Jay Bookman

By Andy the Welcher

January 16, 2009 12:57 PM | Link to this

Andy’s a welcher.

EW

By Shawny

January 16, 2009 12:59 PM | Link to this

Print enough money, you can fix anything. Then we get inflation worse than when JEC was prez.

CUT useless programs. Abolish the IRS. Scale back entitlements. Get Govt spending responsibly, then what little we have will be worth something.

By Shawny

January 16, 2009 1:01 PM | Link to this

Inflation lowest since in the mid-’50s.

Nice. People don’t have as much money to spend, but their money is worth more. That isn’t all bad. Why do we have to assume that high prices and people living beyond their means driving economic growth is always a good thing?

By RW-(the original)

January 16, 2009 1:07 PM | Link to this

Why does anybody still believe anything Obama pledges? Whatever he says is always subject to change 180 degrees the second he’s speaking to a different audience.

By RealityKing

January 16, 2009 1:09 PM | Link to this

Bush made these exact same pledges, so did Clinton and Bush Sr. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…

By Corporal of the Guard

January 16, 2009 1:15 PM | Link to this

“This law represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means completed—a structure intended to lessen the force of possible future depressions, to act as a protection to future administrations of the Government against the necessity of going deeply into debt to furnish relief to the needy—a law to flatten out the peaks and valleys of deflation and of inflation—in other words, a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt …. August 14, 1935

Hummmm …….. something went wrong.

By @@

January 16, 2009 1:15 PM | Link to this

(((But the scope of the changes he claims to seek are mind-boggling nonetheless.)))

‘Ya ever play the board game “Boggle”, jay?

The objective is to quickly assemble words out of a bunch of jumbled (tossed out) letters.

By CommunistAJC

January 16, 2009 1:20 PM | Link to this

Shawny, I like your thinking. Good job.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 16, 2009 1:20 PM | Link to this

It’s only really mind boggling if you are thinking about it in terms of the past administration.

If you fill critical posts with the 3 stooges, the keystone cops and laurel and hardy, after 7 or 8 years one becomes inured to the buffoonery that was the Bush administration

The paradigm has shifted. Big Time.

This truly is a great nation and we are capable of great things.

With the team President Elect Obama has put in place, with the huge support he currently has, we will see change.

In fact it will be a sea change.

Yes, we can. Yes, we did. Yes, we will.

By Copyleft

January 16, 2009 1:20 PM | Link to this

Corporal: Yes, something did go wrong. FDR’s New Deal, which gave us three decades of prosperity and middle-class success, flattening the gap between rich and poor, was systemantically dismantled by supply-side fanatics from the 80s onward, leading to the economic mess we have today.

As usual, it will take a Democratic administration to straighten out our economy again.

By old boy lib

January 16, 2009 1:22 PM | Link to this

Who said it? Discuss:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

By @@

January 16, 2009 1:26 PM | Link to this

(((In fact it will be a sea change.)))

Kinda like a tsunami that’ll wash us all out to sea.

By Corporal of the Guard

January 16, 2009 1:26 PM | Link to this

Remember:

REFORM to a Democrat means PILE IT ON !

By Copyleft

January 16, 2009 1:28 PM | Link to this

Old Boy: Yep, that was JFK—and he was dead wrong, as he was on several policies.

By old boy lib

January 16, 2009 1:34 PM | Link to this

I hate name calling, so I’l just say WRONG!!!

The Kennedy tax cuts did help expand the economy, resulting in a 106-month economic expansion during the 1960s, the longest expansion in U.S. history until the 120-month expansion from 1991-2001. Tax revenues grew by 65% from 1965 to 1970.

By Corporal of the Guard

January 16, 2009 1:35 PM | Link to this

“We shall make the most lasting progress if we recognize that Social Security can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts.”

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 16, 2009 1:38 PM | Link to this

Old boy lib, you’ve got a good point. I’d be in favor of “cutting” the top marginal income tax rates way back to where they were in JFK’s time.

How about you?

By Bud Wiser

January 16, 2009 1:40 PM | Link to this

Looks more like a “Red Tide” to me.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 16, 2009 1:40 PM | Link to this

{{{{By Andy the Welcher

January 16, 2009 12:57 PM | Link to this

Andy’s a welcher.

EW}}}}

I’m not one to complain but what’s up with the personal attacks from the trolls?

{{{{“President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare ‘bargain’ with the American people, saying that the nation’s long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.}}}}

He says this right after emptying the treasury out for a bunch of deadbeats.

duh

By old boy lib

January 16, 2009 1:47 PM | Link to this

let’s turn this over to the Cato Institute, i have a job to get back to. And remember, Monday’s a day for service, not just hangin’ out.

“1) Consolidate the income tax rates down to three: 10, 20, and 30. Getting the top tax rate down to 35% is good, but 30% would be even better. For those who argue that this would lower the top tax rate too much, we would remind critics that in the late 1990s Reagan got the top tax rate down to 28%. Lowering the top income tax rate back down to 30% would help attract trillions of dollars of foreign investment capital back to the U.S. and would help reverse the decline in the dollar. Also, because 2 of every 3 taxpayers in the highest tax bracket today is a sole proprietor of a small business, lower tax rates will mean more business expansion and more jobs.

2) Cut the capital gains tax to 10% on all new investment. The last capital gains tax cit in 1997 increased stock values, increased business investment and venture capital funding, and helped spur a huge stock market rally. That has been the economic reaction to virtually every capital gains tax cut over the past 40 years. The capital gains tax cut is the goose that lays the golden eggs. Keep cutting until we eventually get down to zero.

3) Expand tax free IRAs and 401k super-saver accounts. This will help create larger individual pools of household savings and wealth accumulation. The latest Fed report shows that 52% of households now own stock and that this mass democratization of the U.S stock market has caused impressive increases in average household wealth in the U.S. - from $50,000 on average in the mid 1980s to almost $75,000 today (adjusted for inflation). IRAs and 401ks help build financial self-sufficiency and less reliance on the government programs. Moreover, we should stop double-taxing Americans’ savings. IRAs and 401k’s should be dramatically liberalized by raising limits by $5,000 per year. The goal should be to eventually create unlimited supersaver IRAs, where any money that is saved out of income is not taxed, until the funds are taken out of the savings account to be spent. The income limits for IRAs should be repealed too.”

By tcoach

January 16, 2009 1:50 PM | Link to this

Is national health care not an entitlement?

I just never knew that elective procedures and such were rights, always considered them to be entitlements if you feel it is someone Else’s responsibility to pay for them.

Does this mean the campaign promise to get insurance for all was another political lie, or is what he is saying about cutting entitlements a political lie?

From those who feel every non-compliment is an attack I assure you I am not.

Just trying to gain better insight as to be able to decode what is being said better.

By david wayne osedach, san diego/ U.S.A.

January 16, 2009 1:51 PM | Link to this

Any serious cuts to Medicare will seriously affect all those seniors and disabled who depend upon it.

Thus cuts will come at great costs.

By gttim

January 16, 2009 1:53 PM | Link to this

Yes, Kennedy cut taxes to get the economy moving, but they were demand-side cuts as opposed to Reagan and Bush’s supply-side cuts. He put more money in the hands of the working people and middle class. And yes he did cut taxes on the very wealthy, but at the time the marginal tax rate for earning over $400,000 was 91%. Comparing Kennedy’s tax cuts to tax cuts of the Republicans is really intellectually dishonest.

By Class of '98

January 16, 2009 1:59 PM | Link to this

We can’t keep ignoring “climate change”?

Isn’t it like 50 degrees below zero in the midwest right now?

And don’t tell me “that’s not how climate change works”. Call me kooky, but shouldn’t the temperature actually get WARMER at some point if this crap were true?

By AmVet

January 16, 2009 2:04 PM | Link to this

Shawny, the assertion, if that’s what it is, that buying power in this country has not gone down is patently absurd.

Though American worker productivity has doubled since 1973, fully 80% of Americans now earn less in relative dollars than they did then.

Take a look around, this shouldn’t come as some sort of enormous surprise.

I agree that some high prices are not necessarily a bad thing. Unless they are very high/unaffordable for insurance, education and basic necessities.

And yes taxes.

Want to reduce them?

Look to the blood lusting chickenhawks sacred and untouchable cow - military spending, first and foremost. (And Obama looks like he too will keep General Dynamics and Haliburton et al VERY happy). A huge part of our entire outlay. And spending that is equal to the rest of the planet combined! No wonder so many other western democracies can take more than absolutely the minimal care of their people better than we do.

Talk about bloated! Talk about wasteful! Talk about corrupt! To the tune of trillions of dollars.

Throw in a bunch of welfare - personal and corporate - add a dash of trickle down, a healthy dose of bailouts for criminals and voila! The perfect recipe for a financial meltdown for the middle class.

01-20-09 The End of a National Disaster

By American Made

January 16, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this

Instead of wasting time on global warming, please devote all of those resource towards real problems like our failed and burdensome tax system. Tax reform would go a long ways towards solving many of our countries other problems. I do applaud PEBO for addressing the entitlement issues, but will hold off on judgement until he offers his solutions.

By Swami Dave

January 16, 2009 2:08 PM | Link to this

Jay:

The Social Security trust fund is actually in pretty good shape as long as the federal government honors its pledge to pay back the many billions it borrowed from the fund to run the rest of government.

Fact: Social Security was designed as a pay-as-you-go system under which current beneficiaries are by the receipts from current workers under the promise that the system will continue when the current workers become beneficiaries in the future. (Most rational people with a modicum of financial sense realize this is essentially a government-imposed ponzi scheme, but we will ignore that for a moment.)

Fact: The federal government redirected (and still redirects) receipts from current workers that are over-and-above the amount needed (at this moment) to pay out the current benefits. They do this because providing the programs and services that many Americans want (but claim to “need”) cost more than the government currently collects in tax receipts.

Fact: Due to demographics, the pool of near-future beneficiaries will soon outpace the pool of workers funding the system under the pay-as-you-go and they will supposedly start “collecting” on those IOUs.

For this illusionary “good shape” to be believed (in whatever dream universe with unicorns and fairies one ascribes), it assumes that somehow:

a) government will begin exercising the austerity to not only eliminate the spending funded by social security “excess collections”, but also to begin repaying that which was borrowed from the fund to finance the benefits when the program is spending more than it collects

b) government will raise taxes (both for government revenue AND social security) to increase receipts by social security and supplement the shortages under the pay-as-you-go as repayment of the debt

c) government will change the rules for receiving benefits (comparable within the ponzi scheme world to a change in the “marketing plan” that attempts to extend the scam over a longer period and simply delay the eventuality that it crashes upon itself)

Honestly, I cannot imagine that you actually wrote the words “in good shape” with a straight face. The irony is only outmeasured by the [Fact] that every administration over the last quarter century (or more) has entered office promising to “do something to fix Social Security”.

How long before “doing something about Social Security” takes the form of another “blue ribbon bipartisan investigative solutions-oriented unbiased non-influenced goal-driven” panel? How long before they are nominated to “propose a direction” posing an assorted set of “solutions” that will never see the light of day as legislative policy in our current environment?

The last set of politicians who had the ability to “fix” Social Security were in office over 80 years ago and their “fix” would have been to vote NO on the legislation creating it. Our problems today are a direct result of their failure to defeat it then.

Attempting to “solve” the problems of Social Security today is about as hopeless as someone attempting to “solve” engine problems with a car made of jello. The “solution” would have been to toss the plans to make that car.

….and this is the same crowd wanting to become more involved and in control of our country’s health care. Perish the thought.

-Swami Dave

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 16, 2009 2:16 PM | Link to this

Swami, actual grown-up economists (as opposed to your AM radio wh0res whence your canned rant @ 2.08 surely originated) have a pretty good handle on what to do about SS.

By rcs

January 16, 2009 2:29 PM | Link to this

How Barak Obama Solves The Climate Change Problem

BHO: Heavenly Father, this is your begotten Son GOD: Yes, my son? BHO: People down here are getting concerned about the earth’s temperature rising GOD: It’s only a natural cycle. It happens every thousand years or so. Tell them it’s nothing to worry about. BHO: Well er, um, um, it’s like this. I um, sorta, um told everybody I can fix it. GOD: Not to worry my Son, I will take care of it for you. BHO: Thank you Father. Um, one more thing. You know all those problems in the Middle East? Well, um, I um, sorta told them I can fix those too. GOD: Barry, Barry, Barry when will you ever learn…………..

By mm

January 16, 2009 2:31 PM | Link to this

It looks like the wingnuts drank a BIG bottle of stupid last night and they have an intellectual hangover today.

Thank God these nitwits will be put out to pasture next Tuesday.

By Paul

January 16, 2009 2:31 PM | Link to this

Jay

Whoopee! Another example of Pres-elect Obama’s ‘hey that’s stuff you say during a campaign’ vs “well, not that I’ve been elected…” From “Social Security reform? Reform? We’re okay… we’ll take that up in ten years” to this. (I just read the rest of the article. It’s Medicare. But based on the “payback” assumption, he’s gonna have to tackle SS, too.

I applaud his courage and honesty.

[[‘We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else’s.’”]]

See, Mrs. Godzilla – that’s Obama the Decider, not Obama the Delegator.

I applaud him for that attitude, too. Especially in his first term. Well, we’ll just have to see what Speaker Pelosi says about that. Pres Bush liked nicknames. Maybe Pres-elect Obama will continue that and nickname her “Achilles Heel.”

[[The Social Security trust fund is actually in pretty good shape as long as the federal government honors its pledge to pay back the many billions it borrowed from the fund to run the rest of government.]]

Ummm, not to get personal Jay, but are you on anything? Or did you write that tongue-in-cheek?

BTW – I appreciate how you link to the article upon which you’re commenting.

Mrs. Godzilla 1:20

[[In fact it will be a sea change]]

Changing attitudes, actions, all that, I can buy it. But “sea change.” That’s a bit much. Which sea is he going to change? And into what?

AmVet 2:04

I think you and I are the only ones here who are for a cut in military spending.

Class of 98

Thank you for going with the updated “climate change” instead of “global warming.” I’m still waiting for the press release from the Gore Institute changing it again – to Global Freezing.

DB, Gwinnettian 2:16

If Democratic leadership (Congress) can bring itself to pass “modest benefit reductions” I’ll be the first to call it “change I can believe in.”

By dave

January 16, 2009 2:33 PM | Link to this

Atlanta Journal Constitution is losing $1 million a week Creative Loafing ^ | 1/16/09 | Scott Henry

Man Jay this just breaks my heart, what will you do? God knows you don’t have any skills that anyone other than a liberal rag would pay for…

By getalife

January 16, 2009 2:36 PM | Link to this

I doubt he will try to privatize like w but need more jobs to keep it going.

Don’t tell me they can’t save SS when they save Wall Street.

By AmVet

January 16, 2009 2:45 PM | Link to this

You know, for the life of me I just cannot understand why all of those innumerable scientists and climatological experts, working independently of each other, for a wide variety of prestigious institutions, with very long standing track records of scientific excellence, understanding and advancement, believe these liberal liars, who are only interested in destroying the American economy! Or what’s left of it.

Instead of the mountains of scientific data, evidence and facts gathered over many years that they now have at hand.

Quite an enigma. Almost unexplainable.

Damn that Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Magellan and Darwin!

Conspirators all! They have screwed up everything!

So the fundamental question here isn’t whether scientists can be wrong. Of curse they can and are. But they keep improving the knowledge base and by so doing get ever closer to the fundamental truths of what is happening.

The real question it is whether neo-cons can ever be right. And I’m not kidding about that. It would seem given their track record, it is exceptionally unlikely.

No wonder they keep getting annihilated every other November.

Man-induced global warming - its not just for realists anymore…

By Paul

January 16, 2009 2:49 PM | Link to this

AmVet

You wouldn’t be saying it’s a long-term phenomena regardless of the short-term blips, would you?

By rcs

January 16, 2009 2:53 PM | Link to this

AmVet, why do you have a hard time acknowledging all of those innumerable scientists and climatological experts, working independently of each other, for a wide variety of prestigious institutions, with very long standing track records of scientific excellence who HAVE NOT come to the conclusion that climate change is Man-induced?

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 16, 2009 2:54 PM | Link to this

Paul

I know you’re not on board with it, yet, but there has already been a sea change.

However, you don’t seem anywhere near as afraid of it as some.

That’s good.

By Copyleft

January 16, 2009 2:58 PM | Link to this

RCS: Umm, how about because they don’t exist?

It’s very hard to acknowledge people who only exist in the imaginations of oil companies and talk-radio hosts.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 16, 2009 2:59 PM | Link to this

Getalife, seriously, have a look at the Brookings Institute piece I’d linked above. Co-author of it’s going to be the new OMB head, by the way, so I’d be shocked if some version of that approach is what we wind up doing.

SS doesn’t need “saving,” it needs some tweaks to ensure it continues to be fully funded.

As for Medicare, I’m not going to be real surprised if the solution winds up being an orderly transition to single-payer that would take the distortion of for-profit private insurance out of the mix. I don’t mean to over-simplify that particular challenge; that’s just my high-level SWAG analysis.

By tcoach

January 16, 2009 3:00 PM | Link to this

Amvet so are you then saying that only the scientist you believe are correct?

You do know there are scientist, even respected ones, who do no think that all of the climate change is because of humans?

Seems as if only the scientist that you agree with are the only credible ones in your world. Leaving the rest of us to ponder your credibility.

Never would expect you to see anything other than through

dem. =always good, and right

any and all rep. bad and always wrong

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 16, 2009 3:03 PM | Link to this

“those innumerable scientists and climatological experts”

By that, rcs means the guys who signed that nutball petition (warning—Newsmax link. It’s good for a hearty laugh, though.)

Remember—they’re all “scientists!”

By Bud Wiser

January 16, 2009 3:03 PM | Link to this

AmVet went over the edge long, long ago. He buys into that global warming crap because he prays that one day he may touch the sleeve of his idol, Al “I invented the internet, and boy am I getting rich off the global warming idiots” Gore.

He cries ‘4 more days’ constantly, just knowing that on Tuesday, the skies will clear, the seas will become calm and fresh, and that money will start falling out of the skies, all brought on by His Holiness, The Messiah. And I don’t mean the real Messiah, but the puppet from Illinois.

He and his kind just can’t get over Bush, and that Bush is the one and complete reason that he and others are the continual failure that they have become, but that Obama will change all that when he drags the all from rags and stupidity, to riches and intelligent.

By Copyleft

January 16, 2009 3:05 PM | Link to this

It’s not a universal law, TCoach… it just always seems to turn out that way.

Waiting for the ridiculous (and already discredite) “Petition Project” to be dredged up again, with such stellar scientific names as Daffy Duck and Homer Simpson—plus a cast of DOZENS of engineering grad students!—confidently asserting that global warming can’t possibly be real, based on their extensive research and peer-reviewed publications that they’ll get around to presenting someday.

By rcs

January 16, 2009 3:05 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, These 31,000 scientists don’t exist? Boy do I feel stupid. Thanks for setting me straight. Please pass the Kool-Aid

http://www.petitionproject.org/

By Happy

January 16, 2009 3:06 PM | Link to this

A Republican tax would solve all of the shortfalls. They have not paid any taxes for so long now that they should have mattresses stuffed with cash. Fifty percent on each Republican over the age of 16. Fifty percent of their net worth each year until their bills are paid.

By TJ

January 16, 2009 3:09 PM | Link to this

The longer I live the more plain it becomes. The have nots will always have a way to steal from those who produce.

By Cindy

January 16, 2009 3:10 PM | Link to this

Class of ‘98,

Don’t feel bad. You are like many who refuse to be educated on the nuts and bolts of global warming. It doesn’t matter what the temperature is in your own back yard on any given day. The fact that the “poles” are melting is the cause for concern. When ice shelves that have been present for an estimated 6000 years collapse into the seas and melt there is cause for concern. The disappearance of glaciers is cause for concern. These things happen because of a global warming you cannot detect by your thermometer.

By Paul

January 16, 2009 3:10 PM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla 2:54

Whatever could I have written to cause you to know you’re not on board with it.”

Just as writing something positive about a person doesn’t necessarily one ‘supports’ the policies (the Pres Bush example) so too writing something questioning or even critical does not mean one is ‘against’ (the Pres-elect Obama example).

A tough concept for some, but I have faith you can. I mean, you gave credit to Pres Bush for his Africa initiatives, but that doesn’t mean you’ve turned into a Bush-loving-neocon-fascist-destroy-America-fanatic, does it?

DB,Gwinnetian

[[transition to single-payer that would take the distortion of for-profit private insurance out of the mix.]]

Kinda sounds like the McCain plan - equalize the field regarding company-provided insurance. Personally, I don’t care who thought of it ‘first’ or whose name is or was associated with it, as long as it works.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 16, 2009 3:10 PM | Link to this

Paul @ 2.31, I’ll add to your noble sentiment that if Republicans can accept a deal that calls for SS witholding to gradually rise from 12 to 15% over the next twenty years without screaming bloody murder, I’ll have to get to the front of the line to call that “change I can believe in” as well.

By Copyleft

January 16, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this

And there it is! The Petition Project, that most embarrassing bit of favored propaganda since the “Second Law of Thermo” argument from the flat-earth, anti-evolution crowd.

Too ignorant to be embarassed by it, the talk-radio drones keep trotting it out, blissfully unaware that

1) It’s been discredited already, and 2) Science isn’t conducted by circulating a petition.

Funny stuff. Great way to start the weekend! Thanks, losers.

By tcoach

January 16, 2009 3:15 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, Did I say a word about the petition?

No, because it also had economist listed on it among other people.

I do not use any evidence in support of my argument though.

Try doing some research, not just for the articles you WANT to read. Also for ones that differ with your opinion.

There is an entire respected group who believe that climate is controlled more by the sun’s output, more than greenhouse gases.

You know it was sun out put that is believed to have caused lil’ ice age bout 300 years ago. It is all on the Internet and not hard to find.

I am not a scientist never have been. I do not know because I have not conducted the experiments, do not have the overall knowledge.

Not going to blindly into believing something because some or even most of a group does.

(almost all of the worlds respected scientist used to have facts and figures to show how the earth was flat too. Don’t forget Y2K facts and figures and scientist and computer experts all agreed.

However you and AMvet seem to know so much more than the rest of us mortals here. So could you please just begin emailing me daily all the “facts” I need to know about life and politics so I could quit having to actually think and learn things for myself.

Thanks and happy narrow viewpoint.

By Andy the Welcher

January 16, 2009 3:20 PM | Link to this

Andy’s a Welcher and a Whiner…

EW and EW

By Paul

January 16, 2009 3:22 PM | Link to this

DB,Gwinnettian

I don’t want to make any bets on which is more likely. It did occur as I read your post, though, that that which a Pelosi/Democratic Congress may have reflexively rejected when proposed by a Republican President may be more liable to be considered and passed when proposed by a Democratic President.

Particularly one who has the gumption (I like that word) to go direct to the American people and say “this is what I’ve proposed, this is why and this is who’s in the way.” Kinda like Roosevelt.

Mrs. Godzilla

I hope “Whatever could I have written to cause you to “know you’re (meaning ‘Paul’) (is) not on board with it” clarifies the first sentence of my prior post to you.

By Bosch

January 16, 2009 3:25 PM | Link to this

Some say that the climate change is a natural cycle and I do not dispute that. EVERYTHING is a natural cycle of the planet. We can not deny that humans are having a rather significant impact on our planet, I’m not just talking about the climate, I’m talking about the whole impact - deforestation, polluted water and air, the amount of garbage created, etc.

One of the greatest things I’ve seen lately? Reuseable grocery bags. Why they didn’t think of this before is beyond me. I love those things. If I ran a grocery store, retail store, whatever, I’d do away with bags completely. And I would love to see manufacturers do away with packaging - or at least use lots less. Just think how much garbage is created with unncessary packaging.

And, you heard it here first, I wish that grocery stores would start selling things in bulk where you could bring in your own re-useable containers to take the stuff home in - cereal, milk, bread, fruits/veggies, whatever. It seems the big grocery outlets could get together and request the manufacturers sell these items in bulk. I’d do it myself if I had the $$$ - any investors interested?

I don’t for one second disagree that this is a natural cycle of our planet, it’s the rate of which we are significantly altering things.

I saw a television show about this a while back and it was really interesting. Some scientists are calling this the Human Age because at no other time in human history have we altered the planet so signicantly in so short a time.

If we all died today, the planet will survive - in about a million years or so, things will be as they were before humans existed.

One thing I know is that research can be manipulated to say almost anything you want it to. It’s all in the way the research methods are designed, and how you interpret the results of the data. Any oil company can make data say this, while any environmentalists can take the same thing and make it say something totally different.

Anyway, my two cents.

By AmVet

January 16, 2009 3:27 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Do you mean man-induced global warming or the neo-con’s general distrust/hatred for all things science?

If the former, historical records clearly indicate that natural temperature oscillations take centuries or millenia to manifest themselves.

Not two or three decades.

If you’re asking about the enviro-rapers and the flat-earth gang, I really have no good explanation. Other than their irrational mythology, I suppose. And their politically joined-at-the hip heathens who also hate liberals, academicians and whose only love is for money first, last and always.

However, unlike these dogmatists, science will always gladly accommodate alternative, superior hypotheses.

(And why is it that the cristofascists accept carte blance on “faith” woman being born of man, supernatural sexless births, talking bushes, heavens and hells, ad nauseum but require unending evidence to support their equally delusional disbeliefs in what they DON’T want to know?)

The right wing’s socio-extremists have had quite a while now to produce a superior explanation.

But where and what is it?

The irrefutable fact is that they have none, at least that will stand up to the unforgiving scrutiny of science.

So the best they can come up with relies on such moronic explanations like wobbles in the earth”s orbit, variations in the sun’s temperatures and cow flatulence.

And given this irrefutable fact, is it any wonder that the vast majority of acknowledged experts worldwide agree that these results are due to staggering amounts of man-made pollutants and widespread environmental damage. And the rest of us just shake our heads and sadly laugh at the nuts like HeadRush “The explanation is all in the volcanoes” Limberger and his mini-army of faithful fools.

It’s one thing to acknowledge that most of the scientifically challenged right-wingers slept through their high school biology, chemistry and physics classes. It is another to give much credence to the incredibly ignorant and untrustworthy.

The bottom line is this - there is an almost statistical certainty that they will have virtually no impact on the decisions that are made going forward.

01-20-09 The End of the Dark Ages and Mindless Stalling in American Government

By Bosch

January 16, 2009 3:31 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Have ya’ heard? Battlestar Galactica starts back up tonight! Just thought I’d let you know in case you’re interested. Probably doesn’t mean a whole lot to you or anything.

By Paul

January 16, 2009 3:37 PM | Link to this

AmVet

I meant the man-induced. But the rest of your post was provocative reading, too.

As far as the cristofascist comments, I think that illustrates the problems of accepting and extending the literalist view. Really, one of the few times (other than following instruction manuals) is when it’s fun to do it with some here and ask “this is what you said. This is the literal reading. Are you sure you meant that?” I used to have fun doing that with my wife but it became too dangerous.

I will say, though, that regardless of one’s thoughts on man-induced, natural cycles, or whatever, I do not need an army of scientists with reams of studies to validate my gut feeling that dumping tons of man made pollutants into the earth or atmosphere is a bad idea that cannot have good consequences.

By Bosch

January 16, 2009 3:38 PM | Link to this

AmVet,

You forgot resurrection of the dead. That’s just plain creepy to me. Everytime I think about Christ rising from the dead, I just can’t get zombie creatures out of the vision. I don’t like to think about Christ that way - it’s just weird.

I mean, can’t Christianity be Christianity without somebody rising from the dead? Is that just totally necessary?

And have you ever worked with cows? Disgusting creatures - simply disgusting. I’m convinced they were created for our simple dining pleasure, and everytime I eat a hamburger I laugh to myself at all those disgusting animals’ demise who caused me such hell that one summer.

By Paul

January 16, 2009 3:40 PM | Link to this

Bosch

Tonight?!!? Battlestar Galactica starts back up tonight?!!?

Dang, I’ve got tickets for a Chinese machine-made polyester quilt exhibition! Aw, nuts!

6 hours 21 minutes

Hey AmVet - we’ll be celebrating before you will!

By AJC/DNC Management

January 16, 2009 3:40 PM | Link to this

{{{{By Andy the Welcher January 16, 2009 3:20 PM Andy’s a Welcher and a Whiner…EW and EW}}}}

Jay: Do you mind telling me which one of these worm ridden liberals this is so that I do not de nut the wrong one?

Preciate it.

By @@

January 16, 2009 3:41 PM | Link to this

Bud Wiser:

Red Tide?

Very likely, but only after the purple (red/blue) wave recedes into the vast depths of what lies before us.

It’ll be “man overboard” and there won’t be that many “dingies” left.

By Paul

January 16, 2009 3:45 PM | Link to this

Political Foreskin

If you’re banned, how come you posted? Or were you like downloaded to the Resurrection Ship and.. and…

OH MY GOSH!!!! BOSCH!!!!

POLITICAL FORESKIN’S THE FIFTH CYLON!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

By Joey

January 16, 2009 3:47 PM | Link to this

May I enter the Man-made-carbon dioxide-driven global warming discussion?

The scientist who claim to be convinced of Global Warming are basing the majority of their arguments on Man-Made-Computer-Software. Software that was written by them to analyze the data that they choose to enter into the programs. Using data that is only a few decades old. This proof of Global Warming is nothing more than Computer Game Theory. Advanced Mario Brothers.

Their remaining evidence is annecdotal examples of unusual weather. A few rough tornados, Global Warming. Several severe hurricanes, Global Warming. Extended droughts here, Global Warming. Unusual flooding there, Global Warming. Or photos of Summer ice melts or cropped photos of polar bears playing.

Annecdotes like this were common from Al and his cohorts all through the 90s and early 2000s. Al actually stated that Global Warming would bring on the next Ice Age. And people applauded him when he said it.

But when people who disagree with the Global Warming Believers choose to cite annecdotal evidence they are skewered. Typical double standard for evidence.

So called scientist have been predicting the death of Earth from some activity of Man for at least the 60 years that I have been around. And every time they do it seems that employing them to do more research is the only solution to the current Man-Made-Threat.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me 17 times and I might be a little gullible.

By Bosch

January 16, 2009 3:53 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Oh, that would suck if Polly were the fifth Cylon. All this time I’ve wasted watching this show.

Polly,

If Jay asks me to stop, then I’ll stop. Otherwise, I have a really good time annoying you who want me to stop, and a really good time kidding around with Paul about the show. Because ya’ know what? That show parallels alot of what we talk about here on the thread - politics, religion, right/wrong, etc.

Oh, and Paul,

I was thinking during lunch - and I might have mentioned this before, but Laura reminds me of Hillary sometimes - she will do ANYTHING including stealing elections and the such to get what she wants. But if I had the fate of the entire human race on my hands, I might do some kind of dishonest, unorthodox stuff.

Chinese quilt exhibit? Wow, that’s some tough decision you have there. Good luck with that.

“Tonight?!!? Battlestar Galactica starts back up tonight?!!?”

Yeah, it’s TONIGHT, in six hours and eight minutes.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 16, 2009 3:58 PM | Link to this

@@, Corporal, take note: KRISPY KREME CELEBRATES OBAMA WITH PRO-ABORTION DOUGHNUTS

And with that bit of jolly good cheer, I’ll say - later, gators!

By Wille Didit

January 16, 2009 3:59 PM | Link to this

And yet these people that will not believe in even the possibility that people’s activities here on earth could actually have an impact on the climate will turn around and make utterly absurd claims that lowering taxes will increase tax revenues. What happens as tax rates tend toward zero? Huh? This doesn’t take a science degree. Then, there’s the issue of faith. Faith in man’s written word that has been changed over the years by numerous people to start with….here’s something to have faith in — Republicans are going to have to start paying for their excesses instead of passing it off to their kids. You bums.

By Corporal of the Guard

January 16, 2009 4:01 PM | Link to this

Sources: Obama ready to end harsh interrogations (AP)

Oh, now it’s just harsh ……….

Side Bar:

I am predicting that the Obama Administration will be the one that allows Iran to develop and possess a nuclear bomb with all of the ramifications thereof.

Their answer will be, well, we tried.

By Paul

January 16, 2009 4:02 PM | Link to this

Bosch

It’s the exploring of moral dimensions I really like. As with the election stealing - she spoke of the greater good, the danger to the Fleet regardless of the will of the people. And remember the episodes where the Colonials found the ship with the dead and dying Cylons? And found the biohazard and were going to infect the Cylon fleet but some fought the decision because to use biologicals was morally wrong? Even though the Cylons had slaughtered billions and less than 50,000 humans were left alive? Or the episodes of torture and abuse of Six? Which was justified because “she’s not really human”?

Maybe that’s why some people avoid the show - the themes can be difficult to wrestle with and challenge long-held, core beliefs.

But that’s a reason I like it.

Out for a bit -

5 hours 59 minutes

By Dogs Against Management

January 16, 2009 4:05 PM | Link to this

Hey ac/dc,

If you want people to stop calling you a welcher STOP WELCHING.

Whiner.

By Bosch

January 16, 2009 4:06 PM | Link to this

Joey,

I’m no scientist, but I have analyzed a bit of data in my day, albeit it’s been a while, and the computer software used by scientists isn’t some “global warming software 5.0” - it’s number crunching software that works for any kind of number sequences.

It’s not the numbers they throw into the software, it’s the methods of their design and does it support their hypothesis - and what that means exactly. Comparing up and up research methods to a video game is kind of a stretch there.

By AmVet

January 16, 2009 4:08 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

I was thinking about alluding to that rolling away of the stone, but thought better of it.

Paul, one other thing.

As you know I just enjoy writing about certain topics and watching the worst of the faux conservatives slobber hatefully all over themselves and keyboards and practically blow a gasket. And this topic along with the evolutionary “holes in the fossil record” is guaranteed to entertain.

Look at that 3:03 for evidence.

Such a lack of self-discipline and adult self-control.

Shocking.

joey, anecdotal evidence? Really? Those damned satellites and their pictures. (Andy definitely doesn’t like them taking photographs of the planet) And those goofy, high precision measuring instruments. I knew they were all second hand stories.

tcoach, I don’t know the real situation. How can I? It is enormously complex. But I have always had a great deal of scientific curiosity and have read a considerable amount on this subject. And for every scientist you can find, the world has found 10 to 100 others who disagree. Just the facts, ma’am. I’ll trust them.

Maybe you haven’t been here long enough to know this, but I have often blasted Democrats here. I have not voted for one for CIC since Clinton in 1996. And I may never do so again. They have long ago lost my loyalty. But you and the GOP?

I preferred the honorable McCain over the unknown Obama and wrote so repeatedly. ALL Republicans aren’t horses a*******es, of course. Hagel’s anti-war voice was awesome. Just virtually their entire existing leadership.

So are the neo-cons even worse? Of course! By far! Just look at the 75% of Americans who think BushCo was a train wreck. While the 25%ers desperately cling to this notion that he wasn’t, just as they cling to this “alternative unspecified explanation” for rising temperatures around the planet.

Off for the weekend!

Stay warm all!

FOUR MORE DAYS! FOUR MORE DAYS! FOUR MORE DAYS! FOUR MORE DAYS!

By Gorged on Republican Taxes

January 16, 2009 4:08 PM | Link to this

I think the US should sell nuclear technology to Iran, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc.

By Bosch

January 16, 2009 4:08 PM | Link to this

Paul @ 4:02,

Oh, yes, I remember that episode - which is why Helo is one of my favorite characters. He’s so good - you just know he’s gonna die.

Yeah, that’s why I like the show too - you can never tell who the good guy or bad guy is.

By Ernest B. Goodfellow

January 16, 2009 4:25 PM | Link to this

Well, I researched video games once. I did quite an exhaustive study. Store after store, I went. I compared titles and platforms and cost and support. I compared the size of the big box that housed the little box. I calculated the cost per bit and byte. I normalized costs with respect to distance to the POP (point of purchase). I was startled with the results. To my dismay, and I believe this to this day, there may and I do mean may for the data was all but conclusive one might say, that there was indeed collusion. Yes, for how else could all these stores within miles of each other offer the very same products for nearly the same price. Variation in tax rates, on the other hand, were alarmingly varied. It was almost as though different counties charged different rates. This phenomenon will require closer investigation.

By Swami Dave

January 16, 2009 4:29 PM | Link to this

DB:

I can only assume by your attempted association with AM Radio, that you are inferring that I copied the post from somewhere else. I quiet your concern; I wrote it as I do most all of my posts. And for the record, attacking the source from whom you assume I took the material / idea will not qualify as a valid challenge to the points in the post. I pretty much accept that as the surrender that lacking the ability to dispute the idea, you attack the person / group from whom you thought I got it.

Happy:

A Republican tax would solve all of the shortfalls. They have not paid any taxes for so long now that they should have mattresses stuffed with cash. Fifty percent on each Republican over the age of 16. Fifty percent of their net worth each year until their bills are paid.

So an arbitrary theft from the holdings of individuals based on their political party is your solution. Dare I ask - what “bills” would you be referring to as owned by “Republicans”? Sometimes it is interesting to get glimpses into the delusional world-view that some mistakenly hold as valid (or relevant).

I guess it is easy when your philosophical solution to all problems is to have government steal from someone else what you are unwilling to earn on your own.

-Swami Dave

By Happy

January 16, 2009 4:38 PM | Link to this

Well, you do have a valid concern there Mr. Swami. You can keep your Confederate bills. Further, it’s not an arbitrary taxation — it’s a taxation of Republicans. You know, the ones that think that wars and such don’t cost money and that lowering taxes increases taxes. And, it surely is not theft to get the Republicans to pay their own bills. Why, it would be theft for them not to pay their bills, young fella.

By @@

January 16, 2009 4:41 PM | Link to this

I think the sight of those doughnuts, complete with holes got DB all excited.

Better later than never, eh DB?

By Joey

January 16, 2009 4:44 PM | Link to this

Bosch: In my view the “stretch” of the comparison emphasized the point. I think that is not uncommon, especially here.

By Dunk N. Dough

January 16, 2009 4:48 PM | Link to this

I’m gonna start eatin’ Krispy Kreme doughnuts and just exercise more to work it off. They’re pro-choice and that’s the way we were all meant to be — mindin’ our own business, of course. After all, I don’t go around tellin’ Republicans where to put it even though I have sure felt like it plenty of times. They are pretty darned stoopid, you know.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 16, 2009 4:58 PM | Link to this

{{{{By Dogs Against Management January 16, 2009 4:05 PM Hey ac/dc, If you want people to stop calling you a welcher STOP WELCHING.}}}}

I got something you can bark at.

freak

By Pogo

January 16, 2009 5:13 PM | Link to this

It is always refreshing to see a new president to present us with new ideas to cure our ills. The thing that is beginning to bother me about Obama is he just keeps promising way, WAY too much. If one looks at the bottom line, there is no way he can pay for all of this without it severly impacting future generations (or maybe even our own) ways of life. The campaign is over. In campaigns they all promise things they know they can’t achieve but yet Obama just keeps on promising. There is not enough money and there isn’t going to be enough revenue generation from the private sector in this country to pay for what Obama, Pelosi and Read are wanting. They almost have created a celebatory air to the spending of billions of OUR dollars. I mean, throw aside your political leanings for a minute people and think, really think. There is not now nor is there going to be enough money to pay for what they are wanting. Debt comes with a price. A very heavy price. It doesn’t matter if it is Bush and his prescription coverage plan or the Iraqi war or Obama’s creation of millions of jobs using taxpayer money. Debt is debt. Our country cannot survive creating debt like our government is doing now. This is beginning to lool like “politics as usual”. “Politics as usual” means that they will address the problem short term in order to make themselves look good and let the next gourp deal with the longterm “hard” decisions. The private sector must be healthy to create jobs that pay for the running of this country. Government subsidized jobs (either State or Federally) are a wash because you are paying for them out of money that ultimately must come from the private sector. So, for all of Obama’s promises of job creation, the bottom line he is worsening the problem by using more and more of the available taxpayer money. If people think that these trillions that our government representatives are doling out don’t come with a terrible price, they are badly mistaken. The major problem is, no politician will come out and tell the people of this country they are going to have to sacrifice because it is political suicide. Rather, they continue to spend money that is not there and money that is having less and less value just to make themselves look good politically. I fear we are in for very, very hard times.

By Swami Dave

January 16, 2009 5:31 PM | Link to this

Happy:

Much like RB, you appear to be attempting a connection via the “Confederate Bills” that is invalid. Again I share, this type of behavior is indicative of folks who lacking the ability to respond / debate positions simply create bogus connections to invalidate via association.

As for what -I- think:

Wars cost money (and more unfortunately the lives of both ours, theirs, and many who are caught in the middle). I accept that our taxes are used to fund the military and its execution of wars - that IS one of the powers granted to our federal government under its Constitution. If, however, we are going to work within the “pay-for-what-you-want” model, which your position that “Republicans should pay for the wars” would seem to lead, then, I will support a similar measure allowing Democrats and Liberals to fund the myriad of social programs for which they clamour, but expect -everyone- to fund.

On the discussion of tax cuts, cuts (like Reagan’s and Bush’s) do increase revenues to the Treasury. Were you to actually look at the data, you would know that too. -I- have not seen a proposal made by any nationally credible leader (Republican or other) who would support lowering the tax rate to zero, but -I- think that it is a completely valid position that our government taxes us too much and spends too much funding things that people should do for themselves.

I’m not a “young fella”, but I am perfectly willing to pay my own bills. I have neither the obligation nor desire to pay the bills for someone else who should be paying them for themselves.

Thanks for asking. -Swami Dave

By Stoners Love Sliders

January 16, 2009 5:42 PM | Link to this

Pogo, don’t worry about Obama not being able to carry through on his promises.

Mr. Bush promised us that he wouldn’t be doing any nation building, and he pretty much spent the past 8 years doing the exact opposite.

By Happy

January 16, 2009 6:21 PM | Link to this

Swami,

If you had demonstrated an ounce of intelligence, then I would have been glad to “debate” an issue with you. However, when you had the audacity to bring up Reagan and Bush and someone connect them with increased tax revenues, that was just out of line. Go educate yourself, young fella. By the way, that “young fella” indicates you level of education.

You’re welcome.

By Tank

January 17, 2009 11:19 AM | Link to this

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it. You don’t multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn’t first take from somebody else.

Whenever somebody receives something without working for it, somebody else has to work for it without receiving. The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don’t have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don’t get to enjoy the fruit of their labor.” (Adrian Rogers, Ten Secrets for a Successful Family: A Perfect 10 for Homes that Win. Crossway Books, 1998, p. 138).

The liberal elite have one objective and that is to create a socialist democracy out of our representative Republic. To this end: break up traditional values, break up the traditional family, create poverty, promote illegal immigration, marginalize the electorate, legislate through the courts, and control public education. These correlate with eliminating personal liberty, free markets, and, more importantly, increase dependence on government. None of which have anything to do with our Constitution. The further down the path to socialism we go the greater the sacrifice to reestablish liberty. The American dream is under attack from within as well as from without.

By Ottoman Warrior

January 17, 2009 11:39 AM | Link to this

We do not have a representative Republic. Wake up, brainwashed one. We have people with enough money to buy politicians and ads and opinions in order to sway voters. Votes are bought and paid for in every election. The voters just are not the ones getting paid.

By The Conservative

January 18, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this

The Conservative

I eschew the word conservative. Einstein said that conservatism was making the same bribe over and over and expecting a different arab tribe to stand down. Webster’s Conservatism means a “ disposition to keep established ways, or resistance to change”. I speet on that definition too. Perhaps a photo of a dead beat dad walking into a gambling casino would better illustrate what conservatism has become to mean: the break up of our nookyoolar family, and the business ethics on wallstreet and in our banks, investing as blindly as a Vegas addict, which explains why nobody is talking about where the bailout money went: What happens in vegas STAYS in vegas.

Worksheet for defining conservatism:

The Reagan Conservative: small government, reduced entitlements, strong defense, and keeping the beachboys away from the fourth of july whithe house lawn celebration.

The Nixon Conservative: Presidential privilege extends beyond the scope of the duties inferred during the oath of office swearing-in ceremony.

The Bush Conservative: Cheney classified the definition of conservatism for the next fifty years, so none of us will ever know. We’ll just stick with “no new taxes”. That worked out great.

Purpose of The Conservative:

I hope to instruct the new conservative about who he is, where he is, and what he would do in a crisis. I am The Conservative. I like people. Inflation is the enemy.

Conservatism 101: If Taxes stifle growth, and Entitlements stifle productivity, then war should be tax-free. (The Iraq War is already tactics-free)

Conservative talking points: The new last refuge of a scoundrel is not now bipartisanship. Splittng the presidency into two parts, with the elected president handling domestic affairs and the elected Vice President being the defacto commander-in-(chief (which no supreme court judge voted for) is treason. Maybe our definition of conservative should start there.

There is to be one civilian commander in chief. He is our defacto president because either he got the most electoral college votes or the supreme court appointed him as the defacto president. Either way works to the satisfaction of the American voter and his 14 second attention span.

Please take notes. There will be an orange alert later accompanied by a quiz given by a fifth grader.