What?! Lee voted for Dino Rossi?!!! I never knew. I guess that’s just one of those uncomfortable questions that never comes up in polite society… you know, like, “Do you find your sister sexy?” or “Who’s your favorite actor on the sit-com Two and a Half Men?”
As for his anti-Gregoire screed, Lee warned me last night that he had this particular post in the hopper, giving me the opportunity to edit or nix it in advance, but I chose not to even read it before it went live. Lee has the same deal here as the rest of my HA co-bloggers: he can write on whatever he wants whenever he wants, and in exchange, I can yank his posting privileges without warning. Nobody edits me, and I’m not about to edit them. I always knew Lee was one of those weird libertarianish kinda guys, and I never expected to agree with everything he posted, but he’s a sharp analyst and an entertaining writer, and that’s exactly what we shoot for here on HA.
But, you know, it is possible to go too far.
The impetus for Lee’s post is Gov. Gregoire’s comment on former Gov. Booth Gardner’s proposed assisted suicide initiative: “I find it on a personal level, very, very difficult to support assisted suicide.” To Lee, the governor’s position is hypocritical or worse:
I find it extremely difficult to understand how a person can see abortion as a fundamental right, but also see the right for a terminally ill individual to control their own death as being subject to other people’s moral qualms.
[…] As I was researching this post and looking for Gregoire’s past statements on abortion, you’ll find that it’s nearly impossible to find statements directly from her that affirm her support for a woman’s right to choose. In fact, this page reports that she told Archbishop Brunett in the meeting referenced above that as a Catholic, she was “against abortion.” At this point, I have no idea who’s really telling the truth. But what I do know is that if she really is pro-choice, her stance on assisted suicide clearly makes her a hypocrite. If I had to guess, I’d say her stance on assisted suicide is the real Gregoire and her pro-choice position is a pander.
I wholeheartedly agree with Lee in supporting assisted suicide legislation, but I think he jumps to conclusions regarding Gov. Gregoire’s position, and in general fails to display his usual sense of nuance. Gov. Gregoire told reporters that “on a personal level” she finds it difficult to support assisted suicide — but that doesn’t necessarily mean she would actively oppose Gov. Gardner’s initiative. Likewise, I find no hypocrisy in an elected official personally being “against abortion” yet fully supporting a woman’s legal right to choose. In fact, I’ve always assumed that as a practicing Catholic Gov. Gregoire accepts her church’s teaching that abortion under any circumstance is a sin. The significant difference between Rossi and Gregoire on this issue is that he would seek to impose his own morality through force of law, whereas she would not.
Without a doubt, the modern American politician I admire most is former Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, a liberal icon and a devout Catholic who spoke thoughtfully and eloquently on this very issue. It has been well over a decade since I last read the text of the speech he gave at the University of Notre Dame on September 13, 1984 — “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective” — but with the GOP having since transformed itself into the Pro-Life Party and the defender of a Christianist America, Gov. Cuomo’s remarks are more pertinent now than ever. In this speech the governor reveals himself to be profoundly reverent of unborn life, and yet he distinguishes between his private role as a Catholic and his role as a public official:
As Catholics, my wife and I were enjoined never to use abortion to destroy the life we created, and we never have. We thought Church doctrine was clear on this, and – more than that – both of us felt it in full agreement with what our hearts and our consciences told us. For me, life or fetal life in the womb should be protected, even if five of nine Justices of the Supreme Court and my neighbor disagree with me. A fetus is different from an appendix or a set of tonsils. At the very least, even if the argument is made by some scientists or some theologians that in the early stages of fetal development we can’t discern human life, the full potential of human life is indisputably there. That – to my less subtle mind – by itself should demand respect, caution, indeed…reverence.
But not everyone in our society agrees with me and Matilda.
[…]The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.
I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or non-believer, or as anything else you choose.
We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us.
I do not ask Gov. Gregoire or any other politician to endorse my moral perspective or keep silent on their own, I only expect that they respect my right to act on my perspective freely. Likewise, I don’t expect Gov. Gregoire to hold the same legislative priorities as I do, and given the political reality, even a legislative attempt at codifying assisted suicide would not only be unlikely, it would almost certainly come back to voters in the form of a referendum. Gov. Gregoire was asked about assisted suicide and she honestly answered that “on a personal level” she would find it very difficult to support. I have no problems with that as long as she does not use the power and influence of her office to oppose the initiative.
As for Lee’s further critique, that Gov. Gregoire ran “a hollow campaign with no ideas,” and “nearly always reverts to the most authoritarian solutions”… well… I think he overstates the situation. She did not run a very compelling campaign in 2004 (hence Rossi’s near victory) and she’s not the kind of progressive champion most of us bloggers would prefer. But overall, within the pragmatic scheme of things, she’s been a good governor… and certainly far, far better than the alternative.
Lee voices regrets over his protest vote for Rossi, but says that at this point he can’t vote for Gregoire either. On this point and others, Lee is wrong. But as long as he doesn’t try to impose his beliefs on me, I’ll gladly permit him to continue posting his wrong beliefs here on HA.
Nice
Lee, you ignorant slut…
Lee, you are so dead to me now!
Hey Lee, maybe YOU should run for governor…
First, both of my sisters are hot.
Second, I think “hollow campaign with no ideas” is a better description of (a) Rossi 2008, or (b) Reichert 2004/2006/2008 (and possibly KingCo Sheriff, because he ran against an authoritarian wacko no sane person would vote for—who needs ideas then?).
I`m curious as to when Lee is going to be graduating from junior high school
@5
Actually, thanks to Lou Guzzo, the Rossi 2008 campaign has plenty of ideas. For instance, today he argues that we need to return to alcohol prohibition:
http://www.whackynation.com/?p=1322
Don’t most Republicans date their sisters? They can’t get a date with anyone else. Take Josef the Dinocrat, for example. He pined away for Pimples on this board for months, but was too chickenshit to call her up (or e-mail her) and ask for a date — and next thing he knew, she was married! I hope he’s got a sister to fall back on.
Well, if a Republican doesn’t have a sister, I suppose he could always buy a goat.
Why do we need a law legalizing suicide? I mean, if you break the law, what can they do to you?
This one-issue voters sure are annoying — but I want to know if Nickels is going to support or oppose carving a sovereign Rabbit Kingdom out of Green Lake and Woodland Parks ….
“In fact, this page reports that she told Archbishop Brunett in the meeting referenced above that as a Catholic, she was ‘against abortion.'”
I don’t see any conflict of positions here, Lee. It’s possible to be personally against something yet support the doctrine of non-interference. I’m against abortion on moral and religious grounds, but I’m also against using the power of government and law to impose my values on others who don’t share my beliefs.
I do, however, see an incongruity between politically supporting a right to choose to have an abortion and politically opposing a right to choose not to continue living with the agony and debility of a terminal illness. I can’t figure that out. I don’t see how one could support the one but not the other, except at a gut level by reacting emotionally instead of thoughtfully to the issue.
But, like I said above, if you decided that you’ve had it with this world and opt for a Hemingway exit, what can they do to ya, besides clean up the mess?
If you asked him at one time, Giuliani would tell you he thought his cousin was sexy.
Now he thinks she’s a bitch.
“We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us.”
This is something wingnuts and fundies just don’t get, and since they want to fight a civil war with us, after we win I think we should force them all to become nativists, go around on all fours, and eat grass.
You gotta wonder about anyone who thinks he needs a bureaucrat’s okay to blow his own brains out. Why not just bypass the Legislature and go straight to the gun cabinet? Hemingway didn’t ask anyone’s permission.
Goldy,
Lee told me he voted for Rossi at one of the earliest Drinking Liberally gatherings at the Montlake Alehouse (during the election contest, it was).
Since then, I’ve teased him about it whenever the opportunity arises; but, I never considered going so far as to post about it on the front page of HA!
I want everyone to know that I have lots of sisters eager to date! For more information, call 1-800-HOP-DATE.
@17 It’s strange he publicly admitted it. Voting for Rossi is somewhat like raping your sister — it’s not the sort of thing most people would own up to. Now he’s going to bear the mark of Dino for the rest of his life.
” … one of those weird libertarianish kinda guys …”
Actually one of those weird kinda guys who could only get a date with his goat’s sister. De(Lee)te him and MoveOn.
@20 Who asked for YOUR opinion? I didn’t.
Mea maxima culpa. Pleeeeeeze ask for my opinion.
I think Lee adds some useful insights to this blog – I don’t agree with voting for Rossi – but I am glad Lee is here.
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
24 – We’ve already matched you – with your hand!
I don’t know…if Lee has (some seemingly poorly thought-out) issues with Gregoire, perhaps he is suffering from a bit of sexism. Wouldn’t be uncommon (even Goldy posts sexist comments with some regularity). I’m not accusing Lee, just suggesting a little self-examination wouldn’t hurt.
On many issues I find Lee’s posts thoughtful and interesting – plus it can be fun to watch him torment the trolls. So I will forgive him for voting for Rossi once. I’ve made some votes that I’m sure people would love to taunt me about as well, and like Lee’s Rossi vote, they ended up not mattering one tiny bit as far as the final outcome was concerned.
@13: Not much, but only if you succeed in the mission.
Goldy, speaking of “authoritarian approaches” how come nobody seems to have noticed the Gov’s proposal to re-establish sobriety check points? The left (if that’s where she is) and the right are becoming indistinguishable. Now they both contend that civil liberty is a luxury we can’t afford.
I can’t imagine having to live with oneself after having voted for Dino Rossi. The guilt, shame, humiliation would lead anyone to therapy. Perhaps, in coming out with this wretched secret, Lee is taking the first step toward getting better–that of confession through public acknowledgment of sin. Good luck, Lee. You’ll be in our prayers.
@28
Click through to the post I wrote. I linked to it, even though I didn’t explicitly mention it. That decision by her was fuel for my anti-Gregoire tirade as much as the assisted suicide stuff.
Upshot: It’s okay to be against abortion as long as you’re FOR it.
Uh huh.
..or in other words: I’t s okay to be against abortion as long as you’re FOR other people tearing to pieces and killing their own child.
Frankly, I don’t see that as a sensible or logical position.
#29: Personally, I did vote for Rossi and i feel absolutely great about it.
Mickey,
It’s never too late to get aborted.
Personally, I like Jon Cryer on Two And A Half Men. He has a way with the physical aspects of comedy that make me laugh. Great pratfalls.
As for Lee, well this blog is about expressing opinion. We don’t all always agree. But as liberals, tolerance is supposed to be supporting plank in our platform.
Practice what we preach. Goldy has done a great job at that. Well, not so much if you ask JCH. Boy…..those were the good old days.
Lee …
Who woulda thunk? My respect for you has gone even higher.
I voted for Rossi for three reasons:
1. Her record as AG,
2, Her tainted campaign against Sims
3. Her lack of specific goals.
I do not vote against Rossi because until then every charge against him turned out to be liberal hype.
So here we of again. I agree that the Guzzo connection is BAD. OTOH,most of the catterwalling never leads to real data. Besides his being a devout catholic and have made a living sellng land, what else bad has he done?
So, could anyon here with objective issus please post them or email me? Else maybe Lee and I may need to start a Yids for Deano movement?
Welcome to the dark side, Lee. If only you’d doorbelled your precinct a bit harder, Dino would’ve been the MAN!
Were you able to get a Rossi ’08 t-shirt? Was Santa that good to you this year? I wear mine all the time!
Hey, and on that assisted suicide…don’t get the sniffles or Goldy might use it as an excuse to put you to sleep for being a GOP man; he’s a grudge holder, that one.
Assisted suicide ain’t gonna fly in Washington. When Christine Gregoire and I can find common ground, then you know it’s not about to happen in anyone’s lifetime! Interesting that it’s opposed by both the AMA and its Washignton affiliate, and by disabled people, many of whom may see this as the camel’s nose of an eventual needle in their arm or pills down their throat by those who find their continued presence “inconvenient.”
“Not Dead Yet,” representative Joelle Brouner, a disabled person, sounded as though she resented implicitely having a target painted upon her back by assisted suicide/euthenasia advocates:
“Critics, including doctors and disability-rights advocates, say assisted suicide laws could exploit depressed or vulnerable people who feel their condition is too great a hardship or economic burden for relatives.
Opponents also said the measure opens the door to euthanasia, and argued that a doctor’s prediction of a six-month life expectancy can be inaccurate.
‘I think it’s a mistake for the people of Washington to accept death as a progressive health care policy,’ said Joelle Brouner of the disability-rights group Not Dead Yet.”
http://www.komotv.com/news/local/13566282.html
Speaking of the devil, Karl Rove had some complimentary things to say about HRC and her NH victory.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPol.....0109e.html
Didn’t I say on another thread that it’s only a matter of time before she goes Rovian?
The Piper
@35…Carl…
“But as liberals, tolerance is supposed to be supporting plank in our platform.”
Cough…cough…cough…gag…gag…gag…ack…ack…ack!!!
The Piper
@33: Mickey w/out a clue
Rossi is a blowhard in the pocket of the BIAW – if you are proud of voting for his record of anti-environmentalism and free (sic) trade then you must love:
floods (no logging regulations)
tainted toys (no federal or state standards)
whining complaints about elections (whining losers)
no funds for public schools (don’t need no education)
big breaks for timber companies (the money growing company?)
no rules for developers (overcrowded and sprawl in the burbs = californication)
increased traffic congestion (no money to fix roads or build transit)
Anti-abortion judges and full jails
Creationism in the schools (although he won’t say it out loud)
Tax breaks for big corporations – retrogressive sales tax for the rest of us.
Failing infrastructure and shortsighted policies
Both posts are quite well written. I welcome the return of quality to HA.
@37
Critics, including doctors and disability-rights advocates, say assisted suicide laws could exploit depressed or vulnerable people who feel their condition is too great a hardship or economic burden for relatives.
Has it happened in Oregon, Einstein?
Were you able to get a Rossi ‘08 t-shirt? Was Santa that good to you this year? I wear mine all the time!
Did the card say “Here’s Yer Sign”?
@5
“First, both of my sisters are hot.”
Are they single and in their mid to late 30’s?
@41…Curley Joe…
Can’t say since they destroy the records down there. More from disability rights activist, Joelle Brouner:
“Physician-assisted suicide is less about choice or pain management than power. If legalized, physician-assisted suicide will inevitably align the power of the state, big money interests and a broken medical system. If the state sanctions the participation of medical professionals in the killing of patients, the matter transcends the individual who dies. We cannot divorce ourselves from policy decisions made in our name. As citizens, we would all be complicit, by extension, in these deliberate deaths.
Even under the best circumstances, people face disadvantages in navigating state and medical systems. Is it reasonable to expect a person to negotiate with these powerful interests at a time when he or she is likely to have the least energy or emotional reserve? These circumstances are ripe for abuse.
Some who support physician-assisted suicide argue that Oregon- style safeguards will prevent abuses. But in Oregon, the records regarding implementation of physician-assisted suicide are destroyed. There is no way to independently audit them. We are left to trust that the records were accurate and the people who recorded them were truthful.”
http://www.theolympian.com/opi.....27080.html
Wow! Pretty strong indictment, if you ask me. Ms. Brouner makes it sound almost like routine governmental policies in Washington State, what with all the obfuscation and attempts to keep public records from the public.
Why, just a few days ago SCOW endorsed keeping public records of the death of a child hid from view.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....rds28.html
At this rate, we can change the motto to: Washington, The Everghoul State.
Assisted suicide ain’t gonna happen…the voters will find it creepy beyond belief, and people like Joelle Brouner will lead the way to stop it.
The Piper
@42…ATJ…
You’re confused…You’ve got it mixed up with your standard Aurora Avenue skanky tavern pick up line: What’s yer sign?
How’s that payin’ out for ya?
The Piper
@44
Actually, the answer you’re looking for is no. In ten years, the hysterical nannies you reference have not been able to locate a single incident where a person was pressured against their will to commit suicide. And the privacy provisions they have down there make a lot of sense when you understand how fervently you, Governor Gregoire and the Nanny State brigades fear this common sense policy.
I have real trouble grasping how those who claim to be “pro-life” could be against assisted suicide. Oregon’s law provides dignity, and personal liberty, to those who have lost most everything else. Shorn of choices, life is meaningless. Having had to participate in the wrenching decision to pull my mother off life support (in a state, Idaho, where such was illegal, but we had a compassionate doctor), I have some awareness of the painful considerations that go into a conscious determination to end life. Prolonging life at whatever cost, against the wishes of those who matter, hardly seems compassionate. “Life” simply because it is “life” is not the endall human value. The government has no place in involving itself in the end of life decisions that are addressed in Oregon’s assisted suicide law.
When Piper gets ill, the present dementia notwithstanding, I will be there to comfort him and hold his hand as he passes to the darkest, deepest, fiery reaches of hell.
Then, I am going to party like its 1999. (Call it a Wake, but it is still a party).
[Deleted – off topic]
Dignity is all we really ever own in this life. It is the only thing that leaves with us when we pass. All the possessions are nothing more than rentals when you really think about it.
I don’t want to linger, to be a financial burden, to be an emotional burden to my family or (gasp) the state. All I want to do is to have the choice. Nothing more. Just give me the choice to leave with my dignity and a sense of control over my life. The key words being MY LIFE.
No one can argue with that. The plausible argument simply does not exist.
Note to Piper: I really don’t wish you ill will. Ask your sons if they would provide you the means to end your life if you requested it given that you were terminal, in pain and suffering no end. I would bet that both would tell you that they would honor your request. Neither would impose his values on you. Ask ’em, I dare you.
MLF @ 50: “Note to Piper: I really don’t wish you ill will. Ask your sons if they would provide you the means to end your life if you requested it given that you were terminal, in pain and suffering no end. I would bet that both would tell you that they would honor your request. Neither would impose his values on you. Ask ‘em, I dare you.”
Well-said. But, the small government conservatives who post here, and who claim to be civil libertarians, believe that if Piper’s sons honored such request, they should be prosecuted and imprisoned. So, much for family values . . .
@47…PL…
No question, end of life decisions are awful, especially when they concern a parent. I watched my mother die of lung cancer in 1993…literally watched her die, then turn gray and cold.
She had signed a DNR and asked that extraordinary life saving measures not be used, and that choice was respected.
Her life ended naturally; she breathed her last at exactly the appointed time her body could no longer survive – not one second before or one second after.
I believe that each of us is appointed a certain number of days, and that it’s wrong to juggle the books on that number. That I might face a debilitating or awful illness isn’t a reason to end my life for my own purposes. Maybe how I handle my crisis might have a message for someone else.
When my mother was young, she had an extended stay in a St. Paul hospital and found herself hooked on morphine. It was a struggle for her to be shuck of it, but she did. And she was then asked to help another woman in a similar situation simply be telling her story. It worked.
I’ve watched a lot of people die long, painful, and very hard deaths. They’ve done so with dignity, grace and more courage than I’ve got. Almost without exception, family members and friends come away from those situations motivated to themselves live better lives in honor of the one who died.
We don’t choose when we come into this world, and no one should be allowed to abort that fact. Nor do we choose when we leave this world, and no one, not even ourselves, should seek to short circuit that process.
My best friend in the entire world when I was a teenager killed himself 16-months ago, and his was a tragic death that deeply hurt those he left behind. While he struggled with mental illness while going through a bitter divorce, the people who loved him were left with a pain that won’t ever go away.
His 12-year old son won’t ever recover, that’s for sure.
The beginning of life and the end through death shouldn’t be subject to the convenience of anyone.
The Piper
@50…Carl…
No offense taken…
I understand your concerns, and they’re legitimate. But I beg you to consider the value your life, even in a disabled state, might have to another…
Every moment is precious with possibility.
I will never burden my children with that level of guilt.
The Piper
Ahhhh yes Lee… Are you sure your vote for Rossi was counted?
Piper at 52:
With all due respect, your argument is based on faith and the belief that a higher being, God, exists. You can’t prove he does any more that I can prove he doesn’t.
Personal morals are just that, personal. Please explain why your personal values are more valuable than mine? Where does the religious right, and don’t deny it,Piper, you are a card carrying member, get off imposing your way on the rest of us. I am not advocating imposing anything on anyone. I am simply asking, for now, that I be afforded a very basic choice.
Look at it this way. If you are right and there is a God and suicide is a sin, your heaven is going to be a lot less crowded. Imagine all that room and your choice of halos, harps and wings.
Paradise.
Anyone who, by definition, is a Dinocrat, cannot be trusted. It also is a sure sign of low self esteem.
This is pathetic. Goldy publicly pondering whether or not to pull Lee’s posting privileges because Lee doesn’t think 100% in lockstep with him, then “generously” deciding he can stay in order to make himself seem benevolent. What a load of crap.
Piper: “That I might face a debilitating or awful illness isn’t a reason to end my life for my own purposes.”
What if you recognized that your prolonged suffering in the course of a terminable disease was causing your family too much agony? (And, don’t just say your family is above such.) What if you recognized your family’s future was being sacrificed just so you could spend another couple months of tortured existence on this old planet? And, why the hell should not individuals and families be permitted to make these decisions, rather than have the government impose itself? Now, granted, in such a position, I would not ask my son to help me out. I do have a couple friends, however, who are existential enough that I might request they lend a hand.
Piper,
It is a hypothetical question to pose to them now, not a request. I asked my son and his response was for me not to ask him unless I meant it. Because he would honor my request. He explained that I am his father, he is bound by love and honor for my position as his father. He would not feel guilty. He would be sad and at a loss. At the same time he would know that my pain was over and if there is peace after this life, secure in the knowledge I was reveling in that peace.
Every moment is a precious with possibility. How do you know there is not a lesson to be learned from my choosing to decide the time of my passing?
(For THOSE WHO LIVE AMONG US, I am talking about terminal illness, verified by multiple physicians, unabated physical pain and constant suffering. I am not referring to a bad day at the office or your wife cheating on you).
Someone who admits he is a Republican is one thing, but who wants to hear from a wolf in sheep’s clothing?
Troll at 57:
Nuance escapes you, doesn’t it? You truly believe that Goldy considered “pulling his license”? I bet you think that the chipmunk, bird and dog are singing in the car commercial too. Ain’t it good, ain’t it right, that you are will me here tonight………
You are one of THOSE WHO LIVE AMONG US. Frightening.
My smelly foot,
And you are reading, and lecturing to someone with the name of “Troll.”
Who’s the idiot?
PS, go fuck yourself.
Everyone:
I am not suggesting that we all ask our son’s help in this endeavor should the need arise. I posed the question as an ethical dilemma to point out just how feelings work. I am sure that to reverse the process, a parent being asked by a child, that the answer would be much different. Personally, I would not even consider such a request from a minor child. I would however have a more difficult time should that request be coming from an adult child.
Sue me. This is what ethical issues are about. Confusion and the unknown.
62:
You put it out there. It is what it is.
I would tell you to go fuck yourself, but you obviously lack the proper equipment. Back to Fremont with you.
Perhaps a cogent thought escapes you, but the need to prove that to us is really not necessary.
Asshole!
addendum to 64:
As to who is the idiot, you have already left no doubt.
Have a good evening. What an ignoranus.
(Note to Troll: An ignoranus is someone who is not only stupid, but an asshole too).
Republican Vandal
In the grocery store tonight, I noticed someone had gone through the entire stack of newspapers and used a ballpoint pen to deface Hillary Clinton’s picture in each and every one.
So much for respecting private property.
I’ve been involved in politics for over 40 years and have NEVER seen Democrats do that sort of thing. There’s something about Republicans that’s just … tawdry.
@39: correctnotright says:
@33: Mickey w/out a clue
Rossi is a blowhard in the pocket of the BIAW – if you are proud of voting for his record of anti-environmentalism and free (sic) trade then you must love:
Of the 52 posts to date
12 are Roger Rabbit/YLB and nonvalue added
4 Lee w/ value
1 Seattle Jew of value – Let’s do the Sabboth w/ Piper
35 Other
Let’s look at correct not right posting
floods (no logging regulations)
Booth Gardner – heir to the Weyerhaeuser fortune
“Mike” Lowry – lobbyist for Group Health Cooperative
Gary Locke laying-off thousands of state employees; reducing health coverage; freezing most state employees’ pay; and, cutting funding for nursing homes and programs for the developmentally disabled. In his final budget, Locke suspended two voter-passed, pro-school initiatives while cutting state education funding. That same state budget, though, had record-high allocations for construction projects.
Christine O’Grady criticized for failing to give much mention or credit to the efforts and achievements of past Democratic governors while touting her own public service.
tainted toys (no federal or state standards)
We’ve held the governorship since 1985
whining complaints about elections (whining losers)
Because of Chicago & Texas we’re always accussed of
election fraud
no funds for public schools (don’t need no education)
what about Gary
big breaks for timber companies (the money growing company?)
Boothe Gardener / Bill Arthur / Michael McGinn
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....wanted=all
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ra18m.html
no rules for developers (overcrowded and sprawl in the burbs = californication)
Hate Speech
increased traffic congestion (no money to fix roads or build transit)
Gardiner/Lowry/Locke/O’Grady/Locke/Sims
Anti-abortion judges and full jails
What’s the link
Creationism in the schools (although he won’t say it out loud)
Is Michael McGinn & whale killing in the schools better
Tax breaks for big corporations – retrogressive sales tax for the rest of us.
Gary Locke’s CFO? brother
Failing infrastructure and shortsighted policies
Gardiner/Lowry/Locke/O’Grady/Locke/Sims
1) We’ve had the Governorship from 1985 and King County Exec since 1993 and we have nothing to show for it
2) Ditto for Seattle and the viaduct
3) Other states have Democratic officials who do something
– Look at CA, NJ, MI, et al
4) Why can’t we do better?
5) Why did we endorse Pat Davis, Paul Schnell, John Creighton, Lloyd Hara and those other Port of Seattle bums?
I received my tax forms yesterday and noticed two pie charts in the back of the 1040A instruction booklet: One of federal income for FY2006, and one of federal outlays for FY2006.
On the “income” side, “borrowing to cover deficit” amounted to 9% and “excise, customs, estate, gift, and miscellaneous taxes” amounted to 7%. On the “outlays” side, “net interest on the debt” was 8%.
Republicans want to eliminate estate and gift taxes so the offspring and other heirs of the richest people in the country can get an even better tax-free ride than they have now. And I don’t see any groundswell of Republican support for raising other taxes to make up the revenue shortfall.
So, here’s two conclusions I draw from Republican policy positions:
1) They want to double the deficit
2) Since the category of taxes they want to eliminate is nearly equal to the interest on the national debt, they want to increase borrowing to pay the interest.
This is, of course, an unsustainable pyramid scheme — the interest payments would soon grow so large there wouldn’t be enough money in the entire world to pay them.
In other words, Republicans want to do for government what they did to the mortgage business.
PS, I stand by my #57 post. I don’t back down from it one bit. Also, still waiting for Goldy to denounce Jon Stewart for crossing the writer’s picket line.
If Lee voted for Rossi, I’m sure the King County folks looked at the ballot and made sure it was counted so as suit their needs. After all, on the third count, Queen Chrissie actually won, thanks to the help from the wonderful folks at King County elections.
So, it doesn’t matter if Lee voted for Rossi: his vote was counted the way KCE wanted it to be. Gregoire’s in office. Everyone should be happy.
#67,
Which do you think is more likely to happen? A Hummer parked in a very liberal neighborhood eventually being vandalized, or a Prius parked in a Republican neighborhood being vandalized? I think we both know the answer.
And with that, I believe I just won this argument.
“unsustainable pyramid scheme”
Like social security???
70
You keep standing. The rest of us are sitting down laughing at you. You stuck your foot in it this time.
That said, if Goldy or Lee confirms that, indeed, the a decision to pull Lee from HA was seriously considered, I will apologize.
I would not hold my breath, Trolling one.
Sucks to get nailed, don’t it?
Why Huckabee Won Iowa — And Won’t Repeat Elsewhere
“Penniless presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, is unlikely to repeat his Iowa miracle …. The reason is … he will be minus two guardian angels — talk-show hosts Jan Mickelson and Steve Deace of Iowa’s 1040 WHO radio.
“They provided him with … broadcast manna, free of charge, which is one of the reasons the … destitute Republican Huckabee miraculously surged … against better-financed candidates. …
“Mickelson broadcasts in the mornings and has about 300,000 listeners. Deace broadcasts during the afternoon drive time and has 130,000 … that’s a combined reach of … 81% of the people in the Des Moines metropolitan area. With friends like this, who needs an advertising budget?
Mickelson didn’t endorse Huckabee, but … did get involved in a highly publicized … on-air argument … with Romney …. Not only is Deace a vocal Huckabee booster, he’s also a Romney basher, arguing that Romney’s past actions … make him unfit for the presidency. He calls Romney ‘the most despicable liar ever to run for president.’
“Romney, by the way, has a unique advantage over Huckabee in New Hampshire. According to … census data, 92,000 people migrated from Massachusetts to New Hampshire between 2000 and 2005. Not one resident of Iowa or Arkansas moved to New Hampshire during this period.”
Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://online.barrons.com/arti....._home_left
72:
Let’s see. depends on where the Republican and Democrat neighborhoods are. Lets park the Hummer in Beverly Hills, a Democratic neighborhood. And lets part the Prius on Mercer Island, a Republican neighborhood.
With that, I believe I have won this argument and kicked your ass.
What a dumbshit. You are truly a special needs poster, Troll.
I’ve been involved in politics for over 40 years and have NEVER seen Democrats do that sort of thing. There’s something about Republicans that’s just … tawdry.
01/09/2008 at 6:03 pm
That was probably a black kid who is sick and tired of listening to Hillary call a black guy a drug dealer. Of course what do you expect, liberals are racist.
The same article suggest Edwards’ prospects may improve in the primaries ahead:
“John Edwards could see some manna … between here and Super … Tuesday … if gasoline prices pinch middle-class pocketbooks or if the unemployment rate climbs further. The reason: People vote their pocketbooks, and Edwards is the candidate with the loudest populist economic message. …
“Watch for the government’s December data on disposable income later this month: If it heads south, Edwards’ polling numbers will begin to head north.”
(same link as above)
“Lee voices regrets over his protest vote for Rossi, but says that at this point he can’t vote for Gregoire either.”
I’ve never understood this kind of thinking. You’re given a couple of choices and you pick the one that you think would do the better job. End of story. If you vote otherwise the one that wont do a good job might get elected. Do you want that?
I didn’t and won’t volunteer or give money to Gregoire, that’s reserved for the truly awesome people and she’s not. But heck yeah, I’ll be voting for her.
A Republican’s answer to the punitive tax rates on workers is to lower the taxes paid by the Owner class even further.
roger@67.”I’ve been involved in politics for over 40 years and have NEVER seen Democrats do that sort of thing. There’s something about Republicans that’s just … tawdry.”
good grief roger….just because you have gone through life [obviously] with your eyes closed does not mean it doesn’t happen. i couldn’t even put a sticker on my car without worrying that the tires would be slashed and the car keyed. and you know this crap happened all over washington state…western washington that is.my yard signs disappeared every time i put one out. and YOU KNOW this sort of thing happened.and it sure wasn’t republicans doing it, now was it?
so what is your “involvement” in politics??? making up fairy tales and then trying to get people to buy them?
@70 “Which do you think is more likely to happen? A Hummer parked in a very liberal neighborhood eventually being vandalized, or a Prius parked in a Republican neighborhood being vandalized? I think we both know the answer. And with that, I believe I just won this argument.”
Here’s your answer:
“RENTON – A local woman claims someone vandalized her car because of a Kerry-Edwards campaign sticker in her back window.
“Joni Job told KOMO 4 News someone put a confederate flag alongside her sticker. They also used red paint to write ‘Bush in 2004’ on her passenger side door. Job says the vandals also dented her car, causing hundreds of dollars in damage.”
Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://www.komotv.com/news/archive/4131001.html
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Got any more stupid comments?
@70 (continued) You lose — but thanks for playing.
82
Hehehehe Liberals are such pussies. Whaaaaaa someone vandalized my car. Liberals can dish it out but can’t take it. hahahahhahaha
lee……..without putting the kiss of death on you i have to tell you that i really admire the fact that you were honest about voting for rossi, but that you also explained why.
finally….a liberal that votes for what he thinks is right, instead of following the lead and walking in lock step.
he looked at the person and not the letter after their name…he looked at their record.
have any of the rest of you ever tried that?
i have……
i voted for rossi myself. i think he is going to make a wonderful next governor for you. maybe the state will get cleaned up? who knows………
gregoire would make a wonderful running mate for clinton. the only trouble is people would have to number them so they could tell bitch #1 from bitch #2……..heh heh heh
@55…Carl…
When we say something is wrong, what do we mean? Who do we arrive at an understanding of what defines, “wrong?”
We say theft is wrong. Why? We believe the suffering of children is wrong. Why? When we see an animal suffer, our revulsion is visceral, and we know it’s wrong. Why?
So often, the line between right and wrong isn’t measurable, it just is. However we derive it, each of us has a moral compass. When society collectively decides what rules are to apply to its members, it seeks to codify a sense of our collective moral compass. Of course, not everyone will agree with every collective decision, but if they’re going to continue to live within the commonweal, then they’re obliged to subordinate their own private belief to a larger one.
A somewhat crass over-generalization goes like this: It’s wrong to steal, society codifies that moral belief held by many of its members into law, someone disagrees and they steal, society then puts that person in jail.
To take your analysis to its logical conclusion, there should be absolutely no restrictions on assisted suicide or any form of suicide, for that matter. If you want it to happen, then it should happen, and anyone should be able to help you do it with impunity.
You want to go that far?
There’s not a soul in this country who will ever be perfectly “free” to make certain personal decisions. I have no right to mutilate my body, the law proscribes it.
Assisted suicide isn’t a solitary, personal act; you involve another person to serve as the agent of your death. At Common Law, per Black’s Law Dictionary, homicide is defined as:
“The killing of one human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another.”
While homicide per se isn’t a crime, felonious homicide is, and it’s defined as:
“The wrongful killing of a human being, of any age or either sex, without justification or excuse in law; of which offense there are two degrees, manslaughter and murder.”
At present the law neither justifies or excuses assisted suicide, it regards it as wrong, and “we,” through several thousand years of ethical, social, and legal experience and wisdom, acting through our representatives and the courts, regard it such that we punish those who engage in it.
With respect, that’s not much different than what we do with others who break the law.
The criminal law isn’t a matter of personal choice; the offenses are as much against society as they are the victim, hence the captioning of criminal actions: The People of the State of Washington v. John Smith.
It’s interesting that physicians in Wahington are already organizing in opposition to assisted suicide because it violates their professional ethics. “To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them,” is the relevent portion of the Hippocratic Oath that precludes medical professionals from participating in any activity even remotely associated with assisted suicide.
No question that life and death decisions are perhaps the worst to face a family, and I don’t envy any who face it. But we as a society have collectively decided that life is too precious to be taken early, even if that means that some life is prolonged in pain and suffering.
But is life ever without pain, ever without suffering?
My oldest son, the staff sergeant, is a twin. His brother died at three days. Had he lived, he would have been profoundly handicapped because of complications – read malpractice – surrounding his birth. His brothers and sisters have all expressed to me the sadness they feel over his death and how precious they regard life…all life, even life at the very end.
So my not only would I never asky my children, they would refuse to participate. They would stay by my side doing all in their power and with all their resources to minister to me because that’s the kind of men and women they are. And they know I would do the same for each of them. Money is completely secondary to whatever they need.
Let me turn the equation around and ask you to consider how you have the right to expose another to criminal liability, guilt, or any myriad of consequences necessarily associated with killing someone because you want them to help you end your life?
Here’s a thought…and this isn’t “religous”…consider the words of Dylan Thomas:
“DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT
At the end of your time, you can go in peace knowing that you ran with endurance the race set before you, while at the same time scratching and clawing and fighting all to the last moment of your time.
The Piper
@73 “Like social security???”
No. For over 75 years, Social Security has paid every beneficiary every penny of promised benefits on time.
Furthermore, in order to argue that Social Security is “insolvent” and needs to be “fixed,” Bush was forced to game the numbers: He used unrealistically pessimistic economic projections to “prove” SS would go broke (essentially by assuming there will be no economic growth for the next 5 trillion years), then turned around and used a different set of wildly optimistic growth assumptions to “prove” that today’s younger workers would come out ahead under his “private account” scheme (essentially by assuming no one ever loses money in the stock market).
The truth is, a whole LOT of democrats voted for Rossi. You can’t really deny that.
Would you rather park your Hummer with a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker in Eugene, Oregon? Or would you rather park your Prius with an Clinton/Edwards bumper sticker in Auburn? Which car would be more likely to be vandalized?
The correct answer? The Hummer. Liberals (and I am a liberal) are more intolerant of those who don’t think like themselves.
#88 social security is a bad deal for most everyone who pays into it. The rate of return is terrible for all the $$ paid in. Let people keep their portion and invest it themselves, just as they do for 401ks, etc. They’ll have a better living come retirement time. That’s a good thing (I know it’s obvious, but sometimes you have to just say it for some).
@67…RR…
Then you don’t get out too often, doofus!
I’ve had campaign signs stolen and defaced, my house egged during campaign season, my car vandalized because of bumper stickers (those were the first to go), and been shouted – read cussed at – and vilified by your “tolerance” pals.
BTW…I had a post deleted that was far less off topic than 99% of Rabbit’s on this thread…what gives?
The Piper
..and yes, today’s social security is a giant ponzi scheme, plain and simple. That’s hard for the left to admit. It’s even harder for them to admit that they’d be screaming about ANY private company that tried to do the same thing (I know I’D be keeping a huge distance between myself and any private org. that operated like that—presumably even the people at THIS blog would,as well)
Let’s be clear about something: Even if absolutely nothing is done to “fix” Social Security and benefits have to be cut below promised levels by 2042, future beneficiaries will still be better off in terms of purchasing power than today’s beneficiaries or all past beneficiaries.
That’s because SS benefits are pegged to wage growth, not inflation, and the country is continually getting more prosperous. Therefore, even if a 2042 retiree’s SS benefits were cut 25%, he’d still receive more benefits, adjusted for inflation, than today’s retirees.
Now let’s remember a couple more things about Social Security:
1) There’s no way to make accurate economic projections 35 years, and the claims that SS will become insolvent in 2042 are based on wild guesses; and
2) Relatively small adjustments now will have large effects 35 years from now, so Social Security can be strengthened by much less drastic means than the GOP’s harebrained schemes.
Of course, Republicans don’t want to save Social Security; they want to destroy it. That’s because they don’t themselves need SS, and they don’t want the working class to have it because eliminating SS would create a vast new pool of labor forced to work for any wage.
Now why would ANYONE would for a party that wants to keep you in cheap labor bondage until you’re dead?
vote for a party
#34, instead of telling me I should be torn to pieces and killed, how about adressing the logic of being against killing a child while being okay with other people killing their child?
piper…what gives?
this is the *tolerant* [cough cough] LEFT.
if they don’t agree with you they will delete you. they dream about actually being able to really DELETE you too.
how many times have you been told to drop dead on here?
or how about ,i think it was mostly roger/goldy, who was constantly talking about “reeducation camps” for conservatives……
yes…they are soooooo enlightened.
mickey@97…that would require him to think, which would require more brain cells than he has…obviously.
but you can dream….LOL.
Mickey @ 89: Not so. In overwhelming King County, Gregoire received a lopsided majority in an election with high voter turnout, but over 20,000 voters ‘took a pass’ on the governor’s race entirely. That tells me a lot of Dems didn’t vote for her, but they didn’t vote for Rossi either.
@71 Let’s review:
Winner of 2004 governor’s race: http://tinyurl.com/yop3xo
Loser of 2004 governor’s race: http://tinyurl.com/34rxs5
@92: “It’s even harder for them to admit that they’d be screaming about ANY private company that tried to do the same thing…”
Any private company that could do the same thing would be a miracle akin to the virgin birth. But what’s not to like?
1. Inflation proof guaranteed payout (rock solid)
2. Low administrative overhead (low cost, nimble)
3. Help for widows and orphans (generous)
4. Incredibly high brand loyalty (one of those intangibles that investors pay big bucks for in the private sector cf. “good will” on company balance sheets)
Even Microsoft, a government sponsored monopoly, can’t match that.
Look, Lee and Shram voted for Rossi. I don’t know much about Lee but if he’s posting here it’s really safe to assume he’s no conservative. And we know Shram’s no conservative. They are representative of a whole lot of democrats who voted for Rossi. You don’t like to admit it, but many did vote for him.
@77 What would you know? You’re just a stupid dog daydreaming about fucking a French poodle.
@79 “I didn’t and won’t volunteer or give money to Gregoire, that’s reserved for the truly awesome people and she’s not.”
In my book, a woman who rose from DSHS caseworker to governor, winning history’s biggest legal settlement along the way, and got more done in 2 years than the previous 3 governors put together, is “awesome.”
Gregoire’s next job should be in the West Wing. She’s too good for Congress.
Cur @ 77: “Of course what do you expect, liberals are racist.”
That’s it! That explains the loyalty of the black community to the Democratic Party, huh? It also explains the large number of blacks in the Republican Party.
Cur copies doughy pantload’s ‘liberals are fascists’ bullshit, and not very well at that.
@81 “you know this crap happened all over washington state…western washington that is.my yard signs disappeared every time i put one out.”
Really? That’s the ONLY case of car vandalism the local media reported during the entire 2004 campaign. I live in a neighborhood with lots of Democrats but I didn’t see any Republican yard signs get pulled down. (I did, however, see plenty of Democratic yard signs get trashed.)
Ghost is playing the old neocon liar’s game: When the facts are against them, they make shit up and lie through their teeth.
@ 102: “And we know Shram’s no conservative.”
A statement that proves you are in a political world populated by yourself only. It must be a very strange place.
I posted a bona fide media report of a Republican trashing a Democrat’s car.
Your turn.
Of course, these rightwing blowhards won’t come up with a bona fide media report of a Republican car getting vandalized in Seattle — because it didn’t happen.
@85 “a liberal that votes for what he thinks is right”
Are you kidding? That was nothing but a childish temper tantrum. But then, you wouldn’t know “right” if it bit you in the ass.
Piper:
I am not asking for impunity. I am asking for legal guidelines, Oregon has them for instance, and to simply let me make the choice. This is not a criminal act that I ask to be ignored. This is simply that the time has come for change in our law and how we deal with end of life decisions.
The baby boomer generation has made many changes in our world here in the United States. They are used to having their say. It began in the ’60s with the Civil Rights movement in places like Montgomery and Birmingham. It continued in Watts, the voting age was lowered, Vietnam protests, Women’s Liberation and so on.
Now these same people who have affirmed over and over the right to their own destiny are going to be growing old. Unfortunately some are going to get ill, terminally, painfully. They are going to demand control of their final rights. I am simply in favor of granting that control, with the appropriate caveats.
In the end you will see that this country is a left leaning centrist populace. You will disagree, I will point to control of congress as proof. They are going to have their way with this and other ethical issues.
I will affirm your right to fight the change, but in the end, though valiant your perseverance, you are going to lose this battle.
So how about it, rightys? Can you provide any proven cases of vandalism to Republican cars in the Seattle area? So far, all you’ve done is spew hot air.
@88 I do deny that. A few Democrats voted for Rossi, but not many — probably no more than the number of Republicans who voted for Gregoire. The only reason it was close in 2004 was because a gay Libertarian candidate siphoned off tens of thousands of votes that would otherwise have gone to Gregoire. Also, she did a poor job of mending her fences with the black community, which cost her more votes that normally go to the Democrat, although they probably abstained rather than vote for Rossi. (Why would blacks vote for Rossi?)
Lee sometimes extrapolates many steps beyond the conclusions his initial premise — whether true or false — would properly support.
Maybe it’s his libertarian roots. I dunno.
Mickey at 102,
“Look, Lee and Shram voted for Rossi. I don’t know much about Lee but if he’s posting here it’s really safe to assume he’s no conservative.”
Lee is a libertarian.
“And we know Shram’s no conservative.”
We do????? I thought he was a member of the Curmudgeon party.
“They are representative of a whole lot of democrats who voted for Rossi. You don’t like to admit it, but many did vote for him.”
Instead of pulling shit out of your ass based on a couple of non-representative anecdotes, and then making meaningless hand-wavy statements, why not try to quantify?
Gregoire got 1,371,153 votes (in the initial count). Suppose all Dems voted for Brad Owen (Lt. Gov.). He got 1,443,505 votes, which means 72,352 Dems voted for Rossi (or, more correctly, didn’t vote for Gregoire). That would be about 2.5% of the total vote.
Or, suppose all Dems voted for Kerry. He got 1,510,201 votes, which would imply that 139,048 Dems did not vote for Gregoire. That would be about 4.9%.
Since we don’t have party registration in Washington state, this little exercise allows us to roughly estimate that somewhere from 2.5% to 5% of Democrats did not vote for Gregoire. Some of them voted for Rossi instead.
I’m not sure I would call that a “whole lot.”
Our trolls keep claiming Democrats “stole” the election in King County. That’s utter bullshit. Every single King County ballot was hand-counted at least 3 times by at least 3 different Republican vote counters chosen by the Republican Party, and Gregoire had already won before any of the disputed ballots sent to the King County canvassing board were added to the final total.
I was there, and I know what I’m talking about.
@89 Prove it. With actual facts, not just hot air.
@112: Remember, the first Americans to leave their country rather than love it were the many Loyalists who fled to Canada during the revolutionary war. They were conservatives. Some things never change. They are cowards. They are traitors.
@113: I caught a republican kicking my ’83 chevy citation wagon once. After a bit, I decided to help him put the car out of its misery.
Rabbit @ 114 — Prominent black washingtonians did endorse and support Rossi (and not just the misguided fundy football players).
What a creepy thread.
Republican = bullshitter
@92 “Mickey says: ..and yes, today’s social security is a giant ponzi scheme, plain and simple.”
And your proof of that is what? That for over 75 years, Social Security has paid every penny of promised benefits to every beneficiary on time, and that even the system’s foes acknowledge it’s solvent for at least the next 35 years?
Thanks for playing, sap. BTW you’re as big a dope as you look.
@96 I do understand why you’re not okay with other people killing their children, but I don’t understand why you’re okay with our government killing other people’s children.
@97 “i think it was mostly roger/goldy, who was constantly talking about ‘reeducation camps’ for conservatives”
Goldy’s never come out for it, but I think it’s a good idea, although I don’t claim it’s an original idea — I admit that your side thought of it first.
@113
WASHINGTON — When Gareth Groves brought home his massive new Hummer, he knew his environmentally friendly neighbors disapproved. But he didn’t expect what happened next. The sport utility vehicle was parked for five days on the street before two masked men smashed the windows, slashed the tires and scratched into the body: “FOR THE ENVIRON.”
You asked for a Seattle example, but this was the first thing that came up on Google, and I don’t feel like spending too much time on this. I am liberal. More liberal than most of you. And even I know us liberals are more intolerant of diversity, especially diversity of thought, than other groups are.
In fact, I get all of my violent ideas from you guys. After all, I’m merely mimicking you for literary effect — to show you what assholes you are.
It never ceases to amaze me how we let a couple of trolls hijack threads. This thread is about two things it seems to me. Rossi and the Governor were mentioned, but they are not the subject.
The subjects are 1. Right to make end of life decisions and 2. The right of Goldy to poke a little fun and stir up the trolls.
Children, the whole reason for Goldy’s post, in my mind, was to publicly tease and have a little harmless fun with Lee.
I am not buying that Troll is a liberal. He might be a tool, but he is no liberal.
@92 “I know I’D be keeping a huge distance between myself and any private org. that operated like that—”
That include just about every major corporation in America today, so I assume you either work for some mom-and-pop outfit, or don’t work?
I don’t work! Why should I, when work is taxed at 32.65%, and sitting on my fat rabbit ass in front of a computer screen pushing capital from one stock to another is taxed at only 10%? Nobody in their right mind would work in a system as stacked against workers as ours is.
@34 re 96: I think he already was, but maybe he’s the afterbirth.
@126 “And even I know us liberals are more intolerant of diversity, especially diversity of thought, than other groups are.”
That must explain all the lynched members of the Socialist Workers Party I’ve seen hanging from trees on Capitol Hill lately.
@126 Just what this blog needs — another wingnut pretending to be a “liberal.” But that’s not surprising, given how tarnished the GOP brand name is nowadays. Even Republican candidates don’t want voters to know what their party affiliation is. That’s why McGavick omitted “GOP” from his yard signs and Satterberg insisted he was “nonpartisan.”
@126 (continued) You failed to provide a link, but I’ll give you a pass this time, because your news item is NOT an example of a Democrat trashing a Republican’s car. All it proves is eco-terrorists have it in for Hummer owners, but we already knew that. Eco-terrorists are radicals far out of the political mainstream who probably don’t even vote, and they certainly don’t comport their views with those of the Democratic Party or its voters. So what does this prove? Nothing, except there are some eco-whackers who behave like Republicans.
eco-whackos
And by “eco-whackos” I don’t mean people who hold responsible science-based environmental opinions, I’m referring to criminals who use the environment as an excuse to destroy property. They belong in the same prison cell as the buffoon who vandalized Joni Job’s car, and everyone on this blog agrees with that.
You still haven’t provided an example of a Democrat vandalizing a Republican’s car in the Seattle area; and you won’t, because there aren’t any.
@131 We shouldn’t be surprised that the ilk who pretend to be Christians also pretend to be liberals.
I gave my example or a Democrat vandalizing a Repblican’s Hummer, now I’m waiting for someone to show me a news story about a Republican vandalizing a Democrat’s Prius.
138:
Hell is freezing over as we speak.
Carl@128:
How you doing buddy?
#1 Thread hijacker is Pelletizer, yet you never comment on his vomit. Why is that my friend? You need to be level headed in all arguments Carl.
Peace out my friend
Proud to be an Ass says: That’s it! That explains the loyalty of the black community to the Democratic Party, huh? It also explains the large number of blacks in the Republican Party.
Many blacks I speak to think the Democrat senate passed the VRA and CRA. When I tell them the truth they tell me to get out of town. When I prove it to them they are shocked. The problem with my people are they don’t know history. The liberal MSM press still perpetrates the lie.
The proof that SS is a giant ponzi scheme is that they can only pay one if they get money coming in from another. You may have a hard time admitting it, but even YOU guys (including Roger) know it’s true.
There IS no account with your name on it. Unlike your 401k, there is no fund with your name on it. The politicians take your SS taxes and spend it on who knows what, but they don’t care. They don’t have to. And you put your stamp of approval on it anyway.
Attention: please raise your hand if you’d participate in the exact same scheme with a private company.
(hmmmm, no hands going up at the moment….)
Dipshit callin’ himself Troll. @ 138,
“I gave my example or a Democrat vandalizing a Repblican’s Hummer”
No you didn’t you fucking dipshit.
All you showed was that a Hummer was vandalized. The news reports didn’t specify the political affiliation of the Hummer owner. We have no way of knowing the political affiliation of he vandal. In fact, the vandal may well be a kid who (a) isn’t eligible to vote and (b) isn’t even conscious of party affiliations. The vandal might not even be a U.S. citizen, and therefore outside of the U.S. political circus.
Geez…try to use your fucking brain.
Re: 66 and 67. Rabbit claims because Hillary Clintons image in a newspaper was defaced the day after she beat Borak Obamaromaboma in the New Hampshire primary that it must have been done by a republican because he has never seen a democrat deface anyone’s picture before. He has no evidence that it was a republican that did it but the timing may lead someone to believe it could have been an Obamaromaboma supporter.
As for the claims that democrats don’t do that sort of thing I am sure you are all familiar with Jane Hampshire of Firedoglake/Huffington Post. The following link is of her racist defacement of Joe Lieberman when he opposed her nutroots candidate. Of course Lieberman won and is now endorsing John McCain.
http://sweetness-light.com/arc.....-blackface
Micky @ 142
“The proof that SS is a giant ponzi scheme is that they can only pay one if they get money coming in from another.”
That is not the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
“You may have a hard time admitting it, but even YOU guys (including Roger) know it’s true.”
Ummm…no, I think you’ve been brainwashed by too much Wingnut radio.
“There IS no account with your name on it. Unlike your 401k, there is no fund with your name on it.”
Yes there is, you dope! I get a statement every year from SS, showing my yearly contributions and my retirement benefit. And get this….the account number just happens to be the same as my Social Security number!!!!
“The politicians take your SS taxes and spend it on who knows what, but they don’t care.”
That’s called accruing national debt. And the real problem there is fiscal recklessness by the last three Republican administrations, who seem to be spending money like crack heads with a pile of stolen credit cards. You may remember a recent president who presided over a balanced budget and, in fact, started paying off the Reagan/Bush I shitpile of debt.
@143. So you think it might have been Republican eco-terrorists? Hmm, interesting hypothesis. But somehow I don’t think such a category of person exists.
Puddybud @ 141,
“The problem with my people are they don’t know history.”
History is a lot easier if you live in PuddyWorld™…
Re: 145, Darryl, I already posted on another thread on this blog with a link to the Treasury Departments website showing that the national debt increased in every year of the Clinton Administration. If you want me to bust your fanatasy that Clinton paid off the national debt I will go back and find it but you are just wrong.
re: 148 should have read , paid of any of the national debt
Dipshit @ 146
“So you think it might have been Republican eco-terrorists?”
WTF???? No…I don’t think it was a Republican. And I never implied it was. I pointed out that there is no evidence for political affiliation of either the Hummer owner or the vandal, and it is not even certain that the vandal had ANY political affiliation. You just made up some bullshit and pretended it was true.
“Hmm, interesting hypothesis.”
No such hypothesis…your bad.
“But somehow I don’t think such a category of person exists.”
Criminals come in all flavors of political persuasion, but the Eco-terrorists are more akin to anarchists, who, by definition, do not belong to ANY organized political party.
If you want me to bust your fanatasy that Clinton paid off the national debt
No one here has ever claimed that Clinton paid off the debt. Another Rob Retardo fantasy.
Darryl did claim that a start was being made to pay down the debt.
Right wing economist Larry Kudlow said as much. Greenspan told Congress not to pay it down too quickly.
Those were the days.
Robtard – Kudlow says it here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2czaoy
Darryl: Yes PuddyWorld is living as a black man. I love living in PuddyWorld.
Let me know when you live as a black man Darryl. Being white you have no clue of my history unless, of course, you read about it.
Clueless Gooberfool: I posted the data where the Debt was still increasing:
Clueless Gooberfool: National Debt
January 20, 1993 $4,188,092,107,183.60
January 19, 2001 $5,727,776,738,304.64
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace
September 27, 2000 Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year’s record surplus of $122.7 billion.
Oh wait a minute – National Debt
09/30/1998 ——- 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1999 ——- 5,656,270,901,633.43 122.7 Billion Surplus? Debt increased – $130,077,892,735.81
09/29/2000 ——- 5,674,178,209,886.86 230 Billion Surplus? Debt increased – $17,907,308,253.43
So Clueless Gooberfool, how did the debt increase? All I hear on this blog from Clueless Gooberfool was a surplus. Maybe it was smoke and mirrors?
Clueless Gooberfool: You said “The budget was balanced on Clinton’s watch – that’s a fact. The debt was even starting to be paid down”
So I asked “Clueless Gooberfool: From 9/29/2000 to 1/19/2001 under William Jefferson Clinton the national debt increased $53,598,528,417.78 – That’s almost $54.6 Billion in 112 calendar days?
That’s $478,558,289.44 debt a day! What a present to the incoming president. Wait a minute did the Dot Com Bubble burst?”
So How could the debt be apid down when the debt continued to increase?
Re: 152. That was a nice projection by Kudlow but according to the treasury department it didn’t happen.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
Rob
“Darryl, I already posted on another thread on this blog with a link to the Treasury Departments website showing that the national debt increased in every year of the Clinton Administration.”
In inflation adjusted dollars the debt went down noticeably two years. If you refuse to do the inflation adjustment (which might cause an economist to snicker at you) then we can state that (1) Clinton produced surpluses for part of his second term, (2) the surplus was used to pay off part of the principle, (3) the accrued interest wiped out all of the principle payment (plus some). But, in 2000, with the principle payments, the non-inflation adjusted increase in debt was only $18 billion. A drop in the bucket compared to the non-inflation adjusted accumulation of that much debt every 12 days currently.
“If you want me to bust your fanatasy that Clinton paid off the national debt I will go back and find it but you are just wrong.”
Nope…I’ve worked with the U.S. debt numbers for years, and I suspect you don’t have anything to tell me that I haven’t heard from blog commentors, friends, colleagues and students. You are simply naive in using the non-inflation adjusting values. In fact, some economists would call my inflation adjustment too simple–they would adjust the debt by the GDP as a better measure. Under that adjustment, Clinton looks even better, Bush worse.
You see Clueless Gooberfool, when numbers appear you slink off and call it. Facts and you are diametrically opposed particles.
Time for another Puddy Four Play
Clueless Gooberfool fall back position:
1) Right wing conspiracy
2) Right-Wing crap
3) A Murdoch/Scaife Conspiracy
4) Data from “Moonie” Times
These are US Treasury figures.
Puddybud
“Darryl: Yes PuddyWorld is living as a black man. I love living in PuddyWorld.”
No…PuddyWorld™ is living in a cognitively warped world of fantasy.
“Let me know when you live as a black man Darryl.”
Deal…and you let me know when you step into the real world.
“Being white you have no clue of my history unless, of course, you read about it.”
So? Being Black, you have no clue of my history unless, of course, you read about it.
RE: 157. Thanks for the bullshit but I will just use real numbers like us poor citizens have to do.
IF YOU ARE MORE IN DEBT AT THE END OF THE YEAR THAN YOU WERE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, YOU DIDN’T PAY ANY OF YOUR DEBT OFF.
You might try that with your students, maybe they would save more.
@138 “I gave my example or a Democrat vandalizing a Repblican’s Hummer.”
No, you didn’t.
@128 “Troll” is a barefaced liar. His screen name says it all.
@140 The topic of this blog is
REPUBLICANS SUCK
therefore all of my comments are on topic.
Darryl: I have been living in the real world for more years than you’ve been on this earth. I have dealt with people like you all my life.
You farted: “So? Being Black, you have no clue of my history unless, of course, you read about it.”
Yeah, right. I don’t care to know about you living in Wisconsin right?
@140 (continued) It never ceases to amaze me that wingnut trolls deliberately come to a liberal blog looking for a fight and then complain about getting one.
Maybe it’s time to recirculate the ad hoc HA posting rules:
1. This is a liberal blog.
2. Anyone can post here.
3. There is no censorship (except of off-topic posts).
4. As liberals, our mission is to verbally kick the living shit out of you unpatriotic fascist goatfuckers.
5. No mercy for wingnuts!
6. Our terms are unconditioal surrender; there will be trials.
7. klake is a nazi.
If you have a problem with this protocol, you are free to leave at any time.
@155: Federal debt obligations held by the public declined in the last couple of years of the Clinton Administration. Hence the budget surplus.
National debt continued to climb due to the surplus collected by the Social Security Administration, which was used to buy Treasuries.
Thus if you exclude Social Security, the debt was being ‘paid down’.
You are, as usual, incorrect.
No Pelletizer, we came here on HorsesASS looking for intelligent lefty life. Every now and then we get a beep – – – beep – – – beep. Once in a while we get a beep beep beep. But then you post and there is white noise static!
@141 The truth is the southern racists were Democrats until about 1964, and since then the GOP has eagerly provided them with a happy political home.
So, the question is, why would blacks offended by what yellow-dog Democrats did 50 years ago vote Republican today?
And the answer is, they don’t.
Re: 157. Darryl says; In inflation adjusted dollars the debt went down noticeably two years. If you refuse to do the inflation adjustment (which might cause an economist to snicker at you)
Hey Darryl, So if I go to my bank and say “you know about those inflation adjusted dollars don’t you? I owe you less because of those inflation adjusted dollars”
I know who would be snickering, it would be the bank snickering at the economists and me of course. I guess I just can’t win.
ProudAss you said what?
“National debt continued to climb due to the surplus collected by the Social Security Administration, which was used to buy Treasuries.”
Rob,
“Thanks for the bullshit but I will just use real numbers like us poor citizens have to do.
“
You poor naive, SOB. In the real world the value of the dollar changes over time.
IF YOU ARE MORE IN DEBT AT THE END OF THE YEAR THAN YOU WERE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, YOU DIDN’T PAY ANY OF YOUR DEBT OFF.
Fair enough. But, let’s turn it around. Suppose you save all your money all your life in a matress. You might have, say, $10,000 accumulated, and the next year you add an additional $200. That next year you have $10,200, and can claim an increase in savings over the year.
But, if inflation makes that money worth 10% less this year than it was worth last year, you have actually lost money. You cannot purchase as much this year with your savings as you could last year—even though there was an absolute increase in dollar amount.
In this case, it is true that you have numerically increased your savings.
At the same time, the real value of your savings has decreased–you have significantly less purchasing power.
Economists typically use inflation-adjusted dollars in these situations because if reflects what the money is actually worth, if spent.
The exact same thing applies to debt as it does to savings.
I hope this simple example has offered you some enlightenment.
@142 The day Social Security stops paying its obligations will also be the day your money is worthless, the economy ceases to exist, and you will become dependent on hunting-and-gathering for your physical survival.
Darryl, inflation has nothing to do with a debt. While it does affect assets that may have been used to secure the debt, the debt remains the same with the only adjustments being payments, interest and additional debt accrued. I believe most sane economists would agree.
Pelletizer@169: Because the lie is still being told today. Show me a recent article from the liberal MSM newspapers or TV that didn’t say Lyndon Johnson passed the VRA and CRA or the Democrats passed them.
Go on look dumb “bunny”!
@142 Roger Rabbit Straw Poll
Which would you rather depend on for your retirement income:
[ ] 1. The full faith and credit of the U.S. government
[ ] 2. The friendly CEO of the corporation you used to work for
What happened to Yos Libtard AKA Clueless Gooberfool:
Take the test, take the test.
Oh it’s fake… nevermind.
rob-bot above: “IF YOU ARE MORE IN DEBT AT THE END OF THE YEAR THAN YOU WERE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, YOU DIDN’T PAY ANY OF YOUR DEBT OFF.”
If you do not take inflation adjustments into account you are either stupid or a charlatan. We are discussing national income accounts, not your particular pathetic financial situation. See a councilor and get help.
See ya later Clueless Gooberfool.
Very long day tomorrow!
Re: 172. I haven’t resorted to name calling yet even though it is the liberals first line of defense. Savings have nothing to do with debt. Let me make is simple for your feeble mind.
If I borrow $1 from you regardless of what ups and downs the dollar does I owe you $1 plus interest.
The dollar goes up and down on both sides of the transaction but I still just owe you $1 plus interest.
You see Darrly, that is the way the national debt works. It isn’t based on inflation, deflation or stagnation. It is based on pricipal and iterest.
I am still refraining from name calling but I do feel sorry for your students.
180 principle
Rob @ 174
“Darryl, inflation has nothing to do with a debt.”
Yes and no. In the same sense, inflation has nothing to do with savings.
“While it does affect assets that may have been used to secure the debt, the debt remains the same with the only adjustments being payments, interest and additional debt accrued. I believe most sane economists would agree.”
A debt of $100 dollars accrued in 1908 is not equivalent to a debt accrued in 2008 as measured by what could be purchased for that amount of debt at the time.
But they are the same in that both debts use a “1” followed by a “0” followed by another “0”.
Rob the uneconomists spews: “Darryl, inflation has nothing to do with a debt.”
Tell that to the banker who has loaned you a couple hunnert grand on your two bedroom house, and is stupid enough to still be holding the mortgage during an inflationary spiral. ‘Marked to market’, he is LOSING money.
As the debtor you, on the other hand are making out like a bandit. You get to pay off a fixed number of dollars with worthless paper.
That’s why Wall Street hates inflation worse than unions.
PuddyIdiot:
Larry Kudlow again:
RETIRED THE SAME TIME LAST YEAR.
See 152 for the link. Bye..
Re: 178, Fuck you we are talking about the national debt. It is no different than any other debt. It’s called principle and interest. It is a good thing you are proud to be a stupid ass.
Re: 184, the treasury department again.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/ NP/NPGateway
“Savings have nothing to do with debt.”
Wrong. If there are no borrowers, savings means nothing. The ability to carry debt is considered a sign of economic health. People who owe nothing to anybody are generally people who have absolutely nothing.
That’s why they don’t get many loans!
@142 (continued) By that definition of “Ponzi scheme” every currency and economy in the world is a Ponzi scheme.
In fact, Social Security isn’t a Ponzi scheme. There are several reasons why it isn’t. First, revenues have always exceeded obligations, and at present SS has a cash flow surplus. Second, your assertion that “they can only pay one if they get money coming in from another” is patently false; the government can, if it wants to, borrow the money needed to pay benefits, and, in a scenario where the program’s outlays exceeded its income, there’s no doubt it would do so. Third, Congress has the ooption of dealing with any revenue shortfall by raising taxes and/or cutting benefits.
Social Security has rightly been called “the most successful government program in human history.” It virtually eliminated elderly poverty in the U.S.; extended American lifespans by an average of 3 years; and is an important factor in preventing a repetition of the Great Depression.
The reason for the latter is that most SS recipients have no choice but to spend their SS checks right away on the necessities of life, and this consumer spending holds up even in the worst of ecoomic times, because the incomethat supports it is not dependent on employment conditions or the solvency of business payroll departments. This recession-proof consumer spending puts a floor under how far the economy can fall.
The importance of Social SEcurity to the well-being of our citizens can hardly be overstated. American business is not exactly generous in handing out retirement benefits; about 80% of SS retirees depend on SS as their sole source of income. Even those fortunate enough to have pensions which have not been bankrupted or repudiated by their former corporate employers rely on SS as by far the most important of only 2 protections against inflation available to them, the other being investment success, which is not assured.
In short, Social Security taxes are a burden when you’re young, but an indispensable means of support for all but the most affluent — who are a tiny fraction of the population — in old age. And to believe the partisan claims that today’s young workers won’t get their SS taxes back in benefits, you have to believe the U.S. government won’t survive for another 30 or 40 years. But the U.S. government has already survived a civil war, two world wars, financial panics and economic depressions, and a number of Republcan regimes, so it’s eminently reasonable to believe it will survive whatever the next few decades throw at it, too – as long as Democrats have at least 40 votes in the Senate.
Re: 183. Like most liberal propagandist you only took a portion of my quote. You missed this part “While it does affect assets that may have been used to secure the debt”
You either have to short of an attention span to read the whole thing or you are just the small dick you claim to be.
@143 “Geez…try to use your fucking brain.”
he cna’t use what he doesn’t have
@185: Well, fuck you too. Yes, we are talking about the national debt. You, on the other hand, keep trying to use the situation of a single individual or household as analogous. This is wrongheaded.
RE: 187, I know it is entirely over your head to read the whole post but we were talking about an example that Daryl used.
If I type slower would that help you?
@189: The mortgage loan is an asset to the bank. It is a liability to the buyer. Since the number of dollars (principle + interest)is fixed, if you pay back with cheaper dollars (i.e., inflation) the bank loses.
The house may increase in price during inflation, but that does not help the bank any.
You seem to be having a difficult time with this elementary concept.
191. When the US borrows money through bonds, internatial debt or any other vehicle it is no different than consumer debt asshole. If the US borrows a dollar, they owe a dollar plus interest.
195: Look dipthong, the US Treasury can print as many dollars as they want to pay off the debt. You and I do not have that option. That’s a pretty critical difference.
If they flood the economy with gazillions of cheap paper dollars, the fact that the government “owes a dollar + interest” is pretty meaningless.
That’s why you have to use inflation adjusted amounts. To do otherwise is, I repeat, either a sign of ignorance or dishonesty.
Re: 193, Whether the bank loses or not has nothing to do with this argument. The fact remains that if you owe a dollar you pay back a dollar plus interest.
You seem to be saying that inflation is good for the national debt and because of it we owe less. That is bullshit. We still owe the same we just had to expend more labor and materials to pay it back.
What you so called economists don’t realize that inflation is a two way street.
Re: 195. the last time the federal goverment tried that was under that worthless piece of shit Jimmy Carter. We ended up with 14% inflation,19% interest rates and a number of other economic disasters. Carter proved the government can’t do it either.
Buy a history book.
Again from Kudlow:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=2793
rob above: “I guess I just can’t win.”
No, you can’t. Look. If you borrowed $1,000 from the bank at 12% with a 5 year payback, and inflation roars at, let’s say, 50% a year. You got a great deal, and the bank loses its ass.
Their money is in your pocket and being returned in dribs and drabs getting a measely 12% when they need to get that money working at 50% to FUCKING BREAK EVEN.
Got a clue yet?
@174 “Darryl, inflation has nothing to do with a debt. While it does affect assets that may have been used to secure the debt, the debt remains the same with the only adjustments being payments, interest and additional debt accrued. I believe most sane economists would agree.”
The reverse is true, you dope! Inflation devalues debt denominated in money, whereas physical assets used as collateral tend to retain their intrinsic value by rising in market value in tandem with inflation. (An exception is that inflation affects monetized assets used for collateral, such as receivables or bonds. Also, this model does not take into account depreciation of physical assets, but the depreciation mechanism operates independently of inflation.)
@170 “Hey Darryl, So if I go to my bank and say ‘you know about those inflation adjusted dollars don’t you? I owe you less because of those inflation adjusted dollars'”
That’s true, you do owe the bank less (in real terms) because of inflation, unless you own no non-monetary assets and your boss hasn’t given you any COLAs. In that case, you probably should look for (a) a real estate agent and (b) a new job.
“The fact remains that if you owe a dollar you pay back a dollar plus interest.”
And this proves what? That you can compare a debt of $1,000 a century ago to a debt of $1,000 today and claim they are the same thing?
That’s simply absurd.
But I do admire your restraint since you are so proud of ‘not calling names’ and call President Carter a “worthless piece of shit”.
You really are a fuckwad.
Re: 200. Maybe you should check with the people being forced out of their homes because the asset is worth less than the debt. Go chew on a carrot and come back when you can make some sense.
202: Carter was and is a worthless piece of shit, I will now apply that moniker to you as well. It does seem you failed to answer the agrument I made and resulted to personal attacks like most liberals do.
You still seem to be stuck on this fantasy that if we have inflation it makes our debt go down.
If you take a deep breath you will realize that the banks dollar would be worth less if they would have kept it and not loaned it just as the dollar they are recieving in payment is worth less.
Funny we have banks though, you seem to think that if they loan you money they are complete idiots and should have been bankrupt years ago.
Funny how reality works.
Rob,
“I haven’t resorted to name calling yet even though it is the liberals first line of defense.”
Niiiiicce. You clam moral superiority and then throw in a little jab. Great stuff!
Savings have nothing to do with debt.
Like I say…yes and no. But, when looking at debt over time, economists typically adjust by inflation (or other things like GDP), because debt represents foregone future purchases. The fact that you pay interest is, in part, because of the change in value of the debt. Likewise, we must get interest on savings because otherwise we lose purchasing power over time.
“Let me make is simple for your feeble mind.
Does that qualify as “name calling?” Just wondering.
“If I borrow $1 from you regardless of what ups and downs the dollar does I owe you $1 plus interest.”
Umm…if that is the agreement. But, if I lend you a dollar without interest, then I am losing money and the purchasing power represented by your debt is decreasing the longer you hold off on paying me. In fact, I would be charging interest to (1) compensate for the real decrease in the dollar and (2) as a service charge/profit for the bother.
“The dollar goes up and down on both sides of the transaction but I still just owe you $1 plus interest.”
With no interest, I gave you a dollar in 1968 and you paid me back a dollar in 2008. When I gave you the dollar I gave you enough purchasing power to fill a 5 gallon gas can. But when you paid me back it only cost you the purchasing power of a quart of gas.
“You see Darrly, that is the way the national debt works. It isn’t based on inflation, deflation or stagnation. It is based on pricipal and iterest.”
Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. I’d recommend you do a little reading in the economics literature.
“I am still refraining from name calling but I do feel sorry for your students.”
Ohhhh…one again! Okay…in exchange, I’ll refrain from juvenile jabs, but continue with the name calling. Deal?
@203: The decline of the value of the asset was due to other factors. However, if inflation is 3% a year, and the bank would give you a grace period for 100 years, paying down the loan would be pocket change in the future.
This is a silly example, since the bank would never agree, and you’d be dead. We as individuals have a limited time horizon. Governments do not.
Governments can also print money. Households cannot.
So, if you’re going to discuss national income accounts (national debt, GNP, yadda yadda) you have to use inflation adjusted numbers to compare apples to apples. You resolutely refuse to do so. Thus you are either ignorant or a liar.
PS: Jimmy Carter is not to blame for the stagflation of the 70’s. Johnson financed a war with funny money. Nixon expanded the war, and even (gasp!) instituted socialistic wage and price controls. Jerry Ford had a funny program called WIN. Everybody laughed. Carter’s efforts (trimming the budget) didn’t have much affect. This was 1976-1980, only 4 of the decade’s 10 years. Do the math yourself if you don’t believe me.
Inflation was raging, and then the arabs shut off the oil spigot again. The stagflation ended when Paul Volker shut off the money supply and ran interest rates into the stratosphere (under Reagan, I repeat–REAGAN) causing a severe recession and throwing millions out of work. Inflation was indeed cured, but on the backs of the working class and debtors.
Re: 205, that’s a deal I can make. Maybe you could make it a prerequiste on this site. It’s alot easier to have a debate if you can talk about issues instead of childish personal attacks.
My point is that inflation works on both side of the ledger. If I kept a dollar 100 years ago and didn’t loan it to anyone I couln’t buy that 5 gallon can of gas.
RE: 206, Where did you study history that made you believe Nixon expanded the Vietnam war? The amount of troops were already in decline under Johnson and continued until full withdrawl under Nixon. If I remember right the apex of troops in Vietnam was November of 1968. If you want me to look it up I will(You may be confused as John Kerry was who while on the senate floor said this “I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon [sic] claimed there were no American troops was very real.”
Nixon took office for the first time on January 20, 1969.
“You still seem to be stuck on this fantasy that if we have inflation it makes our debt go down.”
In REAL terms, i.e., with respect to purchasing power for REAL goods and services, yes. So my assertion is not a fantasy. Yours, however, is.
roger@105 chrissy next job should be a blow job
“If I kept a dollar 100 years ago and didn’t loan it to anyone I couln’t buy that 5 gallon can of gas.”
That raises the question as to why you would do such an irrational thing. You either rent the dollar or spend it. In terms of the real economy, hiding it under the mattress means little, unless you start discussing things like aggregate demand.
RE. 211, Bwahaahaaa, yeah I might of even loaned to someone like the United States. Do you get the point yet?
“Where did you study history that made you believe Nixon expanded the Vietnam war?”
I looked at a map. Cambodia is nearby. Nixon didn’t expand the war? Tell that to the Cambodians.
Then get a dictionary out and look up “expand”.
Re: 213. John Kerry said he was there in December of 1968. Are you calling him a liar?
@212: If you had loaned it to the US, you would have been paid interest.
So what did you do with that dollar from 1912? Bury it, or loan it out? If you loaned it out, let it ride, and reinvested the dividends, you could easily pay for that 5 gal. bucket of gas today, even if you only invested in US Treasuries. The power of compound interest would probably offset the effects of the inflation we experience today, plus interest rates are also correspondingly higher. They were much lower during most of the 20th century.
So what’s your point?
RE: 213, you do know that 1968 is before 1969 when Nixon took office don’t you ?
“Maybe you could make it a prerequiste on this site. It’s alot easier to have a debate if you can talk about issues instead of childish personal attacks.”
So. Calling Jimmy Carter a ‘piece of shit’ isn’t childish?
Re: 215, My POINT hasn’t changed, inflation is equal on both sides of the ledger and it doesn’t interfere with the amount of the debt.
Like I said, if you owe more at the end of the year than you did at the beginning of the year you didn’t pay down your debt.
My other point is that I can understand that John Kerry may have got his presidents mixed up while in Cambodia but you seem to be claiming that he was never there?
Why would you question his service?
@214 & 216: Gosh. You guys say Kerry lied about being there, and now you throw his words at me as some kind of point. You tell me if Kerry was lying or not. You presume to be the sole arbiter in this regard.
Nixon’s expansion of the war into Laos and Cambodia is pretty well known. Look it up.
But we stray from your insane attempts to demonstrate that a dollar yesterday is the same as a dollar today. Larry Kudlow would be proud of you…economists not so much.
RE: 217. Yes it was I apologize for that. I just think he was a terrible president as most people who were alive during his presidency believe. That is why his was taken to the woodshed by Ronald Regan.
RE: 219, I have never questioned John Kerry’s service in Vietnam. I don’t do that. As I said he got his presidents mixed up on the floor of the United States Senate. Now you are either saying he is a liar and Nixon was the first to go into Cambodia or your whole argument blows up in your face.
“Re: 215, My POINT hasn’t changed, inflation is equal on both sides of the ledger and it doesn’t interfere with the amount of the debt.”
No. It is not. Inflation eats away at the purchasing power of the loan (an asset to the lender), and enables the borrower (even though he pays back $100 on a $100 loan plus some FIXED interest)to pay that amount with dollars that buy less (in terms of real goods and services).
I never claimed Nixon was “first” to “go into” Cambodia. I said he expanded the war there.
Re: 219. I am not sure we can communicate. I have never said the dollar is worth the same today as it was even yesterday.
I will type big so you don’t miss it.
THE DOLLAR IS WORTH THE SAME TO THE LENDER AND THE DEBTOR TODAY AS IT WAS YESTERDAY.
You seem to believe inflation (the decline in the dollars value) only affects one side. It doesn’t. It is equal on both sides.
Re: 223. Expanding the war would mean to most rational people ( and pertinent to your point when you brought your rediculous claim up) that we increased troops, money etc.
That didn’t happen.
@220: I criticize Carter from an entirely different (lefty) perspective, but his tarnished reputation is, in many ways, undeserved. Many historians are beginning to agree.
Now before you start crowing….this is not the same thing as saying he was a great president. He was not by any means, but he has taken a bum rap for many of the bad events of the 70’s that were not his fault. He may have been ineffective in his anti-inflation efforts, but he didn’t create the inflation of the 70’s. He didn’t create the oil embargo. He wasn’t the one that created the blowback that led to the Shah’s overthrown. His peace efforts in the Middle East have not been matched by any president since. And since you are a righty, Carter started the wave the industry deregulation so near and dear to conservative hearts.
It would be interesting to see how Carter stacks up as judged by historians 100 years from now.
It’s bedtime for me , Have a good night.
THE DOLLAR IS WORTH THE SAME TO THE LENDER AND THE DEBTOR TODAY AS IT WAS YESTERDAY.
Nice try. I put on my reading glasses, and this still makes no sense. You’re ignoring the concept of present value, which is an age old financial tool. Interest is the rent on money. It presumes the passage of time. A dollar in hand is worth more than a dollar in the future.
Do you agree?
Now, if there is NO inflation, and we are speaking about things like the national debt ‘growing’ over time, then I would agree with your statement.
However, today’s dollars buy a whole lot less of REAL GOODS than yesterday’s dollars. This is due to the effect of inflation.
Do you agree?
So, if you compare a million dollars in the federal budget in 1900 and what that money could buy then with a million dollars in today’s budget and what it can buy now–it buys less in terms of REAL goods (nuts, bolts, labor hours, etc.)
Do you agree?
Thus to compare the million dollars in the federal budget from 107 years ago to a million today you should take that into account.
Right?
Now sure, a million dollars is still a million dollars. The number has not changed. But calling them the ‘same’ when throwing historical budget data around is not comparing apples to apples.
I believe it’s that part where you say ‘both lender and debtor’ that is the source of the confusion. Perhaps for both of us.
Good night. Sweet dreams.
Rob,
I had to go do some analyses and put a post on my blog for the evening. I missed the later fun. But, I’ll offer one more mental experiment that will, hopefully demonstrate why analysts adjust for inflation when examining debt over time.
Suppose I lend you $1000. And being that we are good friends, I decide I only want to charge interest to compensate for inflation. We expect inflation to be 10% and set interest at that. We agree that the price of gonkulators (a well-behaved commodity found only in economic problems, that costs exactly $1000 when I made the loan to you) is a reasonable measure of inflation.
After one year, the price of gonkulators has gone up exactly 10%. You also owe me $1000 + $100. We could look at this two ways:
Now, suppose you paid me back only $1,000 because you fell on hard times and I was being generous. We would both agree that I have lost some utility from the $1,000 I began with last year, because I cannnot by a whole gonkulator with it after you repay the loan.
If you paid me $1,100, we would both consider it even because I can still buy the same thing with the money this year that I could last year.
Likewise, if gonkulators went up in price exactly 10% per year for a total of 5 years, we could plot the absolute dollar amount you owe me over the five year period and it would look like an exponentially increasing curve that would exactly match the price of gonkulators. (BTW: I’ll use compound interest henceforth).
But, that would highlight the fact that your debt to me in each year is constant: it is equal to the power to purchase one gonkulator each year.
After five years, you would owe me $1,649 at our agreed-upon interest rate. I could take the money and buy a gonkulator…just like I could five years ago when I made the non-profit loan to you.
Now…Suppose gonkulators went up in price 20% per year. But a deal is a deal, and you are only paying 10%/year. After 5 years gonkulators would cost $2,718. When you paid me back after this five year period, you would only be paying me back 61% of one gonkulator. In fact, we could re-cast your loan in terms of the purchasing power of gonkulators. After one year, you would owe me 90% of a gonkulator, after two years, you would owe me 82% of a gonkulator, after three years you would owe me 74% of a gonkulator, after four years it is 64% and after 5 years 61% of a gonkulator. So, inflation has decreased your debt in gonkulator units over time even while the absolute amount has gone up with time.
As your lender, I could chose to look at the dollar amounts going up ($1,000, $1,105, $1,221, $1,350, $1,492, $1,649) and it would give me some impression that you owe me more and more money. But am I gaining money or losing money? I cannot tell from the absolute numbers. When I look at the money in gonkulator purchases (100%, 90%, 82%, 74%, 67%, 61%) I see that I am, in fact, losing money. In fact, if you repay the loan after seven years, I can only buy 1/2 a gonkulator.
From your perspective, you borrowed the money seven years ago, perhaps to purchase a shiny new gonkulator for the homestead. But when you pay me back now, the money is only worth 1/2 gonkulator to you. Great deal for you! (Better if you carry the debt for even longer, provided inflation is the same).
Likewise, when examining a federal debt, economists adjust to (a.k.a. normalize to), say, 1990 dollars instead of gonkulators. Before normalizing to 1990 dollars the debt may go up in absolute dollars. After normalizing, perhaps the debt is going down in a tangible way (i.e. the lenders can purchase less after I repay the debt, therefore I am paying back less in terms of purchasing power).
That is what happened in 1998-2000. The debt was paid off to the point that, after inflation devalued the dollar, the U.S. had less debt (owed fewer gonkulators to its debtors).
Go Lee! For once we agree. And for you Rodent, as I said before, don’t bother with one of your delusional responses ’till you get off that gov’t cheese. Thanks Lee!
@230 Darryl
The Reprican willingness to use inflation ot pay off debt is scary AND would make a great campaign issue.
One easy way to view this is to ask what am I worth?
If I owned a 1,000,000 in stock when Bush became president that stock was worth about 1,1 million in Euroes. Now it is worth 700,000, In other words the value of american capital has declined by 1/3! Even if one adds in stock market gains, thye net value of America under Reprican economics ahs fallen by a huge amount.