Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 40521 - 40540 of total 52606 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dr. F.

Ice climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 5, 2013 - 05:51pm PT
He hates the Volt because it doesn't suck down enough Koch Brother Petroleum products,

Anything that doesn't make money for the Koch Brothers, the Right Wingers are dead set against.

Social climber
So Cal
Jan 5, 2013 - 05:54pm PT
The Volts cost us about 200K a piece when you get done with all the graft.

More idiocracy from the bureaucracy.


Mountain climber
La Mancha
Jan 5, 2013 - 06:26pm PT
why I don't support the troops...

Just watched a special on Marlene Dietrich- now there's a shining example of someone who defined her life by supporting the troops!

I always considered her to be a footnote in hollywood history, but now I have a deep respect for her as a person who walked the walk...

Jan 5, 2013 - 06:41pm PT
TGT and his absurd math.

If we calculate the cost the way TGT calculates, the first ipad cost many millions.

The initial costs are spread out over the lifetime of the product.


Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 5, 2013 - 06:50pm PT
The initial costs are spread out over the lifetime of the product.
Quote Here

TGT obviously knows nothing about finance

and knows nothing about "concept cars'

The Volt was never, ever, intended to be a "money maker" for GM

The Volt is simply an example of what GM wanted to prove it could do, because it could

TGT does not realize that GM's success has absolutely nothing to do with Volt sales

TGT is a childishly minded little conservative thumb sucking dumb f*#k

Ice climber
chingadero de chula vista
Jan 6, 2013 - 04:14pm PT
slightly OT, but did anybody see Romeny's transition website?


Somewhere out there
Jan 6, 2013 - 04:20pm PT
TGT is a childishly minded little conservative thumb sucking dumb f*#k

 Now that is funny Bwahahahhahahhahah

How many have seen the "8 Changes…" article on politicus?


1. Term limits for all federal elected officials. 6 two year terms for congresspeople and 3 six year terms for the Senate.

2. No Senator or Congressperson can become a lobbyist without forfeiting his pension.

3. Changes in the procedural rules of the House and Senate so as to require all issues to come for a floor vote within 6 months of introduction.

4. Line item veto given to the President on all fiscal issues.

5. No amendments other than those directly related to the subject matter of any proposed piece of legislation.

6. A complete overhaul of the budget and tax code within 2 years. If Congress fails to complete this task, all members are dismissed and will be replaced with a new group.

7. Legislation to be adopted preventing the outsourcing of jobs, The only feasible method of addressing fiscal issues includes the creation of more jobs within this country. The Federal Government should invest resources into infrastructure improvements as well as alternate energy programs.

8. Public funding of elections with strict limits on advertising. An election cycle of no more than 90 days.

I've just gone through a couple and like them already… Maybe there is a chance for real change…. Not by reboobligoons…. but in Washington…. in general
Dr. F.

Ice climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2013 - 04:52pm PT

Why Paul Krugman Should Be President Obama's Pick for US Treasury Secretary

Not only is he the world's best-known economist, Krugman has the intellect and integrity to resist Wall Street's calls for austerity

by Mark Weisbrot
Published on Sunday, January 6, 2013 by The Guardian/UK

President Obama hasn't picked a treasury secretary yet for his second term, so he has a chance to do something different.

He could ignore what Wall Street and conservative media interests want and pick somebody who would represent what the electorate voted for. And not even just the people who voted for him: there are a lot of Republican voters out there who are also unemployed."Krugman is on the side of the majority of Americans," writes Mark Weisbrot. (Photo: Center for American Progress)

I know what you are thinking: this is impossible. There is too much money and power on the other side of this idea. Well, maybe.

But Obama has surprised us before. Last June, he picked Jim Kim to run the World Bank. This was unprecedented and an historic change; Kim is practically the only World Bank president in 60 years who was not previously a banker or a war criminal. On the contrary, Kim had spent most of his entire adult life trying to help poor people get healthcare.

Now, of course, the World Bank is not a cabinet appointment, but there is a lot of money that flows from that supposedly multilateral institution to the coffers of US corporations. You can bet that Jim Kim was not their top choice.

Obama is currently coming under heavy fire for his reported choice of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary. Hagel wants to get out of Afghanistan soon, does not want a war with Iran, favors negotiations with Hamas, and supports cuts in military spending.

Not only the neo-conservatives, but some of the most powerful interests in the country, including the right wing of the pro-Israel lobby, have launched a smear campaign. But so far, Obama has not backed down. This could have something to do with the fact that he no longer has to run for re-election.

So, for the post of treasury secretary, to replace the outgoing Tim Geithner, Obama could afford to make another bold choice: Paul Krugman.

Krugman would be tough to oppose on any substantive grounds. He has a Nobel Prize in economics (also the John Bates Clark award for best economist under 40). The New York Times columnist is probably the best-known living economist in the United States, and perhaps the world.

Krugman has been right about the major problems facing our economy, where many other economists and much of the business press have been wrong. A few examples: he wrote about the housing bubble before it collapsed and caused the Great Recession; he has forecast and explained that large budget deficits and trillions of dollars of "quantitative easing" (money creation) would not cause inflation or long-term interest rates to rise; and that the "confidence fairies" would not reward governments that pursued austerity in the face of recession.

Most importantly, Krugman is on the side of the majority of Americans. He has written extensively in favor of policies that favor job creation, explained the folly of budget cutting in the face of a weak economy, and opposes cuts to social security and Medicare benefits.

After all, why should the secretary of the treasury have to prioritize the interests of Wall Street and the "criminal enterprise" of big finance, as Charles Ferguson, academy award-winning film-maker and political scientist, describes it.

The US treasury secretary also has an important influence on the rest of the world, as the most powerful force within the IMF, G20, and G7 groupings. Krugman has written extensively about the stupidity of the last few years of economic policy in Europe, which has been a major drag on the whole world economy. The treasury secretary would have only limited influence on Europe through the IMF, but in developing countries the US treasury department pretty much is the IMF.

Imagine a treasury secretary who favored employment, poverty reduction and development, rather than unnecessary austerity, in developing countries.

The whole debate over economic policy in this country is taking place as though it exists in a fictional, upside-down world. With the federal government paying less than 1% of GDP in net interest on the debt, the lowest in more than 60 years, the loudest voices – backed by the biggest money – are daily trying to convince people and policy-makers that deficit reduction is our most important priority. This, despite the fact that most of them know that this will slow the economy and make it more difficult for the 22 million people who need work to find it.

It would be great to have a treasury secretary who can cut through all that crap. And since most of Wall Street's money went to Republican nominee Mitt Romney in the run-up to the November election, Obama doesn't owe anything to the people who crashed our economy and are now fighting to make senior citizens, working and poor people reduce their living standards.

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Jan 7, 2013 - 03:49am PT
nothing to see here, move along:



Jan 7, 2013 - 05:38am PT
Suck it Bookie, you lost.

Jan 7, 2013 - 05:44am PT
One of the things that drives me nuts about Obama is that he is a piss-poor negotiator.

The most blatant example was when he negotiated against himself regarding tax increases a few years ago.

Here is another that might bite us all in the ass: his upfront refusal to consider using the 14th Amendment to bypass congress and raise the debt ceiling.

Even if he doesn't believe he has the authority to use it, or believes its use is improper, why voluntarily drop that tool from your belt? Even if its only purpose is to inject a dose of will-he-use-it-or-not uncertainty in the minds of Republicans, keeping it in his belt would certainly help his bargaining position.



Jan 7, 2013 - 06:05am PT
Why are they wrong about everything?

Because when they were children their brains were deprived of oxygen.

The right wing sure does cater to brain deads.

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Jan 7, 2013 - 09:03am PT
fracking awesome!


Dr. F.

Ice climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2013 - 09:51am PT
GOP Threat: Cut Social Security and Medicare or We’ll Kill the Economy Americans say NO to both.

by Roger Hickey
Published on Monday, January 7, 2013 by Campaign for America's Future Blog

Here we go again. Republicans are very clear about their latest extortion threat to the American people: Unless you cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, within the next two months we will throw the US economy back into recession – by refusing to allow the US raise the debt ceiling and pay our bills – or by pushing the economy over another fiscal cliff of deep spending cuts and tax increases – or by shutting down the government by refusing to pass a continuing budget resolution.

But it is very important for progressives and politicians to remember that most Americans hate what the Republicans are doing here. Who but Right Wing terrorists could support pushing the economy back into recession, throwing millions of Americans out of work? That’s what Republicans are threatening. And huge majorities also hate the price Republicans are demanding to prevent their threat of manufactured chaos: the idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Republicans can get their way only if Democrats fail to realize they have the American people on our side. And once Republicans are clear about their proposals, Americans turn against them.

During the election, Paul Ryan’s plan to turn Medicare into a voucher was so unpopular that candidate Mitt Romney ran away from his Vice Presidential nominee’s proposal. Democrats won the election.

Now, Tennessee Republican Senators Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander have dared to unveil aproposal (called their “dollar-for-dollar plan”) that would only allow the debt ceiling to be raised by the amount we allow them to cut what they term “entitlements.” How many Americans would embrace these changes?:

They would privatize Medicare by creating competing private options giving seniors greater choice of healthcare plans. Shades of the plan Mitt Romney endorsed and then ran from.
They would also give states more flexibility to cut Medicaid programs.
And they would gradually raise the Social Security retirement age and immediately impose the “chained CPI” formula to cost-of-living adjustments – a cut to retirement benefits of today’s seniors.
“Unfortunately for America, the next line in the sand is going to be the debt ceiling,” Corker told The Hill, laying out his leverage strategy for negotiations with Democrats. These guys couldn’t be more explicit

Over the next two months, everyone who loves our country must rise up and say NO to this Republican nihilistic extortion. We must isolate them, ridicule and shame them. And we must force the Democrats to have the backbone to stand with us and reject Republican extortion and economic terrorism.

President Obama campaigned for reelection on his pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $250,000, but he backed down and agreed to raise taxes only on people making more than $400,000. In return, he got an extension of unemployment benefits and important low income tax provisions. But he could only get Republicans to postpone for two months the Fiscal Cliff tax increases and spending cuts known as “sequestration.” And he failed to get them to give up the threat to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States that their refusal to raise the debt limit ceiling would bring on. Their refusal to support the once-routine legislation insuring we can pay our debts is already causing the Treasury Department to juggle accounts and will reach crisis stage by the end of February.

President Obama has pledged that he will not bow to Republican extortion over the debt limit:

“I will not compromise over … whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they’ve already racked up. If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic. The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it. Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again.”


Our Country's greatest enemy, Republicans killing us from the inside.
And yet, there are people here on ST that vote for the death of America by supporting this Party of Terrorists
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
Jan 7, 2013 - 10:00am PT
fracking awesome!

excellent! that is good news - thanks for that Bookworm and its good to see you are on board in the the fight against big oil.

but don't think for a second this gets you off the sh#t list. You're stil nothing but a pud knocking right winger
Dr. F.

Ice climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2013 - 10:11am PT
This is a Must Read
The Republican Agenda create debt, and then make money on interest payments while you hold the Country Hostage

The Financial Elite's War Against the US Economy

by Michael Hudson
Published on Monday, December 31, 2012 by Naked Capitalism

Today’s economic warfare is not the kind waged a century ago between labor and its industrial employers. Finance has moved to capture the economy at large, industry and mining, public infrastructure (via privatization) and now even the educational system. (At over $1 trillion, U.S. student loan debt came to exceed credit-card debt in 2012.) The weapon in this financial warfare is no larger military force. The tactic is to load economies (governments, companies and families) with debt, siphon off their income as debt service and then foreclose when debtors lack the means to pay. Indebting government gives creditors a lever to pry away land, public infrastructure and other property in the public domain. Indebting companies enables creditors to seize employee pension savings. And indebting labor means that it no longer is necessary to hire strikebreakers to attack union organizers and strikers.

Workers have become so deeply indebted on their home mortgages, credit cards and other bank debt that they fear to strike or even to complain about working conditions. Losing work means missing payments on their monthly bills, enabling banks to jack up interest rates to levels that used to be deemed usurious. So debt peonage and unemployment loom on top of the wage slavery that was the main focus of class warfare a century ago. And to cap matters, credit-card bank lobbyists have rewritten the bankruptcy laws to curtail debtor rights, and the referees appointed to adjudicate disputes brought by debtors and consumers are subject to veto from the banks and businesses that are mainly responsible for inflicting injury.

The aim of financial warfare is not merely to acquire land, natural resources and key infrastructure rents as in military warfare; it is to centralize creditor control over society. In contrast to the promise of democratic reform nurturing a middle class a century ago, we are witnessing a regression to a world of special privilege in which one must inherit wealth in order to avoid debt and job dependency.

The emerging financial oligarchy seeks to shift taxes off banks and their major customers (real estate, natural resources and monopolies) onto labor. Given the need to win voter acquiescence, this aim is best achieved by rolling back everyone’s taxes. The easiest way to do this is to shrink government spending, headed by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Yet these are the programs that enjoy the strongest voter support. This fact has inspired what may be called the Big Lie of our epoch: the pretense that governments can only create money to pay the financial sector, and that the beneficiaries of social programs should be entirely responsible for paying for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not the wealthy. This Big Lie is used to reverse the concept of progressive taxation, turning the tax system into a ploy of the financial sector to levy tribute on the economy at large.

Financial lobbyists quickly discovered that the easiest ploy to shift the cost of social programs onto labor is to conceal new taxes as user fees, using the proceeds to cut taxes for the elite 1%. This fiscal sleight-of-hand was the aim of the 1983 Greenspan Commission. It confused people into thinking that government budgets are like family budgets, concealing the fact that governments can finance their spending by creating their own money. They do not have to borrow, or even to tax (at least, not tax mainly the 99%).

The Greenspan tax shift played on the fact that most people see the need to save for their own retirement. The carefully crafted and well-subsidized deception at work is that Social Security requires a similar pre-funding – by raising wage withholding. The trick is to convince wage earners it is fair to tax them more to pay for government social spending, yet not also to ask the banking sector to pay similar a user fee to pre-save for the next time it itself will need bailouts to cover its losses. Also asymmetrical is the fact that nobody suggests that the government set up a fund to pay for future wars, so that future adventures such as Iraq or Afghanistan will not “run a deficit” to burden the budget. So the first deception is to treat only Social Security and medical care as user fees. The second is to aggravate matters by insisting that such fees be paid long in advance, by pre-saving.

There is no inherent need to single out any particular area of public spending as causing a budget deficit if it is not pre-funded. It is a travesty of progressive tax policy to only oblige workers whose wages are less than (at present) $105,000 to pay this FICA wage withholding, exempting higher earnings, capital gains, rental income and profits. The raison d’être for taxing the 99% for Social Security and Medicare is simply to avoid taxing wealth, by falling on low wage income at a much higher rate than that of the wealthy. This is not how the original U.S. income tax was created at its inception in 1913. During its early years only the wealthiest 1% of the population had to file a return. There were few loopholes, and capital gains were taxed at the same rate as earned income.

The government’s seashore insurance program, for instance, recently incurred a $1 trillion liability to rebuild the private beaches and homes that Hurricane Sandy washed out. Why should this insurance subsidy at below-commercial rates for the wealthy minority who live in this scenic high-risk property be treated as normal spending, but not Social Security? Why save in advance by a special wage tax to pay for these programs that benefit the general population, but not levy a similar “user fee” tax to pay for flood insurance for beachfront homes or war? And while we are at it, why not save another $13 trillion in advance to pay for the next bailout of Wall Street when debt deflation causes another crisis to drain the budget?

But on whom should we levy these taxes? To impose user fees for the beachfront reconstruction would require a tax falling mainly on the wealthy owners of such properties. Their dominant role in funding the election campaigns of the Congressmen and Senators who draw up the tax code suggests why they are able to avoid prepaying for the cost of rebuilding their seashore property. Such taxation is only for wage earners on their retirement income, not the 1% on their own vacation and retirement homes.

By not raising taxes on the wealthy or using the central bank to monetize spending on anything except bailing out the banks and subsidizing the financial sector, the government follows a pro-creditor policy. Tax favoritism for the wealthy deepens the budget deficit, forcing governments to borrow more. Paying interest on this debt diverts revenue from being spent on goods and services. This fiscal austerity shrinks markets, reducing tax revenue to the brink of default. This enables bondholders to treat the government in the same way that banks treat a bankrupt family, forcing the debtor to sell off assets – in this case the public domain as if it were the family silver, as Britain’s Prime Minister Harold MacMillan characterized Margaret Thatcher’s privatization sell-offs.

In an Orwellian doublethink twist this privatization is done in the name of free markets, despite being imposed by global financial institutions whose administrators are not democratically elected. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Central Bank (ECB) and EU bureaucracy treat governments like banks treat homeowners unable to pay their mortgage: by foreclosing. Greece, for example, has been told to start selling off prime tourist sites, ports, islands, offshore gas rights, water and sewer systems, roads and other property.

Sovereign governments are, in principle, free of such pressure. That is what makes them sovereign. They are not obliged to settle public debts and budget deficits by asset selloffs. They do not need to borrow more domestic currency; they can create it. This self-financing keeps the national patrimony in public hands rather than turning assets over to private buyers, or having to borrow from banks and bondholders.

© 2012 Naked Capitalism

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jan 7, 2013 - 11:09am PT
The Republicans need to stop scape goating the middle class and poor for America's economic problems...The wealthy have only their greed to blame for running America's economy into the ground....Instead they put social security and medicare under the microscope in an attempt to create a smoke screen and avoid public scrutiny for their part in ransacking the economy...The sad part is that they have conned most of their conservative base , the same voters who will have to depend on social security and medicare , into believing there script...Dumb-asses...!

Social climber
Right outside of Delacroix
Jan 7, 2013 - 02:45pm PT
They are just mean spirited people. They even went negative in the comments in Huell Howser's death notice in the LA Times. How much of an as#@&%e do you have to be to attempt to bash Huell Howser?
dirt claud

Social climber
san diego,ca
Jan 7, 2013 - 03:32pm PT
This from the party that likes calling black Republicans Uncle Toms. Because they think the guy or gal must be too stupid to realize what he/she is doing if they are Republican. You people are simply amazing. Love the double standard. What a f*#kin insult to someone who has worked all their life for what they believe. Whine all you want, why don't you look in the mirror sometime

Trad climber
lost, far away from Poland
Jan 7, 2013 - 04:51pm PT
I know that the purpose of this thread is to bash Repubs balls, but what do you think of that:

President Obama nominated Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary.


Obama does not want to be seen as caving twice to GOP attacks, Rice followed by Hagel. More important, he had a solid alternative for secretary of State in Sen. John Kerry. Hagel is unique in several ways, among them that he is a decorated Vietnam War veteran. The two other top candidates for Defense secretary, Ashton Carter and Michele Flournoy, did not serve in the military.

Hagel would be a solid ally at the Pentagon. Obama has had his share of tensions with the military, as many accounts have made clear, including retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s new memoir and the Rolling Stone article that led to his resignation. Hawks in Congress have also been highly critical of Obama. Hagel would be a counterweight to demands for more troops and more intervention around the world, particularly in Iran.

Hagel shares Obama's caution about military intervention. Although he voted to authorize an invasion of Iraq, Hagel had reservations and later became a sharp critic of the war. All indications are he would be supportive now if Obama decides to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan more quickly than planned. Immediately after Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011, Hagel said that Obama has “got to start heading toward the exits." The pursuit of bin Laden and al-Qaida was "the reason we invaded Afghanistan” after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hagel told the Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star, not the pursuit of the Taliban. "We have lost our purpose, our objective. We are in a universe of unpredictables and uncontrollables," he said.

Hagel would add a tinge of bipartisanship to Obama’s Cabinet. He angered many Republicans with his vociferous objections to the Iraq war, declined to back GOP nominee John McCain in 2008 and criticized last year's Republican hopefuls for being in “race to say who would bomb Iran first.” Still, his overall record in Congress was conservative. In 2007, when Hagel was still weighing a presidential bid, American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene told The Washington Times that Hagel is “bright, decent and conservative on almost all issues.” He said that Hagel’s lifetime ACU rating was over 85, “and we consider anyone who scores 80 or above a fairly reliable conservative.”

Obama and Hagel like and trust one another. They traveled together to Iraq in 2008, and Hagel defended him that year against campaign-trail attacks. “Obama and I got to know each other pretty well in the Senate even though he wasn’t there very long,” Hagel said last year in an interview with al-Monitor, an English-language website covering the Middle East. “I have the highest regard for him in every way. I think he’s one of the finest, most decent individuals I’ve ever known, and one of the smartest.”

Senators are sometimes inclined to give deference to their own in a confirmation process. But Hagel's blunt run in public life has provoked discomfort and dismay among Republicans and Democrats alike. The former senator from Nebraska has a lot of reassuring and persuading to do before he can count on winning that deference from former colleagues and others in the chamber he left four years ago.
Messages 40521 - 40540 of total 52606 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews