PDA

View Full Version : Got any good gargle?



Uncle Bill
03-03-2010, 04:27 PM
Now that the messiah is planning to have his minions 'shove it down your throat', you might need one.

For those that wish to believe that pack of lies and deceit spewed out by BHO today, you won't be needing the gargle, just some vaseline.

Hey folks, this so called healthcare is NOT about saving you any money on your hospitalization, or getting lower rates for your insurance...it's about POWER.


We are witnessing what Mr Bonner calls...


The Zombie Economy

Re-animating an Economic Corpse With an Artificial Recovery

http://www.agorafinancial.com/temp/DR/email/template/BillBonner.jpgBill Bonner


The zombies are taking over!

Noise. Distraction. Headlines. Opinions.

The important trend is the big one – the shift of resources from the private sector to the public sector.

During the bubble years, the private sector made a big, big mistake – taking on far too much debt.

Now, it is correcting its mistake...reluctantly, painfully, and with plenty of foot-dragging and interference from the government. Instead of letting the dead die in peace...the feds are pumping financial adrenaline into their veins...turning them into zombies.

It’s expensive work...so government is now making the same mistake the private sector made a few years ago. It’s pretending that debt-fueled spending is the same as growth. Ain’t no such thing.

The feds’ “growth” is even more pernicious and counterfeit than the bubble era growth in the private sector. At least people actually wanted houses...they just couldn’t afford to pay for them.

The feds, on the other hand, produce things that people wouldn’t buy even if they had the money – zombie products. Who would buy a billion-dollar software program to spy on other people? Who would pay other people to do nothing? Who would take on the debts of a failing financial institution?

Consider this, from Bloomberg: “Fannie Mae (http://clicks.dailyreckoning.com//t/AQ/AAEciQ/AAEirA/AAFjtA/AQ/AnzL8g/glPr) will seek $15.3 billion in US aid, bringing the total owed under a government lifeline to $76.2 billion, after its 10th consecutive quarterly loss.

“The mortgage-finance company posted a fourth-quarter net loss (http://clicks.dailyreckoning.com//t/AQ/AAEciQ/AAEirA/AAFjtA/Ag/AnzL8g/z2MT) of $16.3 billion, or $2.87 a share, Washington-based Fannie Mae said in a filing yesterday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“Fannie Mae, which owns or guarantees about 28 percent of the $11.8 trillion US home-loan market, has been hobbled by a three-year housing slump that wiped 28 percent from home values nationwide and led to record foreclosures (http://clicks.dailyreckoning.com//t/AQ/AAEciQ/AAEirA/AAFjtQ/AQ/AnzL8g/OQHn). The company, which posted $120.5 billion in losses over the previous nine quarters, and rival Freddie Mac were seized by regulators in September 2008.”

Did you read that carefully? Fannie Mae guarantees almost a third of the $12 trillion home mortgage market – or about $4 trillion. And guess who guarantees Fannie Mae? You do!

Fannie made bad loans. It ought to be put down, like a horse with a broken leg. But Fannie’s bondholders don’t take a loss. The losses have been moved to the public sector and Fannie itself has been turned into a zombie company.

Assets, liabilities, spending – it’s all shuffling over to the government...and sucking the life out of the private sector. In the area of durable goods, only about 4.4% of them, on average, were purchased by the pentagon over the last 17 years. But since the beginning of the financial crisis, durable spending by private industry decreased...while pentagon spending went up. The most recent figures show that 8% of durable orders are now bought by the military.

Recovery? Don’t bet on it. This government spending only makes it look like a recovery. The numbers may show an increase in durable goods sold, but tanks and armored personnel carriers don’t lead to genuine growth. They lead to Soviet-style zombie growth...by the government, of the government, and for the government. The rest of the economy shrinks.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Am I the only one that has any fear for what is happening to this country? Do you realize that if this Obama healthcare becomes law, it will be another entitlement that just won't be overturned by some conscientious voters concerned about their country. It will be the end of the beginning, and the crumbling of the U.S. Constitution will not be stopped. Nor will the bankruptcy of the nation be avoided.

UB

dnf777
03-03-2010, 04:50 PM
"Gargle"....."spewed"......"vaseline"......"shove it down your throat"......

I hope I'm not the only one very afraid here!!!:shock:

road kill
03-03-2010, 05:50 PM
BTW--I don't think we need to gargle for this, I think we need "Preperation H!!!"


rk

Goose
03-03-2010, 06:33 PM
Here's a quote from Obama in 2006:

"Those big-ticket items, fixing our health care system. You know, one of the arguments that I get with, uhh, my fellow progressives and -- and some of these have -- have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion --is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we -- we identify our core base, throw 'em red meat, we get a 50 plus one, uhhh, victory. See, Karl Rove doesn't need a broad consensus because he doesn't believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a -- a sizeable majority."

And he said the same thing in 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008.

There has never been a bigger liar in the history of United States than B. Hussein Obama. Not even Dick Nixon comes close.

It's fascism on steroids.

We live in Cuba now.

dnf777
03-04-2010, 05:18 AM
Here's a quote from Obama in 2006:

"Those big-ticket items, fixing our health care system. You know, one of the arguments that I get with, uhh, my fellow progressives and -- and some of these have -- have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion --is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we -- we identify our core base, throw 'em red meat, we get a 50 plus one, uhhh, victory. See, Karl Rove doesn't need a broad consensus because he doesn't believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a -- a sizeable majority."

And he said the same thing in 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008.

There has never been a bigger liar in the history of United States than B. Hussein Obama. Not even Dick Nixon comes close.

It's fascism on steroids.

We live in Cuba now.

He is eating his hat on those words, no doubt. He's learning though. In todays political environment, you NEED reconciliation to get anything passed. I think that's very unfortunate. The art of compromise is lost.

kb27_99
03-04-2010, 07:36 AM
He is eating his hat on those words, no doubt. He's learning though. In todays political environment, you NEED reconciliation to get anything passed. I think that's very unfortunate. The art of compromise is lost.


DNF, I agree with your 1st, 4th, and 5th sentence. Are you implying that he is becoming a better leader with the 2nd sentence?


Cheers, Kevin

Hew
03-04-2010, 08:05 AM
In todays political environment, you NEED reconciliation to get anything passed. I think that's very unfortunate.
I think it's very unfortunate that you blindly parrot Obama/DNC talking points. Aside from health care, name some other significant legislation that is stalled in the Senate right now. The fact of the matter is that up until now, Obama has received from Congress everything he's asked for.

Goose
03-04-2010, 09:37 AM
Here's Obama in 2007 on reconciliation:

"You gotta break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory with 50-plus-one but you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One and a lot of nice perks as President but you can't -- you can't deliver on health -- we're not going to pass universal health care with a -- with a 50-plus-one strategy."

And if you have a democrat Congressman sittin' on the fence and undecided on which way he'll vote you can always appoint his brother a Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit Court and buy he freakin' vote and get your Bill passed.

We live in Cuba now.

dnf777
03-04-2010, 09:54 AM
I think it's very unfortunate that you blindly parrot Obama/DNC talking points. Aside from health care, name some other significant legislation that is stalled in the Senate right now. The fact of the matter is that up until now, Obama has received from Congress everything he's asked for.

How bout the legislation that would have curtailed the 21% medicare reimbursement cuts for starters?

And I'll take credit and blame for my own talking points, unless I reference someone else, thank you.

Henry V
03-04-2010, 05:35 PM
Here is an interesting graph that shows the net effects of two pieces of legislation on the federal budget deficit passed by Repubs under Bush using reconciliation and also the projected effect of the Senate health care bill (CBO numbers in billions of course).

Guess which two bills passed under reconciliation had the largest and most negative impacts on the budget deficit?

Imagine that. Two bills passed through reconciliation by Repubs have had far great consequences on the federal budget than expected by the health care bill.

Damn mainstream media must be covering all this up!
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/03/threenumbers2.gif
The complete background can be located at:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/03/what_are_these_1.html

YardleyLabs
03-04-2010, 05:55 PM
Well sure, but incurring a deficit of $1.9 trillion doesn't count because, as the Republicans argued at the time, it's just giving us back what is already "ours". In fact, since we really got the money from China, it's like we actually made a $1.9 trillion profit.What could possibly be wrong with that? Why are you whining so much? But that socialist freak in the White House is going to steal our money back if he doesn't agree to extend the cuts and add another $2 trillion plus to the deficit. Sure, we had to make the cuts expire to avoid violating the law that prevented us from using reconciliation to pass a bill that added substantially to the debt after ten years. But heck, we got rid of that law as quickly as we could so Obama has no excuse for not incurring $2 trillion in additional debt. Maybe Switzerland will lend it to us this time. I hear the Chinese are already a little qweezy from the bank bailout.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

EDIT: Just for a little context. The cost of the tax cuts is equivalent to the cost of the entire Medicaid program. Thus, the cuts could be extended after January 1, 2011 by simply eliminating Medicaid nationwide. Of course, that would actually double the total number of people without medical coverage to almost one third of our entire population (Closer to 40% of all children) and, in the process, would bankrupt much of our health care industry. Alternatively, we could cut all defense related spending by 25%, or all non-defense related spending by almost 40%. Each of these actions would simply offset the cost of extending the tax cuts without doing anything to reduce the current deficit. If all three were done -- elimination of Medicaid, 25% reduction in all defense related spending, and a 40% reduction in all non-defense discretionary spending -- the effect would be a 60% reduction in our current deficit and we would still have to allow the tax cuts to expire.

Henry V
03-04-2010, 07:30 PM
I think it's very unfortunate that you blindly parrot Obama/DNC talking points. ...

Oh the irony. An accusation about "talking points" in a thread started by someone who, as usual, is just regurgitating RNC talking points (note: I would include a name in front of RNC if someone could let me know who the republican leader is).

Want proof?; Check this video out. http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-takes-fox-news-fair-and-balanced-hours-to-task-2010-3 The "shove it down our throats" talking points piece starts at about 5:30 with the best stuff a minute later. The first five minutes simply exposes FOX news so you may not be interested in that part.

dnf777
03-04-2010, 08:07 PM
Well sure, but incurring a deficit of $1.9 trillion doesn't count because, as the Republicans argued at the time, it's just giving us back what is already "ours". In fact, since we really got the money from China, it's like we actually made a $1.9 trillion profit.What could possibly be wrong with that? Why are you whining so much? But that socialist freak in the White House is going to steal our money back if he doesn't agree to extend the cuts and add another $2 trillion plus to the deficit. Sure, we had to make the cuts expire to avoid violating the law that prevented us from using reconciliation to pass a bill that added substantially to the debt after ten years. But heck, we got rid of that law as quickly as we could so Obama has no excuse for not incurring $2 trillion in additional debt. Maybe Switzerland will lend it to us this time. I hear the Chinese are already a little qweezy from the bank bailout.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

EDIT: Just for a little context. The cost of the tax cuts is equivalent to the cost of the entire Medicaid program. Thus, the cuts could be extended after January 1, 2011 by simply eliminating Medicaid nationwide. Of course, that would actually double the total number of people without medical coverage to almost one third of our entire population (Closer to 40% of all children) and, in the process, would bankrupt much of our health care industry. Alternatively, we could cut all defense related spending by 25%, or all non-defense related spending by almost 40%. Each of these actions would simply offset the cost of extending the tax cuts without doing anything to reduce the current deficit. If all three were done -- elimination of Medicaid, 25% reduction in all defense related spending, and a 40% reduction in all non-defense discretionary spending -- the effect would be a 60% reduction in our current deficit and we would still have to allow the tax cuts to expire.

Jeff,
You oughta know by now that the only thing more impossible to get across than a fact, is a handful of facts that refutes the righties distorted talking points! :rolleyes:

luvmylabs23139
03-04-2010, 08:34 PM
Why would I be dumb enough to trust anything out of the DUMS mouths? I have a CPA and I can and do run the real numbers. BUMMFACE would be in jail for his creative accounting. He makes ENRON look good.

YardleyLabs
03-04-2010, 08:52 PM
Why would I be dumb enough to trust anything out of the DUMS mouths? I have a CPA and I can and do run the real numbers. BUMMFACE would be in jail for his creative accounting. He makes ENRON look good.
What numbers are you talking about?

Hew
03-05-2010, 04:29 AM
Oh the irony. An accusation about "talking points" in a thread started by someone who, as usual, is just regurgitating RNC talking points (note: I would include a name in front of RNC if someone could let me know who the republican leader is).

Want proof?; Check this video out. http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-takes-fox-news-fair-and-balanced-hours-to-task-2010-3 The "shove it down our throats" talking points piece starts at about 5:30 with the best stuff a minute later. The first five minutes simply exposes FOX news so you may not be interested in that part.
Ah, yes...another John Stewart video from Henry. The favorite source of the ADHD-addled under-30 crowd who prefer that their "news" be fed to them in comedy pill form without all those pesky details that make it soooooo BORING. Maybe you can give me a synopsis of the video, Henry. And could you throw in a graph or a chart while you're at it? It's just not news without a graph or chart, right?

paul young
03-05-2010, 05:33 AM
ummmm.....i think he already did that, Hew.-Paul

Goose
03-05-2010, 07:18 AM
Here's our petulant President speaking out against reconciliation in 2005:

"A change in the Senate rules that really, uh, I think would change the character of the Senate, uh, forever. Uhhh, and what I worry about would be th-th-that you essentially still have two chambers, the House and the Senate, but you have simply majoritarian, uhhh, absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the Founders intended."

You leftists need to stop thinking about big numbers because they just make dizzy. The CBO scored a bill full of keynesian gimmicks, fraud, hocus-pocus and smoke and mirrors. It's nothing more than a big ol' bag of dog turd produced by the democrats. The true cost of this bill is in the trillions and it's a bill that would make the boys over at Enron proud...or Bernie Maddoff!

We live in Cuba now.

Buzz
03-05-2010, 07:46 AM
The "shove it down our throats" talking points piece starts at about 5:30 with the best stuff a minute later. The first five minutes simply exposes FOX news so you may not be interested in that part.

Hew, this synopsis is just for you, again...

YardleyLabs
03-05-2010, 08:23 AM
Here's our petulant President speaking out against reconciliation in 2005:

"A change in the Senate rules that really, uh, I think would change the character of the Senate, uh, forever. Uhhh, and what I worry about would be th-th-that you essentially still have two chambers, the House and the Senate, but you have simply majoritarian, uhhh, absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the Founders intended."

You leftists need to stop thinking about big numbers because they just make dizzy. The CBO scored a bill full of keynesian gimmicks, fraud, hocus-pocus and smoke and mirrors. It's nothing more than a big ol' bag of dog turd produced by the democrats. The true cost of this bill is in the trillions and it's a bill that would make the boys over at Enron proud...or Bernie Maddoff!

We live in Cuba now.
Actually, the context in which he made his comments was completely different and was not related to the reconciliation process at all. As noted in the ABC news story on the quote:

In 2005, then-Sen. Obama was not talking about the use of reconciliation rules; but rather about a larger rule change, what came to be known by opponents as the “nuclear option,” and by supporters as the “constitutional option.” (Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., originally coined the "nuclear option" terminology but then stopped using it.)

At that time Senate Democrats had been blocking some of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees through use of the threat of a filibuster; of 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals, 42 were confirmed, five never received hearings, and 10 were blocked by threat of filibuster. Democrats said this was nothing compared to 60 or so nominees of President Bill Clinton for whom Republicans refused to even hold hearings.


Republicans responded by threatening to raise a point of order to – for all intents and purposes -- declare the filibuster unconstitutional for judicial nominees, which they could have done with a majority vote. Senate Democrats, in turn, threatened to all but shut down the Senate. The showdown was avoided by a compromise created by the so-called “Gang of 14” Senators.

“I would like to think that this is something that we could sort out,” then-Sen. Obama said. “And I think that the way to sort it out would be for this administration to do what every administration previous to this one has done; which is to say, ‘Here are a set of nominees. Let's run them by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, figure out which of these judges generate the most heat, are considered most out of the extreme, and then let's work out what the list is of judges who in fact can gain some bipartisan support.’ I mean, that's what every president has done up until this point.”
[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/obama-quotes-on-nuclear-option-in-2005-given-new-scrutiny.html]

Effectively, after receiving Senate concurrence on 95% of all judicial nominees, the Republicans decided that they had to have an "up or down vote" on the remaining 10 where Democrats had threatened a filibuster. The leadership stated that they would force a vote by having the President Pro Tem rule that judicial nominations were not subject to filibuster. There was actually no legal basis for this. Rather, by having such a ruling made, the only vehicle for protest under Senate rules is to challenge the ruling of the Chair. Such a challenge is then subject to a simple majority vote where a tie vote results in defeat of the challenge and upholds the ruling of the chair. It is not subject to legal review because, under the Constitution, the Senate has exclusive responsibility for its own rules and those are not subject to judicial review, no matter how arbitrary or capricious.

As a consequence, invoking such a strategy opens the door forever to arbitrary rule by the majority party under any and all circumstances. For example, as Senator Bunning was conducting his one man filibuster over the last week, the chair could simply have ruled him out of order and called for a vote on the matter rather than call for a cloture vote as required by the rules of the Senate. If challenged on his ruling, a simply plurality of Senators voting to support the ruling of the chair would force a vote. Of course, doing this would make mockery of the rules and, in the words of then Senator Obama, forever "change the character of the Senate".

By the way, the National Press Club appearance by Obama was a discussion of the projected shortfall in social security.

I find your statement that "You leftists need to stop thinking about big numbers because they just make dizzy. The CBO scored a bill full of keynesian gimmicks, fraud, hocus-pocus and smoke and mirrors. It's nothing more than a big ol' bag of dog turd produced by the democrats." We'll ignore the fact that the estimates you are criticizing come from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, considered authoritative by both Republicans and Democrats. I would love to see the documentation supporting any of your assertions.

Henry V
03-05-2010, 08:46 AM
.... Maybe you can give me a synopsis of the video, Henry. And could you throw in a graph or a chart while you're at it? It's just not news without a graph or chart, right?

Thanks for this suggestion. It gave me a chance to watch the video again and, I gotta tell you, it gets better every time I watch it. The man and his writers are pure genius, but then again there is so much material to work with from FOX news.

Here is a synopsis.
0:00 to 5:50 minutes -show introduction, brief bit on Sarah Palin’s appearance the tonight show, that leads directly into an evisceration of the notion that FOX news is “fair and balanced” complete with numerous examples as they relate to the health care debate.

5:45 – Interviewed women is quoted “don’t jam this monster down our throats”

6:25 – Stewart poses the question “Where have I heard this phrase before”

6:30 to 6:46 - Presents a series of video clips from FOX of Hannity, Beck, Sarah Palin, morning guy, O’Reilly, Hannity again, and then Carl Rove all using some form of the phrase “cram it down our throats”. (and you were trying to make some point about "talking points", right?)

6:47 to 7:47 – Back to more discussion and examples of the ludicrous notion that FOX is “fair and balanced”

7:48 – Stewart raises question of “exactly what is this show balancing out” and has a great example.

8:39 to 9:15 – raises question about where is the supposed FOX news balance with more examples including why no one from the AMA was interviewed.

9:15 to end – directly refutes the health care polling statistics repeated over and over again by FOX news and then shows the blatant hypocrisy of Megyn Kelly about the value of polls.

Let's see, you don't like charts that directly present facts and now you seem to have a problem with videos that provide evidence that does not support your point of view. I guess I'll have to learn to get into these discussions with nothing to support my point of view except convoluted logic and a magic 8 ball. It is good that there are plenty of folks to learn from here.

Buzz
03-05-2010, 10:15 AM
Let's see, you don't like charts that directly present facts and now you seem to have a problem with videos that provide evidence that does not support your point of view. I guess I'll have to learn to get into these discussions with nothing to support my point of view except convoluted logic and a magic 8 ball. It is good that there are plenty of folks to learn from here.

Henry, I have written instructional material on basic electricity, and interacting with the students, I can tell you that the average man on the street has difficulty with reading charts and graphs. Maybe that's the problem with all the charts and graphs that you dig up?

I can tell you however, the majority of them do better with video than they do with the written word, so the difficulty with video truly surprises me.

Hew
03-05-2010, 12:15 PM
Thanks for this suggestion. It gave me a chance to watch the video again and, I gotta tell you, it gets better every time I watch it. The man and his writers are pure genius, but then again there is so much material to work with from FOX news.

Here is a synopsis.
0:00 to 5:50 minutes -show introduction, brief bit on Sarah Palin’s appearance the tonight show, that leads directly into an evisceration of the notion that FOX news is “fair and balanced” complete with numerous examples as they relate to the health care debate.

5:45 – Interviewed women is quoted “don’t jam this monster down our throats”

6:25 – Stewart poses the question “Where have I heard this phrase before”

6:30 to 6:46 - Presents a series of video clips from FOX of Hannity, Beck, Sarah Palin, morning guy, O’Reilly, Hannity again, and then Carl Rove all using some form of the phrase “cram it down our throats”. (and you were trying to make some point about "talking points", right?)

6:47 to 7:47 – Back to more discussion and examples of the ludicrous notion that FOX is “fair and balanced”

7:48 – Stewart raises question of “exactly what is this show balancing out” and has a great example.

8:39 to 9:15 – raises question about where is the supposed FOX news balance with more examples including why no one from the AMA was interviewed.

9:15 to end – directly refutes the health care polling statistics repeated over and over again by FOX news and then shows the blatant hypocrisy of Megyn Kelly about the value of polls.

Let's see, you don't like charts that directly present facts and now you seem to have a problem with videos that provide evidence that does not support your point of view. I guess I'll have to learn to get into these discussions with nothing to support my point of view except convoluted logic and a magic 8 ball. It is good that there are plenty of folks to learn from here.
Cool. Thanks for the summary. Now I don't have to watch it. Now if I could ask you another question...would you mind telling me wtf a smarmy (just an educated guess) Jon Stewart video about Fox News has to do with me or what I wrote. Have you ever seen me quote a Fox News story? Have you ever seen me link a Fox News story? Have you seen me use the term "cram it down our throats?" Is the notion that nearly every significant Obama agenda initiative to-date (save healthcare) has sailed through Congress some revelation or a rightwing talking point? You could have posted the picture of the bunny with a pancake on its head and it probably would have been more germane to what I wrote ('cause I'm cute and I like pancakes) than that video.

EDIT: a la Emily Latella..."nevermind." Your initial comment was directed to UB; not me. My bad. It was early when I originally responded to you, Henry. I'm not usually wide awake and alert until after my second beer.

Henry V
03-05-2010, 12:44 PM
Cool. Thanks for the summary. Now I don't have to watch it.
You're welcome. I always try to be helpful as time allows.


Now if I could ask you another question...would you mind telling me wtf a smarmy (just an educated guess) Jon Stewart video about Fox News has to do with me or what I wrote. .......
I just responded to one specific issue that you raised, noted the irony that UB started this thread with a right wing talking point, and then I backed it up with FOX news video. That's all. I would expect you to do the same.;)