(Advertisement)

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Womack At War - Against Us

Posted: October 4, 2011 at 3:14 a.m.

Congressman Steve Womack sends out a weekly email called “From the Front.” For some time I was confused about this title and now I understand. He is at war, and we, his constituents, are his enemy.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 10/04/2011

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

HOW WE SEE IT: What On Earth Was Moon Rock Do...

If a moon rock can be misplaced, it makes you wonder what other gems of historic value are getting away from us. Read »

Next Story »

COMMENTARY: Democrats Win Two Nights

It was kind of its own little anti-Fox News bunker, this gathering of a few hundred of what must have been the entire left-leaning constituency of Northwest Arkansas. Read »

The author of this letter personifies the underlying cause of America's financial crisis. No disrespect to this concerned citizen, I believe her intentions are as sincere as her frustrations but she is a product of a failed educational system that is responsible for America’s epidemic of financial illiteracy.
Most Americans fail to realize that the government’s budget is affected by the same forces that we all deal with in our individual household budgets. When you have $100 to last until the next payday that is not the time to re-carpet the den or take a vacation. Hiring large numbers of people to rebuild Arkansas’s roads and bridges only increases the debt and makes the problem worse. For those of you, who think the economy would be improved by spending money we don't have, try it in your personal life. The next time you find yourself looking under the cushions of your couch for the money to buy a box of Kraft dinner, double your kids’ allowance or hire your spouse to re-sod the lawn and see if the extra household income solves the problem – if you’re single hire yourself, it works exactly the same way. The only thing that will pull this country out of the dumper is “producing (exporting) and saving” not “consuming and spending.”
Larry Robertson
Bella Vista

Posted by: ldrthefirst09290813

October 4, 2011 at 8:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Keep up the good work, Mr. Womack.
We have to have responsible spending.

Posted by: roxiedog

October 4, 2011 at 9:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Is it ignorance or insensitivity that makes it ok to spend billions in borrowed money in Iraq and Afghanistan and not ok to spend billions to restore roads, bridges, etc., in United States?

Posted by: Afranius

October 4, 2011 at 9:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think that both Larry Robertson and Afranius have both made good points. Now is not the time to borrow and spend more - here nor overseas. I absolutely agree that we need to make sure our soldiers have what they need and are provided for, but I don't believe we should be spending anything on infrastructure overseas.

Posted by: nwlocal

October 4, 2011 at 10:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

LARRY: "America’s epidemic of financial illiteracy.">>

Larry, your comment is a glaring example of that. Your analogy of comparing a home budget with an entire nation is completely wrongheaded. You say:

"the government’s budget is affected by the same forces that we all deal with in our individual household budgets."

That's just nonsense. It is precisely when the country is caught in a cycle of slashed revenue due to a recession that spending and investment is needed, borrowed or not, in order to get people working, spending and paying taxes and reversing the cycle. This is economics 101 and has nothing to do with a home budget. Home budget analogies are entirely useless in this situation. If you've got 2 minutes, here is a former labor secretary explaining our need to invest in America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7EwF_...

D.
---------------
"Are America's Best Days Behind Us?

"...most Americans operate on the assumption that the U.S. is still No. 1.
But is it? Yes, the U.S. remains the world's largest economy, and we have the largest military by far, the most dynamic technology companies and a highly entrepreneurial climate. But these are snapshots of where we are right now. The decisions that created today's growth — decisions about education, infrastructure and the like — were made decades ago. What we see today is an American economy that has boomed because of policies and developments of the 1950s and '60s: the interstate-highway system, massive funding for science and technology, a public-education system that was the envy of the world and generous immigration policies. Look at some underlying measures today, and you will wonder about the future.

The following rankings come from various lists, but they all tell the same story. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), our 15-year-olds rank 17th in the world in science and 25th in math. We rank 12th among developed countries in college graduation (down from No. 1 for decades). We come in 79th in elementary-school enrollment. Our infrastructure is ranked 23rd in the world, well behind that of every other major advanced economy. American health numbers are stunning for a rich country: based on studies by the OECD and the World Health Organization, we're 27th in life expectancy, 18th in diabetes and first in obesity. Only a few decades ago, the U.S. stood tall in such rankings. No more. There are some areas in which we are still clearly No. 1, but they're not ones we usually brag about. We have the most guns. We have the most crime among rich countries." --TIME, March 3, 2011

http://www.time.com/time/nation/artic...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 4, 2011 at 11:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

And then there's this:
http://tinyurl.com/4yyj365

What happened to "Leave No Man Behind"?

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 4, 2011 at noon ( | suggest removal )

Sheri Hansen and fayfreethinker,

You got it right. The $987 million Womack voted against would have helped Arkansas tremendously. Our highways are always packed - at drive times the cars on the roads are packed tighter than olives in a jar.

Also, the people who support Womack say you have to cut the budget to make ends meet, but they are forgetting you can make ends meet by making more money. The people getting the new jobs will be paying taxes because they have a job. The manufacturers, who provide the products for the new highways, will earn more money and will pay taxes on their incomes and maybe higher more people to make their product.

Steve Womack has declared war on the middle class and is hiding behind patriotic clichés instead of making good economic changes.

Posted by: writer43

October 4, 2011 at 8:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

D, In the 1950-60's the U.S. had money to invest. That is not the case today. Our country is broke and your version of economics 101 only proves my point. America is financially illiterate. Just look around. Everywhere you look you see people who are just barely getting by, living from pay check to pay check. They can’t put their hands on $50 but you can bet they have the latest cell phone and flat screen TV. If you figure out a way to get out of debt by spending money you don’t have, I suggest you stop what you are doing and head to Wall Street. You’ll either make millions or continue to prove my point.
Larry Robertson
Bella Vista

Posted by: ldrthefirst09290813

October 5, 2011 at 8:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

LAR: "In the 1950-60's the U.S. had money to invest.">>

Actually, in 1950, we had the exact debt to GDP as we do today, and five years earlier than that it was far higher. See chart here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

LAR: "Our country is broke...">>

Another popular, completely false rightwing talking point. I have posted a careful rebuttal to it here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Think Larry, we have the greatest wealth on the planet, have tens of trillions in equity in excess of our debt (which means we're not broke) and our debt is one year of GDP. If you want to do the "home budget" analogy, my debt is several years worth of my income (and that's a good thing, invested in homes), and I'm not "broke" either.

LAR: "Everywhere you look..., people living from pay check to pay check.">>

Yes, 42% of the population. That's called republican policies in action where we've concentrated half the nation's wealth in the top 400 *individuals.* http://tinyurl.com/4dq84lx

And thanks to Bush policies, we tax those 400 wealthiest at a ludicrous 17%:
http://money.msn.com/taxes/latest.asp...

And then we have an entire conservative media goose stepping to the song that taxes are too high and we're too broke to invest in the future of the country. It's ludicrous. We've lost 42,000 factories in the last ten years, and are recovering from your conservative who gave us *the* worst economic performance, the worst job performance, the worst market performance and the greatest wealth inequality in 75 years. His recession lost more jobs than the previous 4 recessions combined. That is not something that can be turned around over night. And you don't help the situation by suddenly becoming a born again virgin on government spending. Republicans have always spent more and in fact increased Federal debt twice as fast as the other party, so spare me this sudden attack of the vapors over deficit spending.

D.
---------
"Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. Republican presidents increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 5, 2011 at 10:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ldrthefirst09290813--

RE "D, In the 1950-60's the U.S. had money to invest."
Yes, the government had money because upper incomes were taxed at high rates, and taxpayers prospered despite this. Thank you for arguing in favor of higher taxes and jobs programs.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 5, 2011 at 11:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"America’s epidemic of financial illiteracy.">>

Larry, your comment is a glaring example of that. Your analogy of comparing a home budget with an entire nation is completely wrongheaded. You say:
--------------------------------------------------

Larry, did you get put into Walton's re education camp at UA or get your re education via Fox News?

Posted by: cdawg

October 5, 2011 at 4:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"When you have $100 to last until the next payday that is not the time" to let a bunch of investment banks play with your bank account.

Posted by: Coralie

October 5, 2011 at 5:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Darrel: GDP calculations are partly responsible for the financial mess that we are in. For one thing, the formula gives equal value to consumption and production. Stop and think about it; the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico actually increased the GDP because cleanup costs were weighted the same as factory output. As far as your viewpoint of America’s wealth, you are simply misinformed.
According to the most recent data, America is not the richest country in the world… we are now ranked 7th, just $400 per capita ahead of Ireland (which everyone seems to agree is teetering on the verge of financial disaster). Besides being financially illiterate, America is flat broke and suffering from a normalcy bias that overrides rational thinking and allows most of us to believe that everything will be okay, no matter what.
I do agree with you about the falling ranks of education in the U.S. It is pathetic. What is even more pathetic is that we have so many 40+ year olds in this country who are still paying off their student loans for worthless liberal arts degrees that will never qualify them for a job that doesn’t involve transactions at a drive-up window.
Check out todays L.A. Times, where they (a very liberal “they”) draw comparisons between Ben Bernanke’s briefing to Congress and Jack Nicholson’s classic line from “A Few Good Men”… “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth.”
Larry Robertson
Bella Vista

Posted by: ldrthefirst09290813

October 5, 2011 at 5:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

LAR: "GDP calculations are partly responsible for the financial mess...">>

"GDP calculations" are a normative way measuring economic activity and national production. Upon this standard metric, the US is by far the wealthiest country. And when measured against large peer countries (not tiny states like Luxembourg and Kuwait) we have more wealth per capita than almost all (blowing away China for instance).

LAR: "the formula gives equal value to consumption and production.">>

And it does so for all countries measured by this standard metric, so a moot point.

LAR: "...your viewpoint of America’s wealth, you are simply misinformed.">>

Actually, I'm not, and this is easy to show.

LAR: "America is not the richest country in the world… we are now ranked 7th, just $400 per capita ahead of Ireland">>

Now you are changing the subject. I didn't say "per capita," I specifically referenced the wealth of the entire country, collectively. I know the difference.

But let's set that aside. Per capita, you say we are the seventh richest (your numbers are out of date and refer to pre bubble Ireland btw). So how do you square the 7th wealthiest country on the planet, per capita, with being "broke." It makes no sense, and when your claim makes no sense, it's a sign you are doing it wrong. The US is not broke, in any sense of the word.

LAR: "Besides being financially illiterate,">>

Larry, you have shown yourself not to be in a position to refer to other people being "financially illiterate." You should avoid that phrase for now.

LAR: "America is flat broke...">>

You should begin by being honest with language. Here is the meaning of this word you like use:
broke –verb
4. without money; penniless.
5. bankrupt.

Context: here is a list of nations sorted by public debt as a percentage of GDP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...
The US comes in 36th.
Measured by external debt, we come in 38th: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

Notice all of our very successful, wealthy, peer countries, in the top ten. They're not broke either.
The US is not broke. Be honest with language. Stop regurgitating false rightwing talking points.

LAR: "line from “A Few Good Men”… “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth.”>>

I don't get truth from Hollywood movies. I can handle the truth and the truth is the US is not broke while at the same time:
a) the wealthiest country on the planet collectively
b) 7th wealthiest country per capita (mostly measured against non-comparable tiny states)

D.
-----------
"Total Assets of the U.S. Economy $188 Trillion, 13.4x GDP"
http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/05/24...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 5, 2011 at 8:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Womack as a freshman in the house has aligned with the wrong friends like Eric Cantor, and he is obviously sucking up to his new friends, as a freshman in high school does.
These new congressmen act like they know more than the president of of USA and the more senior legislators! I hope Womack can learn to listen to those more experienced and vote for the jobs bill, even if he has some reservations. This bill will be critical for Arkansas and will prove which congressmen are really there to help us or to just make a political name for themselves. watch and see whoever does not vote for this bill I will not vote to reelect them . we need those jobs and roads!

Posted by: ladyLiberty

October 5, 2011 at 10:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: "Yes, 42% of the population. That's called republican policies in action where we've concentrated half the nation's wealth in the top 400 *individuals. http://tinyurl.com/4dq84lx "

Seriously...Michael Moore is your reference?

FFT: "Another popular, completely false rightwing talking point. I have posted a careful rebuttal to it here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Scroll down to the chart. Note that it is almost all projections with little historical data. A classic leftist tactic. Ignore the past data and present as FACT some bogus projection.

FFT: "And thanks to Bush policies, we tax those 400 wealthiest at a ludicrous 17%:
http://money.msn.com/taxes/latest.asp...

FFT conveniently left out (as indicated in the article) that the 17% is based on dividends which were already taxed within the corporation at corporate tax rates (average of 35%). Yes.. Corporate tax rates average 35%...Those evil corporations! Then they are taxed again at 17%. He also left out the fact that the top 1% of taxpayers (as referenced in the article) are paying 23%. Another missing part of the argument is that the bottom 47% of Americans are paying NO federal income tax. And somehow all of this is unfair in FFT's world?

If you are reading this and cannot see the liberal bent to redistribute wealth in this country, then you should do more research. We heard from Harry Reid today that it is time the wealthy 'paid their fair share of taxes'. Is somewhere around 1/4 of income to the federal government not 'fair' when nearly 1/2 of the population pays no federal income tax?

So the argument is "take from those who are successful and have worked hard for the American dream and give to others"......Sounds like socialism to me....

Progressive taxation is an institution in this country that needs revision.

Posted by: commonsense96

October 5, 2011 at 11:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

2pair, you did not help your credibility by suggesting that it is wrong for a freshman congressman to feel he knows more than the president…. The reference is laughable since the average 7-11 manager knows more than the president and certainly has more useful experience than he does. If Mr. Obama gets elected again, you may end up being known as 1 pair.
Larry Robertson
Bella Vista

Posted by: ldrthefirst09290813

October 6, 2011 at 7:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Common-nonsense pops back, but he hasn't gotten any brighter.

FFT said: "half the nation's wealth in the top 400 *individuals. http://tinyurl.com/4dq84lx ">>
Com: "Seriously...Michael Moore is your reference?">>

No, had you read the link, you would see that the reference is politicfact, confirming with careful reference the truth of a statement made by Michael Moore. Try to avoid the knee jerk appeal to the genetic fallacy your conservative sources taught you. It's never effective.

FFT: "A careful rebuttal to [America broke] here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...
Com: "Scroll down to the chart. Note that it is almost all projections">>

Wrong. No projections at all... "complete list of 20 nations from the CNBC data." As usual, you can't get even the most mundane claim straight.

FFT said: "400 wealthiest at a ludicrous 17%">>
COM: "the 17% is based on dividends">>

Doesn't matter. The wealthy receive the greatest portion of income from capital gain dividends, which is taxed at 15%. Hence this low number.

COM: "already taxed within the corporation at... (average of 35%).">>

This is where Com pretends he is too dumb to remember a basic fact he has been told a dozen times, 68% of corporations pay no tax. http://tinyurl.com/3tvfook

And regarding his song about high corporate taxes:

"the United States has the lowest corporate tax burden of any of the member nations of the OECD. Taxes as a % of GDP = 1.8%.
See chart here:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/201...

COM: "top 1% of taxpayers are paying 23%.">>

A point I've told you many times:
"The average tax rate in 2008... 23.27 percent for the top 1 percent." http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/sho...

But it's not relevant to the fact that the top 400 paying less at 17%. Does that make sense?

COM: "bottom 47% of Americans are paying NO federal income tax.">>

After several months of training I was able to finally get COM to at least present his horribly misleading canard correctly (he usually gets it wrong).

Hey COM, remember when I was happy that my thorough debunk of your canard had 300 hits? Of course you don't, you don't remember anything. Anyway, now it has 4,045. It became very popular and went viral I guess. All thanks to you. Perhaps you should read it again:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

And you too Larry. You'll learn lots about "financial literacy."

COM: "Harry Reid said... time the wealthy 'paid their fair share of taxes'.">>

Hey Com, I'll see your Harry Reid, and raise you a Ronald Reagan:

http://tarheelred.wordpress.com/2011/...

Watch it and weep.

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 6, 2011 at 9:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Larry: "If Mr. Obama gets elected again, you may end up being known as 1 pair.">>

And when he gets elected again, can we call you "no pair?"

I say that because you came in here broadly and repeatedly calling the populace "financially illiterate." Yet, as I've shown above, your calculations regarding US solvency are off by about $170 trillion dollars. Now, I don't have a calculator that goes that high but I do believe that one doesn't need a math degree to know that when your calculations are off by about $170 trillion, you've really missed the mark.

So out of the endless stream of whoppers that conservatives peddle around here, would it be too much to ask that one of them, once, just once, admit that they didn't know something, they learned something new, and, in your case, admit that a nation that has about $170 trillion in equity, isn't "flat broke?"

Would that be too much to ask? Would that be inconsistent with the "conservative principle" of "personal responsibility?"

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 6, 2011 at 10:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Would one of you brilliant posters please provide me with a lesson economics, because I just don’t get how building roads will help the economy and shrink the deficit. I’ll use the following example to illustrate my point.

Suppose we decide to spend $1 million on a road project and, for the sake of discussion, the costs break down something like this:

$600,000 – Materials
$400,000 – Labor

The $600,000 in materials generates little tax revenues, but let’s just say for the sake of argument, the government gets 10% of that back. The labor will generate, at best, 40% (and that’s a very liberal estimate) in tax revenues, even if you consider trickle down revenue generation. That means we spend $1 million and recoup $220,000. I’m willing to agree that in the process we get a new road, but the premise that this type of strategy will lead to financial recovery and prosperity for this nation is not logical from my perspective.

Posted by: superdave10

October 6, 2011 at 1:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

superdave10--

The money spent for materials generates sales tax, but it also pays suppliers, manufacturers, raw-material providers, transporters and middle-men-- and their employees. The people so paid pay income taxes, and then pay sales taxes when they spend the money. Their spending will do the same for other people, and so on. Money spent for labor does the same thing, more directly.

The more people working, the better the economy-- fewer foreclosures, more business, more income taxes being paid. Since the private "job creators" aren't doing their job, the government is the best option for starting the ball rolling. Once the "job creators" see people working and demand on the rise, perhaps they'll climb down off their piles of money and start creating the jobs we were promised when the Bush tax cuts were extended.

More jobs make even more jobs, and that makes more tax revenue, which shrinks the deficit. There is plenty of infrastructure that needs to be repaired or replaced, and it inevitably will be-- but at a higher cost if we wait. This is a great time to do it: material and labor costs are down, road use is down, waiting allows further deterioration which raises the eventual cost of repair, the work needs to be done, and there are workers available.

The alternative is to wait-- how long? Ten years?

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 6, 2011 at 2:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

boring!

Posted by: thadhog

October 6, 2011 at 9:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: "A careful rebuttal to [America broke] here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...
Com: "Scroll down to the chart. Note that it is almost all projections">>

FFT response "Wrong. No projections at all... "complete list of 20 nations from the CNBC data." As usual, you can't get even the most mundane claim straight."

You lie. Look at the chart. It shows two years of historical data and 9 years of projections. Can you not read your own chart?

Alpha: " Once the "job creators" see people working and demand on the rise, perhaps they'll climb down off their piles of money and start creating the jobs we were promised when the Bush tax cuts were extended.

More jobs make even more jobs, and that makes more tax revenue, which shrinks the deficit. There is plenty of infrastructure that needs to be repaired or replaced, and it inevitably will be-- but at a higher cost if we wait. This is a great time to do it: material and labor costs are down, road use is down, waiting allows further deterioration which raises the eventual cost of repair, the work needs to be done, and there are workers available."

Wasn't that what Obama said would happen when the democratically controlled congress passed the stimulus bill? How's that working out for us?

It isn't. If you read the bill (which i have), most of the spending was on socialism targeted at low income and minority groups. Preference is given to inner-city depressed areas and minorities in virtually all categories.

And yet, the bill was presented to the American public as a 'shovel ready' bill to put Americans to work and rebuild our infrastructure. A big facade as most Americans are now finding out.....

FFT: "So out of the endless stream of whoppers that conservatives peddle around here, would it be too much to ask that one of them, once, just once, admit that they didn't know something.."

When is the last time you or another liberal on this site admitted they were wrong? There are alot of people on this blog who are dug in. I have admitted mistakes in the past (ie stating the bottom 50% paying no taxes vs. not paying income taxes). When is the last time you admitted you were wrong? You are too busy brow beating and 'schooling' to reflect on your own mistakes. See my notes above on projections. The saw cuts both ways.....

Posted by: commonsense96

October 7, 2011 at 12:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "How's that working out for us?

It isn't."
Based on the PROJECTIONS you have quoted so often, that is true. The fact that the stimulus was too small is another problem, but we have a chance to fix that.

RE "...the bill was presented to the American public as a 'shovel ready' bill to put Americans to work..."
I've driven to both coasts this year. Without even trying to, I drove on new streets and highways, along streets and highways under construction, passed and stopped in parks and rest areas, and saw a few municipal buildings (with big facades!)-- all paid for with stimulus funds. Signs and everything. If I had looked, I'm sure I would have found more. That said, that part of the stimulus should have been rewritten or extended in order to include more projects. We now have the chance, and if the Republicans would quit trying to get Obama fired and do their jobs by passing something, they could (and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here) make sure that this infrastructure plan works better than the last one.

Speaking of "shovel ready", did any of your posts get stimulus funds?

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 7, 2011 at 12:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cdawg, NEWS FLASH: 1 +1 =2 whether you are counting chickens or battleships. Where we lose a lot of people is when we start dealing with negative numbers, especially when those negative numbers a big ones like: 0-$1 Billion. Don’t feel bad, it took me a while for that to sink in too. “No money” is “no money” regardless of how much one stomps their feet and screams at the top of their lungs because they want a shiny new toy….. or new road. This country is overflowing with people who can’t tell the difference between a line of credit and overdraft protection… banks love those people because they are pay billions of dollars a year in fees so that responsible folks can enjoy free banking; I just want to make sure that I don’t end up paying your overdraft fees.
Have a nice day
Larry Robertson
Bella Vista

Posted by: ldrthefirst09290813

October 7, 2011 at 6:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT said: "Wrong. No projections at all... "complete list of 20 nations from the CNBC data.">>
COM: "Look at the chart.">>

There are no projections in the charts at the link I provided: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

You scrolled down too far and went to the next comment. That chart is not relevant to my claim.

COM: "It shows two years of historical data">>

That's a different chart in a different comment and isn't relevant to my claim. You got lost. But it hardly matters. A country that has about $170 trillion in assets (after $15 trillion in debt is removed), isn't, "broke." Not today, not tomorrow, not yesterday and not in any sense (are you listening Larry?). You were "schooled" on this months ago, now it's Larry's turn.

COM: "When is the last time you or another liberal on this site admitted they were wrong?">>

It's probably been a while. I don't know that you have ever pointed out a mistake correctly. I think carefully about my comments, make sure I can back them up and that they are rigorously true before I post. In contrast, easily each of your posts are filled with errors and sloppy, misleading and heavily spun material. Sorry about that, not my fault. You're not a detail man.

D.
-------------
I once offered to put a collection together of the errors you have posted on this site. I am sure it is pushing 100 examples by now. All you have to do is ask. Actually, if any one asks I'll do it. I could do it in half an hour. I'll put in our forum and call it: "The error filled career of SFA/COM on NWAonline"

["SFA" is the name "commonsense" used until it got spanked so hard he tried to make a sockpuppet and effectively changed the name on all of his posts]

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 7, 2011 at 10:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>banks love those people because they are pay billions of dollars a year in fees so that responsible folks can enjoy free banking; I just want to make sure that I don’t end up paying your overdraft fees.<<
/
Why is it you assume that much? Feel better?
.
I worked at a bank for 2 years. Took 30 hrs of econ in college. Was in financial services for years.
.
Unfortunately it's ignorance like yours which has been scooped up into the Republican Party and they play you for all you're worth.
.
"The rich get socialism, the working man gets free enterprise."
Gore Vidal
.

Posted by: cdawg

October 7, 2011 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cdawg/Gore Vidal: I find it hard to believe that you could have worked in a bank for 2 DAYS let alone 2 years, without realizing that no “full service” bank could offer “FREE checking” if it were not for the epidemic of financial illiteracy in America that allows them to collect $Billions in NSF fees each year. According to “The Center for Responsible Lending,” in 2008, 27 million Americans overdrew their bank account 5 or more times and 18 million people did it 10+ times and paid OD fees of $23.7 Billion, which the CRL noted was more than the average American family spends per year for fresh produce. So, like I said, “Banks love those people.” The next time you hear someone complaining about NSF fees, remember to thank them for your free checking... even better, buy them a salad.
Cheers
Larry Robertson
Bella Vista

Posted by: ldrthefirst09290813

October 8, 2011 at 7 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Larry: "no “full service” bank could offer “FREE checking” if it were not for the epidemic of financial illiteracy in America that allows them to collect $Billions in NSF fees each year.">>

Again with the "financial illiteracy." Hey Larry, have you yet figured out how to reconcile a country being, as you claim, "flat broke" while at the same time:

a) having the most wealth overall
b) being the 7th wealthiest per capita (according to you)
c) and having about $170 trillion in equity after all debts paid?

When you can do that (or better, be honest and admit your claim was ludicrously wrong), then I think folks would be in a better position to take seriously your musings on this question of "financial literacy."

But to address your point, 42% of Americans live from pay check to pay check. This is especially true in many poor southern (typically conservative) states where poverty exceeds 1/3. So it doesn't follow that because some people occasionally overdraft their accounts that they are "financially illiterate." It can simply mean that they are living close to the edge, and sometimes tip a bit over that edge. Besides, they are usually off by a few dozen dollars in their calculations. We've already established that your calculations are off by $170 trillion!

And that's a lot of shekels by any measure.

Look around you. Observe the pawn shops and "Rent-a-centers." These are the places servicing, and I do mean servicing, the institution of wealth inequality and poverty in America. Some people can't find a job, or they can't find a job that provides a livable wage that allows them to at all times keep their head above water. This doesn't necessarily mean they are financially illiterate, it can simply mean, they are poor.

D.
---------------
Comparing the growth of family incomes over the last 64 years, chart:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

"With the exception of president Nixon, poverty went up under every Republican president since 1961. Under every Democratic president since 1961, it fell."
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 8, 2011 at 9:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ldrthefirst09290813--

RE "...no “full service” bank could offer “FREE checking” if it were not for the epidemic of financial illiteracy in America that allows them to collect $Billions in NSF fees each year."

Back when interest rates were higher, and before NSF fees were all the rage, banks used to cover their costs for free checking by lending out their checking account aggregates short term. Of course, more people had more money then. Maybe they were more financially literate then, too, because they had finances to be literate with.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 8, 2011 at 9:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

so why do you suppose some think we do not have the money to build roads here but it is alright to build them in afganistan or iraq? why are we throwing away so much money in these countries when we could use it here? the roads that could be built with the jobs bill generates the opportunities for new bussiness to come to our area. Roads are vital for new growth. "build it and they will come."! It would be a more pleasant place to live if we bypass alot of the interstate trucks from the local traffic.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

October 9, 2011 at 8:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

2pair: "why are we throwing away so much money in these countries when we could use it here?">>

Spending lots of money over there? But 2pair, that can't be right, after all, here is what we were told:

***
“Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will.” --Richard Perle, chair, The Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, July 11, 2002

“The likely economic effects [of a war in Iraq] would be relatively small…. Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits.” --Lawrence Lindsey, White House economic adviser, September 16, 2002

“It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars.” --Kenneth Pollack, former director for Persian Gulf affairs, September 2002

“The costs of any intervention would be very small.” --Glenn Hubbard, White House economic adviser, October 4, 2002

“Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” --Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary, February 18, 2003

"We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” --Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, March 27, 2003
http://thinkprogress.org/report/the-a...

Also:
Mitch Daniels... the war will be an “affordable endeavor” and rejects an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as “very, very high.” [Christian Science Monitor, 1/10/06]

"In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries and Iraqi oil revenues. The American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this." --USAID Director Andrew Natsios, 4/23/03
http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/pr...

Well, how did that go?

"Report: Price Tag for Wars Is At Least $3.7 Trillion"
http://www.frumforum.com/report-wars-...

"Economist Stiglitz Says Iraq War Costs May Reach $5 Trillion"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pi...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 9, 2011 at 10:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

2pair re your Oct 9th comment: I do not totally disagree with you, and freethinking Darrel makes a valid point about Iraq’s ability to pay us back, but the purpose of building roads in Afghanistan and Iraq has to do with long term efforts to fight terrorism and/or help stabilize a very dangerous part of the world. On the other hand, infrastructural expenditures here in the U.S. are definitely needed but they are not an efficient method of promoting economic growth due to the diminishing return; it simply makes the problem worse and prolongs the suffering.
I know it drives some folks crazy when I use domestic examples to make a point but they truly are relevant. Let’s say your home desperately needs a coat of paint and a new roof, but you are having a hard time making the minimum payments on credit cards and simply cannot afford it… Now let’s say your next door neighbor is an out of work carpenter who is willing to do the job for a very reasonable price… Regardless of how much you need the work done and regardless of how much your neighbor needs the job, it would not make sense for you to spend money you don’t have. It may however, be time to reduce your discretionary spending by cancelling cable/satellite TV, turn down the heat or consider taking in a roommate. Our federal government has the ability to improve the economy by getting out of our way but it does not have the ability to actually make the problem go away. If, on the other hand, America was not macaroni-and-cheese broke, and had substantive cash reserves, I would agree with you that now would be the time to invest in infrastructure… Oh, if that were only the case.
Cheers,
Larry Robertson
Bella Vista

Posted by: ldrthefirst09290813

October 9, 2011 at 11:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

thanks fayfreethinkser for your erudite and factual comments..that was quite interesting and relevant to my questions.
also thanks to Larry, who needs that Bella vista Bypass more than he thinks. your opinions are food for thought too.
hope to catch you intellectuals again on another day!
meanwhile lets hope Steve Womack is working every day this week and will vote according to what he know we need in Arkansas and not
to please that troublemaker leader Eric Cantor in the House of Representatives!
good Luck you congressmen..you have a difficult job and hope you can work together , pool all those mighty ideas and vote for the best one, not the one your lobbiest pays the most for.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

October 9, 2011 at 2:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In Larry Robertson's example of the two neighbors, he describes a situation that would be ideal for using an alternative currency such as Ithaca Hours http://www.time.com/time/business/art...
Or for a computerized barter exchange such as LETS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Ex...
Such alternative systems--legal and democratic--could greatly help people during an economic downturn like this one.

Posted by: Coralie

October 9, 2011 at 4:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Larry: "I use domestic examples... truly are relevant. Let’s say your home desperately needs a coat of paint and a new roof,">>

There are good analogies, bad analogies and then there are analogies so broken they can't be fixed. Yours is clearly a false analogy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_an...

The notion that a fiscally strapped person deciding whether to paint their house is in anyway analogous to a nation considering whether to invest in needed infrastructure during a recession and high unemployment for the purpose of reaping the feedback of added tax revenue and unemployment relieve for it's citizenry, is absurd on its face. No comparison, false analogy.

LAR: "Our federal government has the ability to improve the economy by getting out of our way but it does not have the ability to actually make the problem go away.">>

More rightwing talking points, served up straight. The gov has indeed helped. Note:
"CBO estimates that at least 1.4 million jobs were created and saved by the direct spending alone, and that as many as 3.6 million jobs were produced while stimulus funds were being spent."
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/08/news/...

And as I noted in another thread: "federal and state government jobs... increased by 1.7 million in eight years under Bush and fell by 357,000 since President Barack Obama took office..."

LAR: "If... America was not macaroni-and-cheese broke,..">>

You go from saying America is "flat broke" to noodle references. Neither claim is true, as I have shown above. Larry, have you yet figured out how to reconcile a country being, as you claim, "flat broke" while at the same time:

a) having the most wealth of any country on the planet
b) being the 7th wealthiest per capita (according to you)
c) and having about $170 trillion in equity after all debts paid?

Do let us know when you've done that.

D.
---------
Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. Republican presidents increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 9, 2011 at 5:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

what if we voted all one party into congress in november?(or idealogically a third party) then the legislators could only debate the "issues" not fight for political points as in a "football game"? (how's that analagy ffthinker, LAR?)
we direly need a third party. a fantasy scenario: kick out all the dems and republicans and we all elect a middle class party? that is what is going on now with the demonstrations now..this is not a tea party but a revolution. as we are fed up with BOTH parties in power!.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

October 10, 2011 at 8 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

2pair: "what if we voted all one party into congress..."
That's not a bad idea as long as the entire group knew in advance that they would have to fend for themselves in 2 years without any hope of being re-elected or landing a cushy job as a lobbyist. Larry Robertson, Bella Vista

Posted by: ldrthefirst09290813

October 10, 2011 at 8:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Darrel: Money supply is measured by 3 basic classifications: “M1” is a measure of “cash” held by individuals in checking accounts; “M2” is , in the total of “M1” plus funds held in savings accounts of $100,000 or less, “M3” is the sum of M1 + M2 in addition to large-denomination ($100,000 or more) deposits, CDs and money funds. The current “RATE OF DECLINE” of the “M3” money supply is the same as it was from 1927 to 1930. Your discovery of all this wealth that you keep talking about is great news but much too valuable to be wasting it on this limited audience. Please share your discoveries with Tim Giethner, his phone number is 202-622-2000.
Larry Robertson
Bella Vista

Posted by: ldrthefirst09290813

October 10, 2011 at 10:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

LAR: "The current “RATE OF DECLINE” of the “M3” money supply is the same as it was from 1927 to 1930.">>

Not that personal checking and saving accounts is at all relevant to the question of whether "America is broke," but it's your claim, so let's see you back it up.

Bah, why wait. I did a little checking and quickly found your mistake. See this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Com...

Here's the year on year change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cha...

LAR: "Your discovery of all this wealth that you keep talking about is great news...">>

Yes it is isn't it. It means, as was pretty obvious, America isn't broke. Not by a long shot. Now the only interesting part is seeing whether you have the intellectually honesty and fortitude to admit it.

LAR: "[this discovery] much too valuable to be wasting it on this limited audience.">>

But I am not wasting it on anyone but you. I don't see anyone else still trying to float the ridiculous howler that the wealthiest country on the planet, is flat broke, noodles included or not. There were a few in the past who tried, but we quickly got them whipped into shape.

LAR: "Please share your discoveries with Tim Giethner,...">>

But there is no need for that. He is well aware that America is not broke. You are the one who is still confused, and dare I say "fiscally illiterate" on this matter.

D.
------------
Here's your M1 and M2 Larry, in billions of dollars, going back to 1960:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Com...

Doesn't look "broke" to me.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 10, 2011 at 10:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

2pair suggests "what if we voted all one party into congress in november?"
That would be like the 'Solid South' during 2/3 of the 20th century. It was a very dysfunctional political system.
See DEMOCRACY HEADING SOUTH by Augustus Cochran. It's in the Fayetteville library.

Posted by: Coralie

October 10, 2011 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

sounds like a "Full House" to me!

new 3rd party for the middle class?
coming in 2012

I will read that Book ..thanks..

seems to me we are not broke after all,
so maybe we can "persuade" our banks
to give some loans for new homeowners
or small bussinesses? they are the problem
as they are hoarding the capital.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

October 10, 2011 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

alpha - Your description sounds like trickle down economics only with government funds rather than private sector funds at the top.

Posted by: superdave10

October 12, 2011 at 8:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

superdave10--

RE "Your description sounds like trickle down economics only with government funds rather than private sector funds at the top."
Except that the government is more motivated to create jobs than the wealthy private sector is. The private sector, as shown by its recent and current performance, can get richer by not creating jobs. The government can't: it gets its revenue from people who have jobs.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 12, 2011 at 12:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I don't think there are a whole lot in the private sector that are "getting richer". If the private sector isn't hiring then one of two things are happening.

1. They are operating more efficiently in order to stay static and not start losing (which maybe the governement could take a lesson here).

2. Their business is not growing and therefore profits are not growing.

Aside from that, the government's track record for making good investments is not that great. If a business owner makes a bad investment they lose their business (unless the government bails them out which I consider a bad government investment). If government makes a bad investment (aka the first stimulus or any other number of wasteful or just plain bad government programs), they just go to the taxpayers for more money.

To digress to my original point, you either believe that trickle down economics works or you don't. It's not an area where you get to say it works if the government provides the funds, but doesn't when the private sector provides the funds.

Posted by: superdave10

October 12, 2011 at 1:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

superdave10--

I know that tinkle-down economics doesn't work, as do most economists. But you're working with a misconception anyway: government job creation isn't tinkle-down economics-- it's trickle-up economics.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 12, 2011 at 2:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Superdave doesn't know the difference between tinkle down and tinkle up?

SUP: "I don't think there are a whole lot in the private sector that are "getting richer".">>

Perhaps you haven't looked at the data. Three charts...
Largely because of these tax cuts to the uber rich (chart): http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

And a shifting of taxes off of business that looks like this: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

We have record wealth inequality that looks like this: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

SUP: "If government makes a bad investment (aka the first stimulus...">>

According to the CBO, the first stimulus saved/created about 4 million jobs as it was supposed to. That makes it a good investment. That the effect wasn't big enough to make up for the extent of Bush's Great Recession (that lost about 3 million jobs just in his last year), lends credence to those who consistently said it wasn't big enough. Ditto the second one. The Chinese one was far larger, and it worked:
"The stimulus, which is 10 times larger as a percentage of GDP than the $800 billion stimulus approved in the United States, "has helped maintain the good momentum of China's economic development in the past 30 years..."
--CNN, http://tinyurl.com/3l4s9z4

SUP: "you either believe that trickle down economics works or you don't.">>

That's easy. It doesn't. And there is no comparison between government spending directly to stimulate activity, and the supply-side pipe dream of removing government revenue (about $2 trillion from Bush cuts) to give the super rich more money hoping that they'll spend it. We tried that. See the Bush record.

D.
------------
"Question: "Have tax cuts always resulted in higher tax revenues and more economic growth as many tax cut proponents claim?

Answer: No. In fact, economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves."

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck...

Note the date. The "White House’s Council of Economic Advisers" in question are GW Bush's people. Even they don't believe the tinkle-down supply-side stuff. Stick a fork in that one, it's done.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 12, 2011 at 7:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gotta say I loved this letter. Couldn't agree more with the author. I receive Womack's "From the Front" and I, too, have found his orations to be disturbingly Rambo-esque in tone and content.

I wrote to Womack a couple of months ago, and our other congressmen, when the R's said something about "shared sacrifice." I asked him to vote himself a pay cut. I suggested that he give up his taxpayer funded retirement and draw Social Security and put away savings like the rest of us do for retirement, or better yet, invest in this volitile market of ours and watch his retirement savings wax and wane with the Big Boy Financial Crisis of the Day. I asked him to give up his taxpayer funded healthcare and buy his own insurance plan like they want the rest of us to do. I thought these were modest considerations in the name of "shared sacrifice" to recover from the burden of trillions of dollars of debt incurred mostly from the endless wars in the Middle East while our own home borders are as porous as a pair of fishnet stockings.

Guess what his response was to my suggestions? Zero. Zip, zilch, nada. The Championing Warrior From the Front was suddenly...speechless.

Hypocrite. He's no "representative of the people." He's just the ex-mayor of Rogers, Arkansas, and it shows.

Posted by: SPA

October 12, 2011 at 8:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Regarding reasons why the private sector isn't hiring, there's one more I didn't see mentioned here:

Big Money has moved the good-paying manufacturing jobs overseas. This began quite some time ago with the textile industry, then with the furniture industry, and now with just about everything that can possibly be outsourced to The Sweatshop Nations. The private sector is hiring, alright. Just not in America.

Posted by: SPA

October 12, 2011 at 8:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

This is just wrong. most of them do not even do a good job when they are in
office. They certainly do not represent the american people. CUT THESE SALARIES.
THEY ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR OUR FREEDOM, OR PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS.

Wages

Salary of retired US Presidents .............$450,000 FOR LIFE

Salary of House/Senate members ..........$174,000 FOR LIFE
Salary of Speaker of the House .............$223,500 FOR LIFE
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders ......$193,400 FOR LIFE

Average salary of a soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN - $38,000

Average income for seniors on SOCIAL SECURITY -$12,000

I think we found where the cuts should be made!

Posted by: ladyLiberty

October 13, 2011 at 7:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Could not agree more with you, 3rd party. The greed and graft is not with Food Stamps and Medicare, for heavens sake. It's with politicians. I believe that too many of them are in the game for their own personal gain; not all of them, but too many of them. The American people are waaaay too tolerent of this situation. We need an organized and focused effort to put the heat on them to cut their own salaries and benefits that they have come to regard as a sort of entitlement, *at the taxpayer expense.* We do not have a government "By the People and For the People." It's more like, "By the Rich Corrrupt People for the Rich Corrupt Corporations and Rich People." Seen any stats on how many millionaires are in Congress, recently? It's pretty appalling. "The People" should be represented by a congress of their peers, not a congress of wealthy self-interested hypocritic greedy power addicts.

The $64K question is, Why do average Americans tolerate this? The mainstream press trying to label the people participating in Occupy Wall Street as a "mob" is an attempt to smear. We have the right to peaceful assembly and the right to approach our government for redress by the First Amendment. Doing so en masse does not make it a "mob."

Posted by: SPA

October 13, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: "More rightwing talking points, served up straight. The gov has indeed helped. Note:
"CBO estimates that at least 1.4 million jobs were created and saved by the direct spending alone, and that as many as 3.6 million jobs were produced while stimulus funds were being spent."
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/08/news/...

I've said it multiple times, and FFT has dodged as many. If so damn many jobs were created under Obama and the Democratic congress over the last two years, then how does unemployment actually increase? Doesn't take a college professor to understand that the math doesn't work. This 'created and saved' mantra is just that. If all these jobs were created, then we would have lower, not higher, unemployment. More propaganda from the left... As is typical, you will see no response to this point by FFT, because there is none...People, don't let this spin doctor get away with propagating these lies....

Posted by: commonsense96

October 13, 2011 at 9:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT does it again...." According to the CBO, the first stimulus saved/created about 4 million jobs as it was supposed to. That makes it a good investment. That the effect wasn't big enough to make up for the extent of Bush's Great Recession (that lost about 3 million jobs just in his last year), lends credence to those who consistently said it wasn't big enough."

Seriously?? If the Democratic congress led by Obama created 4 million jobs, and Bush lost 3 million jobs??? Then why, pray tell, did unemployment go from 7.8% the day Bush left office to 9.2% today?

See how your talking points from Rachel Maddow get you in trouble!

All of this 'created and saved jobs' propaganda is just that. If Obama and his liberal congress were so great, and if the stimulus was such a success, then why the downturn in the economy and the increase in unemployment??

Anyone without a liberal bias and a tingle running up their leg can see through this BS. It hasn't worked. It won't work. The answer is free-market capitalism and getting the government out of the way....Hate to tell you professor, but you really have your head stuck in the sand on this one....

Posted by: commonsense96

October 13, 2011 at 9:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Commonsense" has a few questions.

COM: "If many jobs were created... how does unemployment actually increase?">>

Carefully explained in the very article I referenced. I am not going to spoon feed it to you. The metric of job creation, and the metric of unemployment, are two very different measurements, that while related (obviously), are very different.

COM: "Doesn't take a college professor to understand that the math doesn't work.">>

Since I only have a high school degree, it clearly doesn't require an advanced degree to understand this difference I just outlined. It does however require the ability to think in a manner beyond black and white simplicity.

COM: "If all these jobs were created, then we would have lower, not higher, unemployment.">>

Wrong. That does not follow. Specifically and carefully explained in this article which I have referenced several times. The clue is in the headline: "Stimulus added jobs -- but not enough"
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/08/news/...

COM: "Democratic congress led by Obama created 4 million jobs,">>

About. But some of those were wiped out by further losses from the deepening Bush Recession. See link above.

COM: "and Bush lost 3 million jobs?">>

No, more like 8 million. According to the economic advisor to John's McCain's campaign and chief economist at Moody's:
"McCain’s Economist: Dem Policies Averted Great Depression, Saved 8.5 Million Jobs"
http://www.dems.gov/blog/mccain-s-eco...

COM: "why,... did unemployment go from 7.8% the day Bush left office to 9.2% today?">>

As has been explained to you many times, unemployment is a lagging indicator. Bush lost about 3 million jobs in just his last year following a terrible job record (and about 40,000 lost factories). That's a wave that takes a while to wash through the economy. That's why early and large stimulus is necessary. The stimulus worked in that it created millions of jobs, but those who said it wasn't big enough, were right. Those, like you, who probably said do nothing, were, as usual, astonishingly wrong.

CM: "your talking points from Rachel Maddow">>

I am sure she is very good but I dropped cable TV years ago. I find it more entertaining and educational to do research while helping folks like you with the basics.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 13, 2011 at 10:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"epidemic of financial illiteracy"

Indeed and how depressing to read all the Voodoo nonsense that people in this sinking country of ours believe in. Today's Krugman is right on the mark:

"Reading the transcript of Tuesday’s Republican debate on the economy is, for anyone who has actually been following economic events these past few years, like falling down a rabbit hole. Suddenly, you find yourself in a fantasy world where nothing looks or behaves the way it does in real life." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/opi...)

As to Womack, his finest hour came when he confessed his ignorance about the Medicare plan he was supporting. "Womack said he didn’t know if the numbers cited by Pryor are accurate." That's the kind of leader we need - ignorant and proud of it.

http://arkansasmediawatch.wordpress.c...

Posted by: ImUnarmed

October 14, 2011 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT
"As has been explained to you many times, unemployment is a lagging indicator"

Partially right. It only takes about 2 qtrs for the unemployment to catch up with the economy. That's just 6 months.

Posted by: P5harri

October 15, 2011 at 7:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT said: "...unemployment is a lagging indicator">>
P5: "Partially right. It only takes about 2 qtrs for the unemployment to catch up with the economy. That's just 6 months.">>

I've never head that, but let's assume your claim is entirely true. It completely fails to appreciate the scale and scope of how different and special the Bush job record and Bush recession really was. Realize:

Under Clinton we had an increase of 24 million jobs, most of those in manufacturing. This is a record achievement and provided a profound strength for the nation and revenue source for the government.

Under Bush we had an unbelievable *NET* loss in private sector jobs, when we needed several million (approaching 10 million) just to break even. This is an astonishingly bad, breathtakingly bad job record. I'll say it again... the Bush recession lost more jobs than the previous four recessions *combined* (reference below). That means, even if your rule of thumb assertion that it only takes two quarters "for the unemployment to catch up with the economy" is true in some or most instances, it does not it mean it necessarily applies to this brick wall we hit which gave us the worst job creation record in modern history.

Observe the chart at this article: http://www.epi.org/blog/herman-cain-j...

See those little blips after 2000? That's the normal ups and downs of a business cycle that your claim may apply to. It does not however apply to the mount Everest job disaster that starts at the beginning of '08 in that chart. That's a whole different kettle 'o fish.

D.
---------------
"The last five recessions:

Jan. 1980 to July 1980: 968,000 jobs lost
July 1981 to Nov. 1982: 2,824,000 jobs lost
July 1990 to March 1991: 1,249,000 jobs lost
March 2001 to Nov. 2001: 1,599,000 jobs lost
Total jobs lost in the four prior recessions: 6,640,000

"Great Recession" — Dec. 2007 to June 2009: 7,490,000 jobs lost"

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 16, 2011 at 1:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

thanks for those interesting facts..fayfree thinker!
that is amazing..how facts can paint a truer picture.
wonder tho how many jobs lost were because of immigration?
maybe they are paid less than minimum wage and how does this effect the american job statistics?..see what is going on in alabama as the immigrants leave? unemployment is going down!
also
the author of the comment "the protestors are just mobs" came from house whip republican Eric cantor..a wall street man for sure.
don't listen to FOX news as they are the most biased and ridiculous of them all!
i loved APA comment about why we vote for them? yes why do people vote against their own good?! that is scary

Posted by: ladyLiberty

October 16, 2011 at 8:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thanks to you all for running down America and putting Obama into to office. You will get a chance to vote for him again in order to re-test your stupidity.

Posted by: kinggeorge

October 18, 2011 at 10:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Oh, boy-- another intestinal contribution from MrD. But can he use his gut to refute anything that was said?

If citing facts constitutes "running down America", then the facts show that America was run down by George W. Bush.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 18, 2011 at 11:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

*yawn*

Posted by: CS123

October 20, 2011 at 4:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MrD: "Thanks to you all for... putting Obama into to office.">>

You're welcome. And look at all of the good that has come as he has worked tirelessly to correct your Bush debacle...

D.
--------------
"The truth is that this President has done a good job in what has been one of the most difficult periods of modern history. He saved the economy from ruin (until the Tea Party took over Congress) with a stimulus that was as large as possible given the political realities, presided over a stock market that fairly quickly recouped many of its losses, presided over almost consecutive monthly increases in private sector job growth..., enacted the only meaningful healthcare reform ever in our history, passed financial reform (no matter what the Left says, he did this), saved the auto industry (which Romney is on record opposing), fired the first salvo of the Arab Spring with his address in Cairo no less, drawn down our footprint in Iraq in a responsible way (and headed toward almost total withdrawal), stopped numerous terrorist attacks in this country, stopped torture as policy, repealed DADT, joined the international community in a measured and responsible way to bring down an odious tyrant in Qaddafi, and killed a whole generation of al Qaeda leaders. And taking out Osama bin Laden the way he did will go down as one of the bravest military actions in American history." http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.c...

Etc.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 20, 2011 at 8:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Put Obama back in. He says he is the answer to everything!

Posted by: kinggeorge

October 21, 2011 at 9:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FT, how do you like the Communist Party? I'll bet communism sounds like the perfect answer for all problems to you. Do Communists carry cards? Check in you pocket to see if you have one. Also, if you think Obama has done a good job you must be viewing things the mainstream does not see. Unfortunately, there is no cure for being mentally challenged and glasses cannot help the blind.

Posted by: kinggeorge

October 21, 2011 at 9:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MrD--

RE "Put Obama back in. He says he is the answer to everything!"
That's what every candidate says. Listen to the Republican contenders. But it's a good idea-- Obama has done a good job so far, and he'd be a huge improvement over any Republican. Thanks for the encouragement.

RE "FT, how do you like the Communist Party?"
How did you make the leap to Communism from fft's post?

RE "Also, if you think Obama has done a good job you must be viewing things the mainstream does not see."
But every other time you mention the mainstream media, it's to say they don't do a good job. Now, all of a sudden, this would surprise you?

RE "Unfortunately, there is no cure for being mentally challenged and glasses cannot help the blind."
Your posts are continuing proof of this. Sounds like you've reached the fifth stage of grief. Congratulations.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 21, 2011 at 11:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MrD: "if you think Obama has done a good job you must be viewing things the mainstream does not see.">>

I gave several specific examples of him doing a good job (I have more). It doesn't follow that something is true, or not true, because a majority of the populace happens to believe something. That's the ad populum fallacy. You can learn about this fallacy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument...

MrD: "Unfortunately, there is no cure for being mentally challenged...">>

That might be, but I don't concern myself with your medical situation. I'm just here to offer gentle corrections when confused fundamentalist ideologues (political or religious) muster the courage to post blatantly false information in public. If someone doesn't do it, how are they going to learn?

D.
------------------
Just as one can "lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink," also, "You can drag a fundie to the truth, but you can't make them think."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 21, 2011 at 1:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Arguing with a religious or political conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: he isn't much help, it is an inevitable consequence of your relationship, and it makes it very clear that he will swallow anything."

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 21, 2011 at 2:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Clever quips! I can trade insults with the best of you and I do not have to have sources to back up obvious facts. Mainstream does not mean media, it means the way people are thinking. **mmy! Blaming Bush for the wagon going into the ditch after Obama has been driving for two years reflects some real intellect. No surprise that you don't get it. None of you anti-American Communists have enough sense to come in out of the rain and you should have to live in Russia or Europe so you can enjoy the kind of life you are so diligently working at plunging us into.
The election is coming and Obama will be beaten worse than anyone in the history of the United States. He is such a flop! The truth is not in him and he spews out lies endlessly like a fountain. Those who support him with awareness must be just like him. He appeared to be an intellectual, but without his teleprompter, he is a mush head.
He makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius.

Posted by: kinggeorge

October 21, 2011 at 7:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MrD's pile of spleen and unsupported assertions remind me of this snip of Shakespeare:

"...a tale — told by an idiot — full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” --Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act 5, scene 5.

MrD: "I can trade insults with the best of you...">>

I doubt it.

MrD: "I do not have to have sources to back up obvious facts.">>

But your assertions, as has been shown over and over, are not obvious facts, but rather obviously false. Would you like a few dozen examples?

MrD: "Blaming Bush for the wagon going into the ditch...">>

Makes perfect sense. For instance, if you subtract legacy Bush spending and revenue depletion, there is no deficit. That's all Bush.

MrD: "you anti-American Communists...">>

Oh do grow up and stop embarrassing yourself with the commie nonsense. I'm better at capitalism than you are.

MrD: "live in Russia or Europe so you can enjoy the kind of life you are so diligently working at [for us].">>

Yes, let's look at 9 normative measurements of societal success and see how their method is working out:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

MrD: "Obama will be beaten worse than anyone in the history of the United States.">>

I'll bet $10,000 to your $100 that he won't. Alph_cat holds the money. Ready to put your money where you mouth is MrD? Or are you just a blowhard?

MrD: "[Obama] spews out lies endlessly..">>

Then you should have no trouble at all backing up your assertion with a specific, referenced, example. Let's see you do that. Just one. If you don't know what the word lie means, I'll get the dictionary.

MrD: "without his teleprompter,...">>

As has been told to you before, your claim is based upon a fake FOX news story:

"Fox News Runs With Fake Obama Teleprompter Story" http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/03/...

If you were an honest person you would stop peddling falsehoods and acknowledge when your errors are corrected. Be an honest person, start now.

MrD: "[Obama] makes Jimmy Carter look like a genius.">>

Just remember, if you don't like Carter's decent performance as president, using normative measurements, only two republican presidents since 1953 have done better: http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_d...

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 21, 2011 at 8:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MrD--

Does "D" stand for "dog vomit"?

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 21, 2011 at 10:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Your bet is on! As to Obama's lies: He claimed his father fought in WWII...his father was 8 years old! He has been caught in so many lies. As to your communist leanings: It is evident that you want the Government to control everything. You support Obama and that is exactly what he wants to do. The man has ruined the economy and nothing he has instituted has worked. His own party is turning against him. None of them running for reelection want him around. What's that supposed to mean?

Posted by: kinggeorge

October 24, 2011 at 6:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MrD: "Your bet is on!">>

Excellent. Let's review the terms. You claimed:
"The election is coming and Obama will be beaten worse than anyone in the history of the United States."

I am putting $10,000 to your $100 that this does not happen. Do you understand?

Under the United States system, electoral victory is determined by electoral votes. The record for a president being "beaten worse than anyone in the history of the United States," is as follows:

1936 - the greatest electoral votes difference between winner and opponent (Roosevelt 523 to Landon 8). [the Reagan/Mondale difference was 525/13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

For you to win, Obama will have to get less than 8 electoral votes. Do you understand this MrD?

MrD: "As to Obama's lies: He claimed his father fought in WWII...his father was 8 years old!">>

Snopes rips your example to shreds: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/...

MrD: "He has been caught in so many lies.">>

Well then, as I said, you should be able to bury us in examples. You tried just one and it flopped. Where are the rest? Can't wait.

Mrd: "It is evident that you want the Government to control everything.">>

No, I am for small limited government and want the government to control as little as necessary while being large enough to provide objectively measurable good outcomes for society.

MrD: "The man has ruined the economy and nothing he has instituted has worked.">>

Then why does this chart look like a bikini? http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Why did the stock market go from a low of 6,500, just weeks after your Bush, to about double that now (representing tens of trillions in wealth)? Why is the formerly bankrupt American auto industry now making cars? Here is a list of just 100 of his major accomplishments and fulfilled promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...

Clearly, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about. But I do look forward to you giving me $100 next November.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 24, 2011 at 11:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: "MrD: "The man has ruined the economy and nothing he has instituted has worked.">>

Then why does this chart look like a bikini? http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Why did the stock market go from a low of 6,500, just weeks after your Bush, to about double that now (representing tens of trillions in wealth)?"

So FFT, if so many private sector jobs have been created under Obama, then why has the unemployment rate gone from 7.7% when Obama took over to 9.1% today? I have posed this question many times before I will do so again. How does that math work? If the savior has created all of these jobs, then where are they? Job creation should directly correlate to unemployment rates....except where there are job losses.

So the bottom line is NET job creation. On that front Obama and his democratic super majority congress for 2 years failed the American public (he promised that passage of the stimulus bill would keep unemployment from crossing the 8% mark). We have had net job losses for the last 2.5 years which has put millions of Americans out of work under Obama and a democratically controlled congress.

So tell me again how Obama has created all these jobs and the unemployment rate has increased by 2.4%.......

Posted by: commonsense96

October 25, 2011 at 12:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

COM: "if so many private sector jobs have been created... why... unemployment rate gone from 7.7%... to 9.1%?">>

I realize you have a learning disorder but this was answered for you, again, in this thread on Oct 13th:
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/oc...

COM: "he promised that passage of the stimulus bill would keep unemployment from crossing the 8% mark">>

No he didn't. I have read the paper he referred to in that instance, and the footnotes and caveats. Have you read it? Of course not. I can get it for you if you like. All estimates of future results are necessarily conditional. Sorry if he didn't include all of the footnotes. Clearly the liberals who said the stimulus should have been larger, were right, and the conservatives, like you, who fought it tooth and nail, were completely wrong.

COM: "We have had net job losses for the last 2.5 years ">>

Completely false. For instance just last month, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

"Total nonfarm payroll employment edged up by 103,000 in September. Since April, payroll employment has increased by an average of 72,000 per month, compared with an average of 161,000 for the prior 7 months.
Employment in professional and business services increased by 48,000 over the month and has grown by 897,000 since a recent low in September 2009.
Employment in temporary help services edged up in September; this industry has added 53,000 jobs over the past 3 months.
Health care employment continued to expand in September, with an increase of 44,000. Within the
industry, job gains occurred in ambulatory health care services (+26,000) and in hospitals (+13,000).
Construction employment increased by 26,000 over the month,... Mining employment continued to trend up in September." http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/e...

Also, this May 2011 ABC report:
"When one looks only at the private sector – factoring out gov’t hiring and firing – we’re seeing a lovely trend, with some 1.7 million positions added in the past year. For the past 14 months we’ve seen private firms adding to payrolls – not a single month of net jobs loss. Since February 2010 the private sector has added 2 million new jobs, an average of 150,000 per month." http://tinyurl.com/3oq83wf

And yet unemployment ticked up that month. Because unemployment is a different measurement. Learn this fact.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 25, 2011 at 1:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Commonsense96, you are correct. Figures don't lie but liars figure. Liars use a lot of words and say nothing...just like Obama and those who support him tooth and nail. It seems as if everyone in the real world knows that we have had the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, but there are some who are in denial and take great measures to convince others.
FFT, I was not referring to the Electoral vote and neither were you. Both of us know I was referring to the popular vote and that is what the bet is based on. But who are we kidding? You have no intention of paying off when you lose the bet. I hope Herman Cain gets the nomination. You and your kind of anti-Americans will see the economy will skyrocket with the implementations of tax reductions. As to Snopes, it is not always reliable. Why is is that you cannot listen to Obama and see that he lies? Has he kept one campaign promise? Yes, he changed things...for the worse. He has plunged us into debt to the extent that he has spent more than all the other presidents combined. He has bowed to Muslim rulers, ran down the US, apologized for our standing in the world, and you support him? He spends our tax dollars as if it was no more than water, pays his dog handler $105,000 per year, flies the dog and his handler in separate aircraft to Martha's Vineyard and you support him?You do not represent the average American and when your hero is smashed flatter than a pancake in the popular vote you will see that I am correct. If he is such a popular president, why is his approval numbers lower than a snake's belly?
Spin your way out of that!

Posted by: kinggeorge

October 25, 2011 at 11:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MrD; "we have had the highest unemployment since the Great Depression..."

Wrong. The unemployment rate in 1982 was higher than now at 9.7%.

MrD: "I was not referring to the Electoral vote...">

Sure you weren't. You said: "The election is coming and Obama will be beaten worse than anyone in the history of the United States."

US elections are determined by the electoral vote, not the popular vote. But it hardly matters. Note:

1920 - the greatest percentage point margin in the popular vote (Harding 60.3% to Cox 34.1%).

So, popular vote it is. If your chump beats Obama by more than a 26.2% margin, you win. See you in November. Start saving.

MrD: "I hope Herman Cain gets the nomination.">>

I do too. A fellow so dumb, he doesn't even understand what pro-choice means. I've laid this all out nicely here:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

But it hardly matters. I see the republican field as extraordinarily weak this time.

MrD: "Snopes, ...not always reliable.">>

Address the argument, don't smear the source. Your best and first example of a lie, is a flop. Got anything else?

MrD: "Why is is that you cannot listen to Obama and see that he lies?">>

What lies? Where are your examples?

Mrd: "Has he kept one campaign promise?">

Here are 100 examples: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...

MrD: "He has plunged us into debt...">>

The deficit has actually slightly decreased from your Bush highs. All covered before.

Mrd: "he has spent more than all the other presidents combined.">>

No he hasn't. You've mucked up your talking point canard. If you can go to the trouble of stating it correctly, then I'll knock it down.

MrD: "you support him?">>

I'm a registered independent, always have been. But I think he's great.

MrD: "why is his approval numbers lower than a snake's belly?">>

His favorability is in the mid-50's: http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_fa...

His Job ratings, mid to high 40's: http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_jo...

If you want to see low ratings, see your republican led congress at an historic 14%.

D.
------------
"President Bush will leave office as one of the most unpopular departing presidents in history, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll showing Mr. Bush's final approval rating at 22 percent. Mr. Bush's final approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/0...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 25, 2011 at 1:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: "COM: "if so many private sector jobs have been created... why... unemployment rate gone from 7.7%... to 9.1%?">>

I realize you have a learning disorder but this was answered for you, again, in this thread on Oct 13th:
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/oc...

You are the one with the learning disorder. You haven't and never will answer this question because you can't. Anyone reading this blog can clearly see that you are ducking the question and trying to promote liberal lies and talking points. Anyone with any common sense can see that if your claim were true, and Obama created x times as many jobs as Bush in his short tenure, then the unemployment rate would go down.... Unless, of course, the job loss rate is greater than the creation rate. The bottom line is that your hero is presiding over an increase in unemployment of nearly 20% from when he took office. He has spent more than any other President in history to try and rectify the problem to no avail. That is because he could not run a hot-dog stand, much less the greatest nation on earth.

Bottom line is that you cannot refute the question because the obvious answer is he has not 'created or saved' more jobs than he has lost. End of argument based on unemployment data. You can spin all you want, but i and the readers of this blog are not dizzy!

Posted by: commonsense96

October 25, 2011 at 11:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: " Clearly the liberals who said the stimulus should have been larger, were right, and the conservatives, like you, who fought it tooth and nail, were completely wrong."

Clearly??? Based on what? There you go again! Let's take that the other direction.....I and my conservative friends were 'clearly' right. It didn't work and we said it would not at the time. Don't give me that BS.

Liberals controlled both houses (with a significant majority) and the white house when the stimulus was passed. They crammed it down the Republican's necks and didn't even allow them into many negotiation meetings. And now you want to spin it that the Republicans kept it from being successful?

Your demo buddies could have spent 2x on stimulus if they had seen the need to. They controlled the whole show. And now it is painfully evident that it didn't work. You need to come to grips with that. The Republicans had nothing to do with stimulus....you and the rest of your demo buddies own that colossal failure.....congratulations!

Posted by: commonsense96

October 25, 2011 at 11:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

back to the article....why would Womack vote NO to the jobs bill that would give millions to jobs creating and build up our infrastructure? because he has a "problem" with taxing the wealthiest, but he does not name those "job creators" he is protecting. who are they? and how many jobs did they promise IF he votes NO to tax them?
this is just politics. as I am becoming wary about the GOP ..they are hurting Arkansas ..as they are crazy if they really believe america is going to repeal the Health care bill passed by the US congress just because Obama was president! this is smelling like a prejudice I want to part of!
I am thinking there may be a racial tone to the anti-Obama thinking here in arkansas as it is a fact that he is the most intelligent president to be elected in america for over 70 years! He really is trying to help solve the problems.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

October 26, 2011 at 9:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

As usual, piles of clearly false claims from a profoundly misinformed person and an embarrassing display that you can't comprehend the difference between a head count measurement of jobs, and a head count measurement of the unemployed. These are two different measurements, thus give two different outcomes. Not rocket science and all explained nicely in the simple mainstream articles I have already directed you to but your dogmatism or who knows what, keeps you from getting it. Oh well. I can't imagine anyone taking these latest made up assertions seriously so I won't bother to correct them again. On to something useful.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2...

And:

http://www.frumforum.com/were-our-ene...

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 26, 2011 at 9:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT to MrD: "Then you should have no trouble at all backing up your assertion with a specific, referenced, example. Let's see you do that. Just one. If you don't know what the word lie means, I'll get the dictionary."

With apologies to MrD for entering the fray I have provided 4 referenced examples of Obama lies. I'm anxious to see how you and the other lib apologists try to spin these lies. Enjoy!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10909406/...

MR. RUSSERT: But there seems to be an evolution in your thinking. This is what you told the Chicago Tribune last month: “Have you ruled out running for another office before your term is up?” Obama answer: “It’s not something I anticipate doing.” But when we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”
SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.
MR. RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?
SEN. OBAMA: I will not.
______________________________________

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/...

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.” (Obama was born in 1961, four years before the 1965 Selma march)
_______________________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpghvx...

Obama promising healthcare negotiations to be on CSPAN and streamed on net.
______________________________________

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8Gd...

Promises of “no more secrecy”. Public will have 5 days to review legislation before he signs.

Posted by: patrioteer

October 26, 2011 at 10:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you, Patrioteer, for citing examples of Obama's lies. Everyone who knows what he says knows he is a liar's liar. One lie he told is that people would have an choice to keep their insurance. Not true. Another lie: lower taxes on small businesses. Not yet. Obama supporters are apparently as dishonest as he is. As far as his intelligence, he is an empty suit. I will bet he had someone sit in and take his tests for him at Harvard. The only reason he could get into such a school is because of "tokenism." I am not prejudiced...I don't like his white half, either.

Posted by: kinggeorge

October 26, 2011 at 10:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Patrioteer: "I have provided 4 referenced examples of Obama lies.">>

Excellent. Welcome aboard. Let's see what you've got.

PAT: [quote] "will not run for president or vice president in 2008?
SEN. OBAMA: I will not.">>

A lie is when a person knowingly says a falsehood. You give an example of a person changing their mind. That happens. In order to show a lie here you would need to demonstrate that Obama knew he was going to run, but lied and said he wouldn't. You have not demonstrated this. Incidentally, it would be rather easy to give examples of nearly every politician changing their mind (not lying) on this issue. So this is rather lame at best.
Incidentally, Jon Stewart exposes a much more blatant and confirmed example of Palin lying about this while dishonestly raising money on the lie. See here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10...

PAT: "Don't tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.” (Obama was born in 1961, four years before the 1965 Selma march)">>

I only have a few moments this morning and will look at this further. I see Snopes has a nice unpack:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/...

PAT: "Obama promising healthcare negotiations to be on CSPAN and streamed on net.">>

Same as your first one. As the Rolling Stones noted: "You can't always get what you want."
And there was healthcare debate coverage on CSPAN:

"I'm hoping, for your sake, that you didn't spend your Saturday night as I did: watching the House debate health-care reform on C-SPAN."
--Wash. Post, http://tinyurl.com/y92vmkv

PAT: "Promises of “no more secrecy.”>>

Well, that's a little vague. I guess you've reached bottom of the barrel. And so quick!

PAT: "Public will have 5 days to review legislation before he signs.">>

That indeed still appears to be a broken campaign promise. Oh well, it happens. See the Rolling Stones. Not a lie.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...

D.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 26, 2011 at 11:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MrD--

RE "Thank you, Patrioteer, for citing examples of Obama's lies."
We all knew you'd let somebody else do the actual work.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 26, 2011 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer--

RE "Promises of “no more secrecy”. Public will have 5 days to review legislation before he signs."
Thanks to Republican obstructionism, there hasn't been a whole lot of significant legislation to sign, but what legislation has made it to the President has been so publicly wrangled over and so delayed that a five-day waiting period would be for the most part an unnecessary luxury.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 26, 2011 at 12:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So you know that Obama did not intend to lie when he said he would not run? George Bush said there were WMD's in Iraq and it was based on intelligence he had gotten from other sources. Everyone called him a liar and NOBODY raised the possible defense of his NOT INTENDING TO LIE! Talk about double standards! If someone says he is not going to run and does it is a lie regardless of the intent. The key to it is that no one can read another person's mind, therefore, by your standards there can be no lies told.
What a bunch of garbage! You are a spin doctor and you ignore the obvious, magnify the miniscule, and say whatever you have to in order to offer support for yourself. I will bet those Wikipedia references you are so proud to report were written by yourself. Wikipedia lets anyone contribute. What a fraud!

Posted by: kinggeorge

October 26, 2011 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MrD[ogvomit]--

RE "You are a spin doctor and you ignore the obvious, magnify the miniscule, and say whatever you have to in order to offer support for yourself."
Sounds like MrD. One difference is, fft provides sources; MrD would have to moon us in order to reveal his source. Another difference is, MrD doesn't even support himself-- he just gets mad and threatens to leave the forum.

RE "I will bet those Wikipedia references you are so proud to report were written by yourself. Wikipedia lets anyone contribute. What a fraud!"

Those familiar with Wikipedia as an information source know that articles have a bibliography at the end. Articles that are poorly researched or likely to have a bias based on their sources are flagged at the top as problematic. We are also aware that Wikipedia requires all those who edit articles to register with the site, that they track the IP addresses of contributors, and that it is possible to check the editing record for any article ("View history" link at the top of the article).

fft and I try to provide the same level of scrutiny for your posts.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 26, 2011 at 2:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

iOUR CONGRESS IS A BOUGHT CONGRESS !
+++++++++++++
>>
>> Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the
>> best quotes about the debt ceiling:
>>
>> "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just
>> pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more
>> than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible
>> for re-election/
>>
>> The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds)
>> took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple!
>> The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail,
>> cell phones, etc.
>>
>> Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year
>> or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

>> _*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*_
>>
>> 1. No Tenure / No Pension.
>>
>> A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
>> pay when they're out of office.
>>
>> 2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
>> Security.
>>
>> All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
>> Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
>> the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
>> American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
>>
>> 3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
>> Americans do.
>>
>> 4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
>> Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
>>
>> 5. Congress loses their current health care system and
>> participates in the same health care system as the American people.
>>
>> 6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
>> American people.
>>
>> 7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
>> effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this
>> contract with Congressmen/women.
>>
>> Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
>> Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
>> envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
>> term(s), then go home and back to work.
>>
>> If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will
>> only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive
>> the message. Don't you think it's time?
>>
>> THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

Posted by: ladyLiberty

October 26, 2011 at 3:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

LIE:
1. false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. (see the one about Selma and the one about CSPAN)

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression (see the one about not running for president)

3. an inaccurate or false statement. (see all four I submitted above)
______________________________________

So FFT, it's only a lie if a conservative says it. Is that what you're going with? Talk about lame!

Don't have time to research the one about Selma? You seem to have time for everything else. I gave you the links. The link I gave is from the actual transcript of his speech. All links are from mainstream media sources.

You liberals make it up as you go along, as proven by the many links you provide to other liberals.

You, my friend, are a joke, and not a very funny one at that.

Just suck it up and admit that your hero is a deceiver. It might make you feel better to admit this to yourself.

Posted by: patrioteer

October 26, 2011 at 4:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MrD: "you know that Obama did not intend to lie when he said he would not run?">>

I don't need to know that. You are the one asserting that he is lying, so you have the burden of demonstrating your claim. You have not done this. Not even close. It's doubtful you can, but keep trying.

MrD: "George Bush said there were WMD's in Iraq... Everyone called him a liar...">>

I didn't. In fact I chided people who made this claim. So you'll have to take it up with those people, not me. I happen to know what the word "lie" means. I believe that GW Bush thought there were WMD's in Iraq, that's probably why he was so surprised when there weren't (if he had known that in advance, he probably would have brought some with him). I never attribute to mendacity that which can simply be grand and utter stupidity. We are talking about Bush after all.

MrD: "If someone says he is not going to run and does it is a lie regardless of the intent.">>

Wrong. As I said at the beginning (having seen you pull this nonsense before), if you don't know what the word "lie" means, use a dictionary. You need to show lying intent *when* the statement is made. You haven't done that, so you don't have a lie. Circumstances change, people change their minds.

MrD: "The key to it is that no one can read another person's mind,">>

Bingo. Glad you are figuring this out now after the fact. Perhaps you should have thought about this before shooting your mouth off.

MrD: "by your standards there can be no lies told.">>

Wrong. There certainly can be. For instance, if we had Bush saying in a meeting that he had decided to go to war, and then months later saying in public that he hadn't decided yet, that would be a lie. I can give you lots of other examples, (including a doosey involving Jesus).

MrD: "you ignore the obvious, magnify the miniscule,">>

No, I actually know what third grade level school words like "lie" mean. And I hold people to using words accurately. Your examples fail.

MrD: "I will bet those Wikipedia references you are so proud to report">>

A few points:
a) I have not referred to wiki on this subject
b) you are already on the hook for a bet, so you better wait until you have paid that one off first.
c) a reference to wiki is actually a reference to it's checkable source notes available at the bottom of each page.
d) avoid the genetic fallacy, it never, ever, helps your case.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 26, 2011 at 7:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

PAT: "LIE:
1. false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.">>

Thanks for posting the definition, perhaps it will help MrD out. Having attended elementary school as a child, I was already familiar with what the word means.

PAT: "(see the one about Selma">>

See snopes reference already given.

PAT: "and the one about CSPAN">>

I already responded to this.
1) It's a comment about a future event, circumstances change. You need to show intent when the comment is made (see your own definition)
2) President does not control circumstances of how congress conducts its meetings/debates.
3) It actually *was* debated on CSPAN, reference provided.

I do hope these aren't your best examples.

PAT: "(see all four I submitted above)">>

I responded and gave reference for each. Try responding specifically. The truth is in the details.

PAT: "it's only a lie if a conservative says it.">>

No, it's a lie if it can be shown to be a "false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive." None of your examples have risen to the level of showing this. And we had such hopes.

PAT: "Don't have time to research the one about Selma?">>

Just got home from a long day. You're not the only fish in the barrel. (I just skimmed the snopes now, you've got nothing).

PAT: "The link I gave is from the actual transcript of his speech.">>

That's nice. I didn't question your links or his comments. I've heard of all of these examples. Are you familiar with the rebuttals? Maybe you should have started there. You need to rule out a person making a mistake.

PAT: "admit that [Obama] is a deceiver.">>

I'll do that the minute you can confirm an example of lying as per the definition you provided. It's your claim, and your burden.

D.
--------
"I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing." (John 18:20 (NKJ)).

Oops, that wasn't true.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 26, 2011 at 7:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: "As usual, piles of clearly false claims from a profoundly misinformed person and an embarrassing display that you can't comprehend the difference between a head count measurement of jobs, and a head count measurement of the unemployed. These are two different measurements, thus give two different outcomes. Not rocket science and all explained nicely in the simple mainstream articles I have already directed you..."

I don't need to be "directed". The issue is you keep throwing this 'jobs created' BS in front of the reader as though Obama is a Hero vs. his predecessor. "JOBS CREATED" is a bogus argument when you don't add-in "JOBS LOST". The net effect is the delta to unemployment.

Your hero Obama has successfully increased unemployment by nearly 2% since he took office with a super majority in both houses of congress. It took him nearly $1 trillion to get that done. WOW...what a leader.

Dems own the unemployment increase. That is what Americans care about....the NET effect reflected in the the unemployment numbers. Your consistent touting of "Jobs Created' is nothing more than a talking point being used to distract the reader. The readers are smarter than you give them credit for. Keep clinging to that hero of yours....his ship is sinking....

Posted by: commonsense96

October 26, 2011 at 9:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

COM: "you keep throwing this 'jobs created'... in front of the reader>>

Oh poor Com, this really is getting pitiful. The Bureau of Labor Statistics I quoted for you above, yesterday, provide an actual count of jobs (the employed), *not* jobs created. Try it again:

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/oc...

COM: "JOBS CREATED" is a bogus argument when you don't add-in "JOBS LOST".>>

The BLS stats given above, are *not* based upon a "jobs created" argument. It's an actual count of jobs. And that count, increased. You said:

"We have had net job losses for the last 2.5 years "

As my (May) ABC source showed:

"For the past 14 months we’ve seen private firms adding to payrolls – not a single month of net jobs loss. Since February 2010 the private sector has added 2 million new jobs, an average of 150,000 per month." http://tinyurl.com/3oq83wf

You don't know your bum from your elbow on this issue. Where on earth do you get such ludicrous false information from?

COM: "Obama has... increased unemployment">>

Here again, for your edification, is the source of this unemployment you refer to:

1) Bush lost about 3 million jobs during his last year (the economy needs to create about 1.5 million a year just to break even with population growth). Two million of those were lost in the last four months of 2008. http://tinyurl.com/7z3sss

2) Bush's Great Recession lost more jobs than the previous FOUR recessions combined. http://tinyurl.com/3zfyntq

3) More private sector jobs were created in 2010 under Obama than under eight years of Bush.
http://tinyurl.com/24smpkc and http://tinyurl.com/4hq8dbt

4) Bush has *the* worst job creation record since records began. http://tinyurl.com/9ylluu

5) Over the last 75 years, job creation has always been better under democratic administrations. The worst performing Democratic president beats every republican president (the odds of this happening by chance are 1/250). http://tinyurl.com/6cd9uo

As hardcore conservative commentator David Frum notes, it's time to acknowledge that Paul Krugman was right: http://tinyurl.com/3gmaqcm

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 27, 2011 at 12:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

PAT: "Don't have time to research the one about Selma?">>

FFT says: "Just got home from a long day. You're not the only fish in the barrel. (I just skimmed the snopes now, you've got nothing)."

Really? Nothing? That's all you have? Nothing???

FFT (a misnomer if I've ever seen one): Let's just address this lie. I presented four of them, which you tried and failed to spin, but for now let's just address this one since you only challenged MrD to provide ONE lie.

Since you are too challenged to read the quote from obama's Selma speech, let me quote it for you.

Direct quote from your hero's speech:

"This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama. "

Now obama was born in 1961 and the Selma march was in 1965. What part of the direct quote do you not understand? How did they get together 4 years after Jr.'s birth and produce Jr. who was already 4 years old. Are you still with me?

Either obama is "not smarter than a fifth grader", or he lied. How is it possible to stand before a partisan group and not know the history you are preaching about?

Let me help you. The event mentioned in this quote is either a lie, or the truth. Which is it?

Spin amongst yourselves liberals.

Posted by: patrioteer

October 27, 2011 at 10:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

While I was responding to Patrioteer's examples of supposed lies by Obama, MrD burped up a few more attempts. Let's wipe those off of his chin.

MrD: "Thank you, Patrioteer, for citing examples of Obama's lies.">>

Unfortunately, they failed upon review. Apparently, like you, he didn't know what a "lie" was either.

MrD: "Everyone who knows what he says knows he is a liar's liar.">>

Actually, that's not true. Very few people would say they "know he is a liar." And apparently no one can give us an example that actually holds up. Best to not say things that are so obviously false when you are trying to make a case about honesty MrD.
Isn't it interesting how those who take up the task of trying to show someone else is a liar so often end up quickly impugning their own truthfulness?

MrD: "One lie he told is that people would have an choice to keep their insurance. Not true.">>

Like the vast majority of people, I have kept and will continue to keep my same insurance. So are you lying MrD, or are you just incredibly misinformed? It's hard to tell.

MrD: "Another lie: lower taxes on small businesses. Not yet.">>

Let's check: "Here's the list of 17 small business tax cuts that President Obama has signed into law --"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/0...

Are you lying MrD, or are you vastly misinformed?

MrD: "Obama supporters are apparently as dishonest as he is.">>

"Apparently?" Where is your example? Yet another claim/smear without even an attempt to support it. Your level of honesty has already been reveal in just this thread (or perhaps you just like to go on about things you have no understanding of).

Got anything else?

[racist "tokenism." smear deleted]

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 27, 2011 at 11:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pat has a wee bit more kick in him. He thinks he can save his Selma example. Good for him!

PAT: "Let's just address this lie. I presented four of them, which you tried and failed to spin,">>

Actually, you should be honest and admit exactly how your examples failed. That would show integrity on your part and that you can learn new things. Let's review:

You tried the "Obama said he wasn't going to run for president" bit. Now to show a lie, as per *your definition* you would need to show that when he said that, he knew he was going to run. Have you showed this? Of course not. It is entirely possible, and in fact quite likely, that he thought he wasn't going to run and truthfully said he wasn't going to run, and then later changed his mind. People do that.
So Pat, please be honest here and show the fortitude and courage to admit what everyone can see is the case anyway: you have not demonstrated what you need to with this example to show a lie. Be honest and admit it.

PAT: "Direct quote from [Obama's] speech: [snip]>>

Okay, got it.

PAT: "obama was born in 1961 and the Selma march was in 1965. What part of the direct quote do you not understand?">>

All of it. I see a person speaking about events about half a century ago, and getting his order of events wrong. Were you aware that people make mistakes? You must be because you have made a couple in just your few posts. Now imagine of you were speaking about something 50 years ago? You would probably get it all wrong! If it's a mistake, it isn't a lie. You need a lie, not a mistake.

PAT: "Either obama is "not smarter than a fifth grader", or he lied.">>

Thank you for conceding your point entirely by revealing you are aware there is another possibility other than a lie. Case closed. Next.

PAT: "How is it possible to... not know the history you are preaching about?">>

When speaking about events 50 years ago, sometimes a person makes a boo in the detail of the order of events. Obama gives thousands of speeches. If you consider them all it is *inevitable* that some are going to contain mistakes (Bush said about one stupid thing per day). So what you have here is a mistake in dates. Easy.

PAT: "The event mentioned in this quote is either a lie, or the truth.">>

False dichotomy. You've already admitted that it doesn't have to be one of those two options (see how soon you forget?). Looks like a mistake to me. You needed a lie. If you've got a lie you think you can support and defend, I'd love to see it.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 27, 2011 at 11:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer--

Why is it that conservatives don't read reference material? Would you read the Snopes link if Faux News told you to?

You need to read the whole speech for meaning, not read selected bits that bring you to an incorrect conclusion. The Snopes link given above doesn't quote the whole speech, but it quotes much of it, and explains why your argument is incorrect.

Pandering? Arguably. Lying? No.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 27, 2011 at 11:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: I still need an answer. Was it a lie or not? Did he or did he not say he was conceived during the Selma march of 1965. It's not that difficult.

You said: "a mistake in dates". Are you kidding me? You are saying he is so dumb he doesn't know that 1961 comes before 1965? Really?

And then you come up with the witty, yet irrelevant, comeback that "Bush said about one stupid thing per day ". No citations? You always admonish others about citations. Where are yours? You can't just lay that out there and not support it. Since you said "one stupid thing per day", I'm going to need to see 2922 examples. ( I'm adding a couple of days for leap years during his presidency) Or are you not going to provide that which you make fun of others for omitting?

Here is your quote to MrD as you stated above: FFT: "Apparently?" Where is your example? Yet another claim/smear without even an attempt to support it."

Hmmm...and this is different, how?

Obama told a lie, plain and simple. He was almost old enough to remember the Selma march himself.

You just aren't man enough to admit that your hero lied.

And... campaign promises turn into lies when the politician who made them gets into office and fails to fulfill them, even though those promises are ones that could be fulfilled.

Posted by: patrioteer

October 27, 2011 at 12:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

alpha: You need to read the whole speech and not rely on Snopes for your conclusions. I provided the link for you.

You and FFT seem to be challenged when it comes to reading comprehension. Unless, of course, it suits your purposes.

Posted by: patrioteer

October 27, 2011 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer--

RE "Was it a lie or not? Did he or did he not say he was conceived during the Selma march of 1965."

No, it was not a lie. The speech referred to the entire Civil Rights movement, starting with the Montgomery bus strike. It was civil rights action from the mid-1950s on that encouraged Obama's father to move to the United States, and encouraged Obama's parents to have children.

Here's another excerpt fro the speech in question:
"Yet something happened back here in Selma Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called 'ripples of hope around the world.' Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children. When men with PhD's decided that's enough and we're going to stand up for our dignity. That sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance."

Are you so desperate that you have to use parts of a clearly misleading editorial in order to make a point? Must you pin your hopes on a lack of understanding of the difference between newspaper writing and oratory? Are you so desperate that you have to believe that Obama would be stupid enough to lie so obviously? Your argument to the contrary, we can't all be that stupid.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 27, 2011 at 3:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

PAT: "Was it [Selma] a lie or not?">>

You are the one trying to establish lie and you've already admitted that it may have been a mistake (may have been "not smarter than a fifth grader"). Thus you conceded your own case at that point. Game over, Elvis has left the building, thanks for coming out.

PAT: "You are saying he is so dumb he doesn't know that 1961 comes before 1965?">>

No, that is not in contention. What is, is whether he happened to remember at that point the exact year of the Selma event. You've already admitted he may have been mistaken, thus your attempt to establish a lie here, evaporates. Get over it.

PAT: "you said "one stupid thing per day">>

No, I said "about." So are you lying, or are you "dumber than a 5th grader" and incapable of quoting me correctly? Obama made a mistake about an event 1/2 a century ago, and you can't keep your facts straight from something posted a few hours ago and is sitting right in front of your face. Amazing isn't it? As anyone can see, I *specifically* said: "(Bush said about one stupid thing per day)." I said that because I had one of the calendars that had a stupid comment from him for each day of the year. I think I had them two years running. Sometimes he would skip a few days and then get caught up (curiously, there is no such calendar for Clinton, because he wasn't an idiot).

PAT: "No citations?">>

You need me to spoon feed you a pile of Bushisms? I can do that.

PAT: "Since you said "one stupid thing per day", I'm going to need [a bunch]">>

I informally said "about." I was rounding. Here, don't get up, let me google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bushisms
Scroll down to the Slate compilation. It has 718 examples. That should be a good start for ya.

PAT: "Or are you not going to provide that...">>

I am always happy to provide a reference upon request.

PAT: "campaign promises turn into lies when the politician... fails to fulfill them,">>

Sorry, that doesn't follow. Did papa Bush lie when he said "read my lips?" No, he no doubt was sincere when he said it. He would have had the intent to deceive when he said it, for it to be a lie. Circumstances changed and he did the right thing and adjusted to reality. When he made the comment, he wasn't necessarily lying. Perhaps you should read your own definition again.

Now the only question is, are you going to be honest and have the integrity to admit your examples fall short of *establishing* that a lie occurred? Or are you, rather ironically, going to be dishonest about an issue regarding truthfulness? We'll see. Can't wait.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 27, 2011 at 3:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ALPHA: "Here's another excerpt fro the speech in question: [snip]
Are you so desperate that you have to use parts of a clearly misleading editorial in order to make a point?">>

Wow. Thanks for taking the time to clearly point out just how stupid and dishonest this example truly is. Breathtaking desperation.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 27, 2011 at 3:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT and Alphakitty: You are two of the most dishonest liberals I have ever had the misfortune of debating. I don't think you are necessarily dumb, just enormously dishonest.

I didn't quote an editorial. Do either of you even know the difference between an editorial and a complete transcript of an entire speech? Didn't think so. If you two intellectuals would take the time to read, you would see that the quote and link I provided was directly from obama's entire speech. He lied. End of story. School's out. Try to keep up.

Neither of you are worth the time it takes to type a coherent answer. I only bother because it shows others how desperate you liberals have become.

I know...why don't you meet up on Saturday's and plot how you can band together and make idiotic and condescending replies to Christian conservatives who bother to make comments. Oh wait, you already do that.

Posted by: patrioteer

October 28, 2011 at 3:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

patrioteer--

RE "You are two of the most dishonest liberals I have ever had the misfortune of debating. I don't think you are necessarily dumb, just enormously dishonest."
I didn't know you hadn't read Mr. Hollrah's editorial, so it was not dishonest of me to suggest that you had. Remember: dishonesty is deliberate; you seem to have trouble with the definition. Indeed, as a practitioner of dishonesty, you appear to rely more on luck than expertise.

RE "I didn't quote an editorial. Do either of you even know the difference between an editorial and a complete transcript of an entire speech?"
If you can read a whole speech and not understand the difference between oratory and reporting, then you're even more impaired than I thought.

RE "Neither of you are worth the time it takes to type a coherent answer."
That would explain your lack of coherence.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 28, 2011 at 5:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

PAT: "You are... dishonest...">>

You forgot to provide an example.

PAT: "enormously dishonest.">>

When you get through with your softball attempts at trying to show the president lied, do take a moment to support this assertion if you're up for it. That would be the honest thing to do. I would never claim someone is dishonest without having really good evidence in stock.

PAT: "I didn't quote an editorial.">>

That doesn't matter in the least. The notion that this speech contained a lie was popularized in an editorial by Paul R. Hollrah, as the snopes article points out. Do avoid the pretense of pretending it is the case that you regularly read Obama's speeches.

PAT: "He lied.">>

But you already admitted that he may have made a mistake. *You* gave us the following dichotomy:

"Either obama is "not smarter than a fifth grader", or he lied."

If he may have made a mistake, then you have not established a lie according to the definition you provided. *You* provided an alternative to it being a lie.

Earlier I put forward this question:

"...are you going to be honest and have the integrity to admit your examples fall short of *establishing* that a lie occurred? Or are you, rather ironically, going to be dishonest about an issue regarding truthfulness?"

And, no surprise, we have our answer.

D.
---------------
"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 28, 2011 at 5:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wow FFT, great comeback.

It's a good thing nobody reads these comments. Yours make you look really silly.

You obviously can't comprehend what you read, or maybe you don't really read it.

You're a charlatan, and a boring one at that. I have this theory that you're a middle school student on mom's computer...but that's a different discussion we'll save for later.

Now, please type a whole bunch of gibberish in rebuttal so you can impress...who?

Posted by: patrioteer

October 29, 2011 at 12:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

PAT: "It's a good thing nobody reads these comments.">>

You wish.

And with a couple of dry pumps and a squeak from his toy water pistol, "patrioteer" gives up on his endeavor to establish that the good president has lied. I think that went well.

Perhaps he should make sure he has a little water for his squirt gun next time?

D.
--------------
"I think it's very important for the American President to mean what he says. That's why I understand that the enemy could misread what I say. That's why I try to be as clearly I can." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 23, 2004

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 29, 2011 at 11:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT on unemployment: "Talking points, proposed extended graphs through 2016, more talking points, more dividing of the masses, more 'he created and saved, or saved and created, or created then crucified then raised from the dead, or changed the phase of the moon in relation to the brightness of venus.............."

You are so full of BS. The bottom line is unemployment has increased by nearly 2%. That is what the American worker who has no job cares about. You can spout all of the reasons why your messiah has done all the right things, but the bottom line is we have millions of Americans who have no job due to his ineptness. Try to split the hairs all you want......bottom line is your hero is a failure. A little over 13 months to go...........

Posted by: commonsense96

November 1, 2011 at 10:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Poor commonsense, reduced to irrelevancy through nonstop errors and a big step on the rake in every post. Being some variation of conservative extremist, you really don't want to talk about jobs or the job creation record, because that record is all against you. See examples 1-5 given to you above on the 25th:

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/oc...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 3, 2011 at 8:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT keeps his head stuck in the sand once again. Unemployment is up by nearly 2%. That is the bottom-line. Underemployment is up as well. What that clearly means (and what FFT clearly cannot see with so much sand in his eyes) is that we have lost more jobs than have been created. So to explain this in professorial terms, fewer people have jobs as a percent of the population than they did nearly 3 years ago. Maybe we should spend another trillion or two on welfare and guaranteed green job loans and get this thing fixed..............

Poor FFT, reduced to irrelevancy through nonstop stupidity and a blatant disregard for the facts.....

Posted by: commonsense96

November 3, 2011 at 11:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my sincerest apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "What that clearly means...is that we have lost more jobs than have been created."
What that clearly means is that the "job creators" aren't creating jobs, and the government needs to step in and create some jobs, then get a refund from the "job creators" for not performing as promised.

That's what the government gets for paying in advance for something to be done. Silly Republicans.

Posted by: AlphaCat

November 3, 2011 at 11:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha - jobs are created when there is an increased need or desire for goods and services. Businesses will add jobs to fill that need. The whole thing is psychological. Obama preached for months after taking office that we were in the worst recession since the great depression. People quit spending money. Businesses lost sales. Employees were laid-off. Really very simple. He convinced Americans that they needed to stop spending money and created the chaos he needed to pass his welfare (i mean stimulus) and healthcare bills. Now he has no idea what to do except play golf and chase a green initiative with our dollars guaranteeing loans to poor business models. Of course, if you have never run anything other than a campaign, it is easy to not have a clue.

As for your comment:

"That's what the government gets for paying in advance for something to be done. Silly Republicans."

How soon you forget....Demos controlled the house, senate, and white house for the first two years of the messiah's presidency. They controlled both houses of congress for the last two years of Bush's reign. Whether you like it or not, the Donkey's own this thing....

Posted by: commonsense96

November 4, 2011 at 1:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my sincerest apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "Now he has no idea what to do except play golf and chase a green initiative with our dollars guaranteeing loans to poor business models."
Unlike Bush, who spent so much time on vacation, and whose administration created that loan program and tried to rush the Solyndra application through. How soon you forget. Refresh your memory here: http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/oc...

RE "How soon you forget....Demos controlled the house, senate, and white house for the first two years of the messiah's presidency."
Irrelevant. I referred to the Bush tax cuts.

Posted by: AlphaCat

November 4, 2011 at 2:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

commonsense96 (with my sincerest apologies to Thomas Paine)--

RE "The whole thing is psychological. Obama preached for months after taking office that we were in the worst recession since the great depression."
It's always easy to tell that you slurp up whatever drivel Faux News effluviates:
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/20111005...
(among others)

The recession has been described as the worst since the depression since mid-2008. Obama was elected based in part on that fact. It's a shame that the Republican Party and the "job creators" have set out to prove that it is true.

From the interview: "What doctor would say to a patient, "M'yeah-- you know what? Things don't look so good."?
An honest one. An intelligent patient listens to his doctor. Republicans aren't intelligent patients.

Posted by: AlphaCat

November 4, 2011 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Obama was elected through lies and misconceptions along with being vette proof. No one certainly the media had not one question. They were too busy slobbering. If many of you democrats were right I should go out and spend, spend and spend. Till I get out of debt, certainly. Doesn't everyone do that? No, they don't. It's called AHCL and you go to jail. This government has been sucking the life out of tax payers for years. Government is not the solution, government "is" the problem. The last thing after a knock at the door that you want to hear is "We're here from the government, we're here to help. I conclude I understand liberals little and it's apt to stay that away. The only subjects of merit from liberals are what they stand for, abortion and homosexuality. That's it. Conservatives are the host and liberals are what feeds on the host. The only problem with this is that you're killing the host. Do you not understand that?

Posted by: flatspots479

November 7, 2011 at 9:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FLAT: "Obama was elected through lies...">>

You forgot to bring an example flatspot. The record of conservatives backing up their charge of "lying" around here has consistently belly flopped.

FLAT: "No one certainly the media had not one question.">>

Good point. "Not one question" was asked of Obama, certainly by the media.
One wonders how conservatives find it useful to so consistently say things that even they know to be completely untrue.

FLAT: "This government has been sucking the life out of tax payers for years.">>

Actually, tax collection is at a sixty year low:
"Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports."
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/arc...

And the US is a very low tax country, see the following: "Ten Charts that Prove the United States Is a Low-Tax Country"
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

FLAT: "I understand liberals little and it's apt to stay that away.">>

Perhaps a dictionary would be useful:
liberal: Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded” --American Heritage

Having little understanding is not a condition to be desired. Fortunately, I understand conservatives quite well.

FLAT: "The only subjects of merit from liberals are what they stand for,">>

That actually includes quite a few things.

FLAT: "abortion and homosexuality.">>

But you are so used to spinning these issues you probably can't even see that the issue of abortion largely addresses a woman's right to control her body, and homosexuality regards the right of a group to be treated with full equality. You might consider why it is so important to you and your world view, to consistently work to trample upon the rights of women and minorities.

FLAT: "Conservatives are the host and liberals... feeds on the host.">>

If there were some truth to your claim we should find that the conservative states contribute more, while the liberal states take more than they contribute. What is the reality? The exact opposite:

"There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes... those in blue states are subsidizing those in red states." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra...

Also: http://scatter.wordpress.com/2009/02/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 7, 2011 at 11:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

And a couple more points to help Flatspot out who confesses he: "understand liberals little and it's apt to stay that away."

FLAT: "The only subjects of merit from liberals are what they stand for, abortion and homosexuality.">>

While it's true that liberals stand for women's rights and their ability to have control over their body, and also the right of everyone who is gay to have full and equal rights, it's not remotely true these are the "only subjects of merit" that liberals stand for. Here are a few others as nicely summarized by Joe Conason:

***
"Liberal policies made America the freest, wealthiest, most successful and most powerful nation in human history. Conservatism in power always threatens to undo that national progress, and is almost always frustrated by the innate decency and democratic instincts of the American people...
If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights -- you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable -- you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family -- you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn't black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green -- you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society -- you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances.
The country we know and love today was built by those victories for liberalism -- with the support of the American people." --Joe Conason

Hope this helps.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

November 7, 2011 at 11:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )