great job, and was a little annoyed that instead of following his lead, others just tiptoed around questions designed to bring the candidates against each other.

Maybe you've been around these message boards too often, but a debate doesn't have to about tearing down your opponent. The fact is, after these primaries are over, republicans will have to come together behind one candidate to beat Obama. As a republican myself, I see all of the people on that stage (except for Bachman) as an improvement over Obama. No, I don't particularly like much about Perry or Santorum, and I think Paul is extreme, but I still think less of Obama. If these guys start ripping each other apart now, it will just make it more difficult to come together later.

[Rocha]

I constantly find it amazing Republicans dislike Obama so much. His politics probably average out rather centrist if not right leaning, and he's also a total pushover too nice. The GOP and its supporters are never going to have it as easy as they do right now. Democrats can't/don't get anything meaningful passed and you get the easy out of always being able to blame things on the president.

[Beamer]

I constantly find it amazing Republicans dislike Obama so much. His politics probably average out rather centrist if not right leaning, and he's also a total pushover too nice. The GOP and its supporters are never going to have it as easy as they do right now. Democrats can't/don't get anything meaningful passed and you get the easy out of always being able to blame things on the president.

Obama is essentially a pre-Bush Republican.
Post-Bush Republicans are basically the racist hillbillies from countless horror movies, though. At least the ones that get headlines. The other ones are too boring, I suppose, so you never hear about them.

[teddyc]

I constantly find it amazing Republicans dislike Obama so much. His politics probably average out rather centrist if not right leaning, and he's also a total pushover too nice. The GOP and its supporters are never going to have it as easy as they do right now. Democrats can't/don't get anything meaningful passed and you get the easy out of always being able to blame things on the president.

I think people are primarily driven by fear of what MIGHT happen. Obama MIGHT take away their guns, their tax breaks, their freedom, their safety etc. He MIGHT spend a ton of money on schools, public health care, the Arts and give money to freeloading welfare folks. He MIGHT be Muslim etc etc etc.

It works the other way too. And with a competitive society/media/culture we all need to choose a side and just hate the opponent.

[Beamer]

And with a competitive society/media/culture we all need to choose a side and just hate the opponent.

Which is why our country is so broken. It isn't about an opponent. We're not playing for the Stanley Cup. There aren't winners and losers.
We all win or we all lose, and this retarded partisan bullshit has made us all losers for 30 years.

[rightbug]

It works the other way too. And with a competitive society/media/culture we all need to choose a side and just hate the opponent.

False equivalency! Both parties have problems and both sides tend to far and mistrust the other but one of the parties in the country is no longer operating in good faith.

Mike Lofgren was a Republican staffer on Capital Hill for over 30 years during which time he was highly respect and esteemed. He recently retired because he has reached the conclussion that the Republican party has transformed itself from a political party to an insurrectionist movement. He wrote a brilliant piece recently which should be required reading for anyone planning to vote in 2012.

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-refle...cult/1314907779

The whole article is worth reading but here's what he has to say about false equivalency (and bear in mind that he has no love for the Democrats, something that will be clear if you read the article.)

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

The media are also complicit in this phenomenon. Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable "hard news" segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the "respectable" media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false evenhandedness. Paul Krugman has skewered this tactic as being the "centrist cop-out." "I joked long ago," he says, "that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read 'Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'"

Inside-the-Beltway wise guy Chris Cillizza merely proves Krugman right in his Washington Post analysis of "winners and losers" in the debt ceiling impasse. He wrote that the institution of Congress was a big loser in the fracas, which is, of course, correct, but then he opined: "Lawmakers - bless their hearts - seem entirely unaware of just how bad they looked during this fight and will almost certainly spend the next few weeks (or months) congratulating themselves on their tremendous magnanimity." Note how the pundit's ironic deprecation falls like the rain on the just and unjust alike, on those who precipitated the needless crisis and those who despaired of it. He seems oblivious that one side - or a sizable faction of one side - has deliberately attempted to damage the reputation of Congress to achieve its political objectives.

This constant drizzle of "there the two parties go again!" stories out of the news bureaus, combined with the hazy confusion of low-information voters, means that the long-term Republican strategy of undermining confidence in our democratic institutions has reaped electoral dividends. The United States has nearly the lowest voter participation among Western democracies; this, again, is a consequence of the decline of trust in government institutions - if government is a racket and both parties are the same, why vote? And if the uninvolved middle declines to vote, it increases the electoral clout of a minority that is constantly being whipped into a lather by three hours daily of Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. There were only 44 million Republican voters in the 2010 mid-term elections, but they effectively canceled the political results of the election of President Obama by 69 million voters.

This tactic of inducing public distrust of government is not only cynical, it is schizophrenic. For people who profess to revere the Constitution, it is strange that they so caustically denigrate the very federal government that is the material expression of the principles embodied in that document. This is not to say that there is not some theoretical limit to the size or intrusiveness of government; I would be the first to say there are such limits, both fiscal and Constitutional. But most Republican officeholders seem strangely uninterested in the effective repeal of Fourth Amendment protections by the Patriot Act, the weakening of habeas corpus and self-incrimination protections in the public hysteria following 9/11 or the unpalatable fact that the United States has the largest incarcerated population of any country on earth. If anything, they would probably opt for more incarcerated persons, as imprisonment is a profit center for the prison privatization industry, which is itself a growth center for political contributions to these same politicians.[1] Instead, they prefer to rail against those government programs that actually help people. And when a program is too popular to attack directly, like Medicare or Social Security, they prefer to undermine it by feigning an agonized concern about the deficit. That concern, as we shall see, is largely fictitious.

[Nilan 666]

I constantly find it amazing Republicans dislike Obama so much. His politics probably average out rather centrist if not right leaning, and he's also a total pushover too nice. The GOP and its supporters are never going to have it as easy as they do right now. Democrats can't/don't get anything meaningful passed and you get the easy out of always being able to blame things on the president.

They've been getting their way doing this for so long they see no reason to stop. Nor would I in their shoes. It worked under Clinton and now its working on Obama. What the left needs is someone who has the balls to say, yeah I'm liberal what the fuck of it? Some people might find that inspiring.

[teddyc]

False equivalency! Both parties have problems and both sides tend to far and mistrust the other but one of the parties in the country is no longer operating in good faith.

Oh I agree, but the scorekeeping participants conveniently equate the two parties.
Every complaint against Bush was blamed primarily on his being Republican as far as the loudest defenders were concerned.

And the loudest are the ones who tend to get heard the most. So perception becomes much of the publics reality.

[SpanishJack]

I think people are primarily driven by fear of what MIGHT happen. Obama MIGHT take away their guns, their tax breaks, their freedom, their safety etc. He MIGHT spend a ton of money on schools, public health care, the Arts and give money to freeloading welfare folks. He MIGHT be Muslim etc etc etc.

It works the other way too. And with a competitive society/media/culture we all need to choose a side and just hate the opponent.

It has nothing to do with the factors you mentioned. The fear is the 9.1 percent unemployment that we have today, which does not take into account the millions that are no longer collecting unemployment benefits. I think every single person on this board knows a family member or friend that has been out of work and can't seem to find a job that would allow him/her to put food on the table. You have college grads with excellent education degrees taht can't find a job. More half of the young population couldn't find a job thsi past summer. You have people from every income level going to gas station and paying higher for gasoline. You go to the supermarket and the food prices keep rising. Your gas/light bill every month keeps going up. You go to malls or drive by major avenues and you see plenty of close out businesess. A couple of weeks ago the president's own economic team came out and said the economy won't be growing in the near future. The president has tried to stimulate teh economy and it hasn't worked. The fear has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with the freightening economic facts that are in front of each and everyone of us. You need just some common sense to comprehend news like this

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...nterstitialskip

to understand the dire economic situatiion our country is facing.

32 years ago a Hollywood actor (RIP Ronald Reagan) beat a person who I consided one (Jimmy Cater who graduated from Naval Academy with a degree in nuclear engineering) if not the smartest individual ever to occupy the presidency. Like today, millions of Americans were out of work. Factories and businessess were shutting down. Imagine going to a dealership a buying a car on credit at a 20 percent rate. You identify idelogical factors in your comment. The bottom line is that the president's economic policies are the problem here. He is deeply entrenched in a transformation philosophy of this country similar to Spain. A country where the green job philosophy has been a bust. A country where the unemployment rate is 20 percent. A country very close to default. You can afford to raise debt ceiling when the economy is humming at a 6-8 percent yearly clip. You can't when the growth is at barely above the positive side of the line. That's the reason fear bounds on all American households. That's the reason this is not the time to compromise, but rather put in place policies that provides certainty/clarity/granularity to small and large businesses. It is laughable the president looks like will be recycling his call for tax credit for business that hire new employees tonight. It is laughable because the credit won't offset the cost of hiring a new employee. The president doesn't know or undersatnd this because neither he or anyone of his close advisors have ever ran a business. They are career politicians. The fear in many of us is that we see across the pond what is taking place and the similarity with what is taking place here. I don't need an idealogy nor Rush Limbaugh to understand what is taking place.

[Beamer]

Best way to increase employment: raise taxes on the extremely wealthy.
Last thing republicans would ever do: raise taxes on the extremely wealthy.


Not sure how having McCain in office would fix a global economic meltdown, either.
Don't get me wrong, I think Obama has been mostly worthless, but I fail to see any light coming from the opposite side.

[Nilan 666]

At least we'd probably be at war with Russia since for some reason that seemed to be a priority of his. Also Pelosi would be VP since Palin is a natural born quitter.

[Dunc]

It was a debate of bad, bad, worse, and downright horrible. None of these clowns showed any sign of being able to handle the Obama machine.

Better hope Chris Christie has a change of heart otherwise??? Someone will have to go through a massive metamorphosis.

At least they weren't name dropping Reagan at every turn.

I didn't watch but my niece posted on facebook that the only word repeated more than Obamacare (15 times) was Reagan (20 times).

[Beamer]

Reagan?

Did they use the term "trickle down?"


For the record, while looking back on the 80s, it really kind of irks me that douches like John Cougar Mellancamp and Bruce Springsteen were right...

This post has been edited by Beamer: Sep 8 2011, 05:27 PM

[leetchie69]

Not GOP related but Obama had some Mojo tonight.

[Beamer]

Not GOP related but Obama had some Mojo tonight.

[Sed]

He doesn't appear to be doing his happy dance.

[Beamer]

[rightbug]

[leetchie69]

lol..

Only thing missing was all the Obamacares in there...

[rightbug]

[the old mole]

"Perry is known for praying."

[SpanishJack]

Some jokester said last night that a joint session of Congress is when all the liberals bring their joints to Congress. I thought it was amusing.

About the speech, well, I have to say the president was fiery. But as I expected it was all based on philosophy government having a direct guiding hand in getting economic progress going. He has whiffed twice before, yet he is asking for a 3rd try withh same recipe. Last time he asked and got almost a trillion dollars to stimulate the economy. It didn't work. Country is on teh edge of another recession. The presidnet is now asking almost half a trillion dollars for same projects. Money that he didn't know where it was coming from last night, yet he told us that his plan was paid for right off the bat. The president's plan is mostly a subsidy to his base and to placate union leadership who lately have not had good thing to say about his job.

The payroll tax, better known to all of us as FICA, reduction was part of last December tax compromise when it was reduced from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. It is supposed to expire this coming December. Remember, FICA funds retirees and disabilities trusts funds. It also funds Medicare. The president's proposal calls for tax to be lowered to 3.1 percent. For employers, the proposal would halve the employer’s share of the payroll tax temporarily – to 3.1% from the current 6.2% – on the first $5 million of a firm’s payroll in 2012. About 98% of firms have payrolls of $5 million or less, the White House said in materials distributed before the speech. Here are two facts: the tax reduction is temporary and president didn't bother to explain teh impact to Social Security trust fund, which will force the Treasury to borrow to make up for sizable deficit-negative cost to the taxpayers of such a plan. The president proposed money for repairing and updating schools. Last time I looked, the school year just started. Therefore, those jobs won't be ready until next summer. Somehow, the president forgot that we need jobs now. Unemployment benefits although helpful short term, they don't create jobs. It just a band aid. What small businesses and large corporations want is certainty. How on earth does the president think companies create hiring plan whenin a year the tax reduction will expire again. Businesses have short and long term plan. The president seems to be more interested in a short plan that gets him re-elected. 2013? Tax increase for everyone.

Just after Mr. Obama assumed the presidency January/2009, he gave 2 speeches about economic recovery. To the Wall St crowd he told them it was up to them to get the economy going. He switched his rhetoric by telling his base that it is up to government to help guide us out of the economic crisis. You don't believe? Its all there on YouTube. Unfortunately, my job doesn't allow me to access those type of sites. Otherwise, I would post link. I think it was during the French Revolution that the idea was born that creating a myth convinces the population. In this case, the president has created this myth that by taxing the rich our economic problems will be solved.

The president lost credibility in his speech by having Jeffrey Immelt, whose GE company is the poster for outsourcing jobs overseas and not paying taxes, seat next to Mrs Obama last night. He further lost credibility by sayin the following:

Right now, Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary – an outrage he has asked us to fix. We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake, and everybody pays their fair share. And I believe the vast majority of wealthy Americans and CEOs are willing to do just that, if it helps the economy grow and gets our fiscal house in order.

I guess it must be unknown to the president that capital gains taxes, like Mr Buffet pays, and personal income taxes, which Mr. Bufett secretary pays, are two separate type of taxes. You can't use them as an apples and apples comparison for case he is trying to make. Unless this isall an attempt to get all Americans into class warfare. For a uniter he portrayed himself during '08 presidential campaign, he is surely divisive to me.

It has become very clear President Obama needs to have a Democratic Congress or an uncheck system to be "successul". Reagan had tough Speaker Tip O'Neill to conduct business with during a period of 6-8 percent economic growth. Yet, he was able to get his economic recovery policies, tax reductions, and budget deficit passed thru. Bill Clinton dealt not only with Newt Gingrich, but a Republican Congress most of his administration. Clinton was a great salesman ofhis policies. The president spent a good amount of time last night admonishing Congress. Last time I checked, Democrats have the leadership of the Senate. Did the president intend to throw his fellow Democrats under the bus last night? Be weary of someone telling you to buy something today because it won't be there tomorrow. Passing something for the sake of it won't do us any good. We can't afford to continue to throw money to bottomless pits and not get benefits for it. I'm sorry if that doesn't satisfy the president.

[Mike B.]

Hey Arabs! Rick Perry has something to say to you!

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...rstatetoanother

The Obama Policy of moral equivalency, which gives equal standing to the grievances of Israelis and Palestinians, including the orchestrators of terrorism, is a dangerous insult.

So, just in case it wasn't clear - Palestinians = terrorists, and Palestinian claims for statehood do not merit the same consideration as those of Israelis.

[Ebase]

Hey Arabs! Rick Perry has something to say to you!

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...rstatetoanother
So, just in case it wasn't clear - Palestinians = terrorists, and Palestinian claims for statehood do not merit the same consideration as those of Israelis.

Clearly, he needs to pay a visit to Israel and understand how both sides live and their individual concerns and needs that have to be worked on in order to create a VIABLE Palestinian State.

Stop pandering to the Jewish vote Perry. You are a hardcore Evangelical and you scare the piss out of most Jews.

[rightbug]

Speaking of the Republicans, they sent a letter to the Federal Reserve Board this week issueing veiled threats that the Fed had better not take any action to improve the economy before next year's elections. No, seriously.

GOP To Fed: Let Economy Fail

Nice central bank you got here. Shame if something should happen to it.

I hope they're cynical because the aletrnative is that they are insane.

This one's from a conservative...

Unlike Rick Perry, I don’t think it is treasonous to advocate easy money or tight money. Treason is advocating policies that you know will hurt the country, because you hope you can derive political gain from America’s misfortune.

[Alitaki]

Hey Arabs! Rick Perry has something to say to you!

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyin...rstatetoanother
So, just in case it wasn't clear - Palestinians = terrorists, and Palestinian claims for statehood do not merit the same consideration as those of Israelis.

Eh. I didn't interpret that statement the way you did. To me he's saying - 'palestinians, of which some are terrorists' which is a true statement. I don't agree that Palestinian claims for statehood don't merit the same consideration but I can't say he's calling all Palestinians terrorists.

More troubling to me is this comment:

“I also as a Christian have a clear directive to support Israel, so from my perspective it’s pretty easy,” Perry said when a reporter asked if Perry’s faith was driving his views, according to the Associated Press. “Both as an American and as a Christian, I am going to stand with Israel.”

You want to stand in support of Israel as an American who supports freedom and democracy? Go nuts man. The moment you start saying you're doing it because your choice in religion tells you to do it? Ugh.

[Tex]

More troubling to me is this comment:
You want to stand in support of Israel as an American who supports freedom and democracy? Go nuts man. The moment you start saying you're doing it because your choice in religion tells you to do it? Ugh.

Rick Perry needs his rectum forcibly sized for his bible.
I hate Bible thumpers in power.

[Mike B.]

Eh. I didn't interpret that statement the way you did. To me he's saying - 'palestinians, of which some are terrorists' which is a true statement. I don't agree that Palestinian claims for statehood don't merit the same consideration but I can't say he's calling all Palestinians terrorists.

Semantics, no? I'm sure your comments are what he would say to weasel out of his comments were he challenged on them. He's taking Obama to task for viewing Israelis and Palestinians as moral equivalents, and deliberately linking the latter to terrorism by default.

"We should be careful conducting military operations that may affect Afghani and Iraqi citizens, even though some are terrorists."

"The Obama administration should take a hard line tactic against Iran, whose citizens include terrorists."

This post has been edited by Mike B.: Sep 22 2011, 12:38 PM

[Alitaki]

Semantics, no? I'm sure your comments are what he would say to weasel out of his comments were he challenged on them. He's taking Obama to task for viewing Israelis and Palestinians as moral equivalents, and deliberately linking the latter to terrorism by default.

"We should be careful conducting military operations that may affect Afghani and Iraqi citizens, even though some are terrorists."

"The Obama administration should take a hard line tactic against Iran, whose citizens include terrorists."

I'm sure that is what he'd say as an explanation because I do believe that is what he meant. I really hate to defend him, but I do think you're putting words in his mouth with your earlier post. To me his comment is basically saying that Obama is treating the Israelis and the Palestinians as equals and in doing so, he's rewarding whatever percentage of Palestinians are engaging in terrorist actions against Israel. In other words, he's saying the Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to sit at the grown up table until they can control all of their citizens. I don't agree with this but that's how I'm interpreting his comment. I don't see it as him saying "Palestinians=terrorists".

[Mike B.]

I'm sure that is what he'd say as an explanation because I do believe that is what he meant. I really hate to defend him, but I do think you're putting words in his mouth with your earlier post. To me his comment is basically saying that Obama is treating the Israelis and the Palestinians as equals and in doing so, he's rewarding whatever percentage of Palestinians are engaging in terrorist actions against Israel. In other words, he's saying the Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to sit at the grown up table until they can control all of their citizens. I don't agree with this but that's how I'm interpreting his comment. I don't see it as him saying "Palestinians=terrorists".

A generous reading would be that he is ham-fisted and lumping all Palestinians together. He's saying that Israelis and Palestinians don't deserve to be treated on the same level during peace negotiations, and oh by the way, some Palestinians are terrorists.

[SpanishJack]

Speaking of the Republicans, they sent a letter to the Federal Reserve Board this week issueing veiled threats that the Fed had better not take any action to improve the economy before next year's elections. No, seriously.

GOP To Fed: Let Economy Fail

You took an opinion from some foll and regurgitated without bothering to read the CNBC article, which Mr Collender uses to write his opionion.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44601008

Top Congressional Republicans Tuesday took the unusual step of telling the Federal Reserve to refrain from further "intervention'' in the economy on the eve of a policy decision by the U.S. central bank.

The group, which included the top two Republicans in both houses of Congress, said the Fed's policies have been ineffective at supporting economic expansion and boosting employment.

"It is not clear that the recent round of quantitative easing undertaken by the Federal Reserve has facilitated economic growth or reduced the unemployment rate,'' the group said in a letter to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Can you counter with facts the Feds policies have being effective? Can you provide facts that Feds policies have produce economic expansion and have boosted employment?

Officials at the central bank differ on how best to address the economy's woes, analysts expect Bernanke to muster a consensus behind a plan to rebalance the Fed's portfolio to push down longer-term interest rates.

Officials hope that by weighting the central bank's bond holdings more heavily toward longer-term debt they can spur mortgage refinancings and push investors into stocks or corporate bonds and away from safe-haven Treasurys.

But with interest rates already effectively at zero and unemployment still above 9 percent, Republicans said the risks of unorthodox policy were too great.

"We have serious concerns that further intervention by the Federal Reserve could exacerbate current problems or further harm the U.S. economy," the letter said.

The Republicans state valid reasons in their letter as to why they oppose a Feds intervension.

The Feds move was greatly received that the market in past 2 days lost all the gains so far accumulated this year.

I know you don't agree with Republican's philosophy, but at the very least I expect you to use your intelctual abilities demonstrated over at Hockeybird wisely to discuss national politics and not resort to this type of rhetoric that by being misleading, it only helps to widen the divide in this country.

I recommend you and other board members to read Nouriel Roubini's "Crisis Economics- A Crash Course In The Future Of Finance". This is an unbiased book about why booms occur and how to keep them wreaking havoc to economy. Roubini's writing doesn't pull you to one side or the other. Unlike Democrats like President Obama rhetoric blaming Bush for our economic ills of 2008, he explains many of the problems (real estate bubble, overleveraged banks, excessive current accounts deficits, and overvalued currencies) that bedeviled our economy. These problems were not unique to the U.S. and were present in economies throughout the world.

Because of global economy that we all live in, Roubini explains that nobody is immune to econimic crisis. Europe's current economic situation is in crisis. German tax payers are not going to be willing to pay for Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and other European Union exuberance. Emerging markets like Brazil have inflation in their hands. There is a real estate bubble about to pop in China. And instead of looking at the problem from the big picture perspective, you decide to regurgitate misrepresentation from some blogger not known fpor anything positive.

I'm sorry, but I expected better from you.

This post has been edited by SpanishJack: Sep 22 2011, 09:32 PM

[Greatone]

I'm not mad. I'm disappointed.

[Beamer]

http://www.tedstake.com/2011/09/25/class-w...comment-page-1/

[rightbug]

Won't anyone please weep for the super wealthy? Why is this country so unfair to them?

[Beamer]

Won't anyone please weep for the super wealthy? Why is this country so unfair to them?

I understand that he feels he's being unfairly vilified despite not doing anything wrong. But he fails to see that the system is wrong and it's allowing him to be detrimental to the economy.

[rightbug]

Won't anyone please weep for the super wealthy? Why is this country so unfair to them?

I understand that he feels he's being unfairly vilified despite not doing anything wrong. But he fails to see that the system is wrong and it's allowing him to be detrimental to the economy.

Maybe if he wasn't such an over sensitive vagina, he would realize that the villains are not the wealthy but the politicians who have shifted the burden from the wealthy onto the backs of the working class. That wasn't class warfare though. That was stimulus.

[Beamer]

Won't anyone please weep for the super wealthy? Why is this country so unfair to them?

I understand that he feels he's being unfairly vilified despite not doing anything wrong. But he fails to see that the system is wrong and it's allowing him to be detrimental to the economy.

Maybe if he wasn't such an over sensitive vagina, he would realize that the villains are not the wealthy but the politicians who have shifted the burden from the wealthy onto the backs of the working class. That wasn't class warfare though. That was stimulus.

This is true, but it doesn't stop people from being stupid douches and vilifying the rich.
Look at the protests on Wall Street right now. Aside from being stupidly unfocused and all-encompassing, they're often blaming the bankers and calling them evil. None of those people are evil. They're all doing their job to the best of their ability within a system with set rules.
It's not their fault the rules are fucking retarded. The first person to stop and change will just lose and be pushed out by those still playing by the broken rules. There's absolutely no reason for any of them to take it upon themselves and change. Instead the change needs to be forced on all at once.

But our country is too stupid. Rather than have a broad, sweeping, difficult change the politicians will keep bickering over small changes. Rather than demand real change the masses will keep blaming individuals as if they're evil jerks lighting cigars with $100 bills and dead orphan souls.

[rightbug]

If you continue to fuck the working class and the poor, and if you game the system such that it becomes impossible to correct these issues, and if politicians from both sides of the aisle declare that the solution is to fuck them harder, eventually class resentment bubbles up.

Or, to put it another way, the danger of waging class warfare is that eventually the people you are waging it against will notice and they will be pissed off. Maybe that is not fair but I would argue that they have been getting the shaft for sometime now so welcome to the wonderful world of life is not always fair.

[Beamer]

The non-1% has been getting the shaft for 32 years, but since these effects are cumulative it wasn't noticed until recently.

But no one is gaming the system. People are operating within it. This is why it serves no purpose to vilify them. Blame the system and demand huge overhaul. But in order to really make it happen you need the buy-in of that influential 1%. Telling them they're evil for living their lives won't really accomplish that. Showing them how a huge system change will benefit them as well as us will.