Powered by TypePad

« Stupak Out | Main | He Has Sounded Forth The Trumpet That Will Ever Blow Retreat »

February 23, 2010


It's Ponzi not people.  It's the way it's constructed, not the demographics.

Omigod, demographics as the cause of the problem. Do you mean 'people', bb? The problems in Medicare and SS are caused by politicians hiding and ignoring the extent of the actuarial problem from a need to deceive the public.


Boris: Thank you for the graphic underscoring the evidence I've presented showing Democrats' outperformance.

Obviously, the projections for the economy under Obama do not look good. OK, they look horrific. But I'd bet my last dollar that no matter how bad it gets, it won't reverse the trend and 7 years from now, the data will still show that Democrats outperform Republicans substantially.

I know this much, if the data were the other way around: showing Republicans outperforming, I'd still find it persuasive.


No narco, contemptful makes perfect sense. What doesn't is "bitter clingers."
Are you suggesting that typical Christians "cling" to their Bible and gun owners are "bitter?"
If not, why wouldn't you be contemptuous of people who are actually like that?

Rick Ballard

The rotting fruit of Bismark's unfunded entitlement programs is showing up everywhere they have been imposed - so let's impose some more!

Stupid doesn't quite cover the lack of intelligence on display here.


Glad to see some of the regulars posting here.
For a minute or two, I thought I had hit the wrong button and ended up on Daily Kos.

Henry Ward Beecher and crew used to send out settler's with bibles and rifles.  Friggin' progressive.

It's not his language, it's his sense of irony that you don't understand, bb.


Thanks royf! I'm always pleased to learn someone's taken the time to respond, even when they're sad.

No need to thank me I haven't actually read past the first or second sentence of you posts. I asked a question because of the stupidity of you assertion. What I'm really doing is laughing at you and the naivety you exhibit with your juvenile talking points.

Rick Ballard

I sure hope passersby read TM's post again after wading through the drivel spouted in comments.

The efficacy of the Democrats in action (with BOzo in the lead) is amply demonstrated by the fact that they can't even get a window caulked.

I do believe that TM was being too generous with "epic fail" as the coda - it's a lot worse than that.


Bunky, you're telling us the pro bono caseload of law firms that employ Republicans are enough to condemn the Republican party, but the published opinions of men later selected by Obama for government jobs that can influence speech don't reflect on Obama at all? That's ludicrously hypocritical. Why do you think Obama appointed prominent opponents of free speech to office?

I'm not aware of the Obama administration banning a book, nor of any Solicitor General threatening to ban any book at all.

What the SG's office said was that the law that the President supported gave them the power to ban books. It's obviously unproductive to wait until they've started the bonfires to complain about that stance.

I can guess -- since you offer no references and no specifics -- that you're referring to Obama's opposition to the Supreme Court's decision on corporate funding.

Wow, you figured that out all by yourself? Just based on me mentioning a Supreme Court case involving campaign finance reform?

There has always been an exception for enterprises in the publishing business and no one has threatened that.

Except for a deputy solicitor general working for Obama.

My data shows the Bush presidency, even before the Democrats won Congress back in 2006, were the worst economically of any administration since Herbert Hoover

According to the BEA's numbers for real GDP, Truman oversaw a 7-year average 1.76% growth between 1945 and 1952. George HW Bush oversaw a 4-year average growth of 2.18%, and the last President oversaw a 6-year average growth of 2.47% from 2001-2006.

1995-2006 (years of Republican control of Congress), real avg GDP growth was 3.23%. The 20 years of Democrat control before that, 3.06%; the 3 years of Democrat control since, 0.03% and trending down.

If you bought the S&P500 at the start of the Republican Congress and sold when the Harry and Nancy Show started, you'd have tripled your money. If you bought at the start of the Clinton presidency, sold when the evil wasteful R's got the legislature, and bought again when Obama's party restored fiscal sobriety in 2007, you'd be down about 30%.

Sure, the Bush years get even uglier in the final two years of his second term, but it's pretty hard sell that that's somehow the Democrats fault.

Of course it is, sport. Nothing is ever their fault.


The GOP has, for decades, opposed acknowledging gay rights. You can't seriously argue the record on that, it's far too well established and obvious. So is the political alliance with the Christian right, which makes no bones whatsoever about it's opposition to homosexuality and its belief that Christianity deserves preferential treatment by the government in schools and public places.

I note a lack of actions taken by Republicans in government in that response. I know you're in a bind here, you can't bring up DADT since Obama has continued it, and of course there's no evidence at all of Republican support for "preferential treatment" of Christianity by the government.

... as a French intellectual whispered to me at a party not long ago, “There is only room in the West for one Obama — and we in Europe are the Obama.”
The "New Exceptionalism"
Rob Crawford

The GOP has, for decades, opposed acknowledging gay rights.

BS. I've never heard a Republican say gays don't have the rights to free speech, assembly, to worship as they please, to bear arms, or to be secure in their persons and possessions.

A scream.

Whoa, bgates. Careful, bb, he has not yet begun to jest.

Captain Hate

I can't believe how many people on the right gave him a pass on the jobs bill.

I guess the glass half-full way to look at it is that Coakely would've voted the same way and also for Obameloreid death care, which he's on record as being against. It was still a stupid vote for any purported "fiscal conservative" but this is still your state we're talking about, Jane, and he has to take into consideration who he believes he's representing.

A bigger disappointment to me was that squish Voinovich, who claims to be against deficits and doesn't have to suck up to anybody since he's not running again. What a RINO loser.


OT - has everyone seen this short and really great video?

It's 'Betrug', a betrayal.

That is great, Jane. And Gore has gone to ground and Inhofe is howling over the hole.


Ah that deficit panel, has moved into 'a travesty of two mockeries of a sham" territory
with the addition of Dorgan, Durbin, & Conrad,
I mean you can't make this up, and who would even want to; I know "Don't feed the troll" should be our watchword.


Yes, Jane, I saw it yesterday. Nicely done!

Kim, I am laughing over your comment about Inhofe howling over the (rat)hole. Too true.

Woof!  ::grin::

cc, the message from the alarmists isn't 'Let's sniff out the truth'; it's 'Call off the dogs'.

Rick Ballard


It's OK to feed a troll into the chipper every once in a while, otherwise we'd run out of mulch.

Cocina Ho.

It sharpens the macerators, er cleanses the palate, like ice in the disposal.

Old Lurker

Cut through all the carp about Clinton's running the government at a profit. Ignore the phony Income Statements and look at the Balance Sheet.

When Clinton took office, the National Debt was $4.1T. When he left, it was $5.7T, and increase of 39%.

Simply stated, he had to borrow to run his operation.

LUN for US Treasury data


It looks like bb is rotating out for a shift change. Wow.


And the topic on the thread. Has anyone come up with a list of houses and amounts for weatherization of houses? Rick had mentioned something about $25k weatherization of houses that sell for $5k in Michigan, and it might make for a good campaign commercial. Have a "Cash for Caulkers" team drive up and say "we're from the government and we're here to help", and show them stuffing cash into cracks in the walls. Maybe have them say, "don't worry we've got plenty of money and we can get plenty more".

Just brainstorming...


Turns out that education is yet another way for this administration to reward lackeys. Turns out the Common Core English and Math Standards are so weak that they will destroy what's left of academics in K-12 but greatly benefit the testing industry that wrote them.

LUN is the fine Pioneer Report "Why Race to the Middle? First Class State Standards are Better than Third-Class National Standards".

Not if your goals are equity, equal outcomes for all, and rewarding constituents.

No wonder the feds are insisting no more Title 1 money for states who do not sign on.

Another documented case of federal thuggery.


...shift the burden of proof to anyone who asserts that Obama, by the very nature of his politics, will be bad for the economy.

Bunky argues that Obama wants to shrink the federal government?? We may have discovered the communications problem the White House is talking about.


BTW - the school committee voted to fire all those teachers in RI who the superintendent fired last week.

The commissioner of education has also signed off.


re: bunky: now, there's a perfect example of that most loathsome of popitical creatures, the faux-libertarian libertine. he doesn't care about cost of government or anything else other than homosexuality and de-Christianization. which pretty well makes a portrait, dunnit?


poLitical. sheesh.


--Of course congress and the business cycle play a role, which is why it's more meaningful to look at the longest possible stretch of data.--

Why not extend it back to the thirties then?
More importantly, rather than the boneheaded idea of comparing Republican vs Dem why not compare policies vs policies?
For instance, Kennedy invoked across the board tax cuts. Nixon instituted wage and price controls. Bush 41 increased taxes, Clinton reduced them.
Even comparing the first two years of big spending, tax raising Clinton with his $200b deficits "as far as the eye could see" (in his own words) to the tax cutting frugal later Clinton is more useful than comparing his presidency as part of a group to the Republicans as a group.
When Repubs or Dems tax and spend the economy suffers. When Dems cut taxes and reign in spending the economy grows.
Presently there is no doubt the Dems are primed for taxing and spending and the Repubs are not.


What do you think the data would show if we eliminated the "hangover" by moving it up a year for each president, so that Bush's "era" starts a year after he's taken office and the same for Clinton, Reagan, and so on. We have the data and here's the news, jimmyk, it shows the same thing: Democrats outperform Republicans substantially.

Look, fool, don't lecture me about how to look at data. When you can choose your endpoints you can get anything you want.

One year is not adequate. The recession in the Reagan years extended through 1982. I'd say you need at least 2-3 years. As others have pointed out, you need to control for a lot of other things--who's in control of Congress, wars, etc. There are also better indicators than GDP growth.


Whoa! Come in after an absence only to find a stable full of crap!. But I read it all, and I can find no other purpose to bb's blather except to obscure.

If bb stood for something there would be a clear explanation of what was worthwhile and why. Absent that, it's time to move on.


Here's more data putting an even finer point on the evidence that Democratic presidents outperform. Also, this analysis by Larry Bartels of Princeton University incorporates both a one-year overlap adjustment to compensate for policy momentum from previous momentum and includes comparisons of when a president takes over from his own party or from his rival's.

Bartels shows:
``On average, families at the 95th percentile of the income distribution have
experienced identical income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents, while those at the 20th percentile have experienced more than four times as much income growth under Democrats as they have under Republicans. These differences are attributable to partisan differences in unemployment (which has been 30 percent lower under Democratic presidents, on
average) and GDP growth (which has been 30 percent higher under Democratic presidents, on average); both unemployment and GDP growth have much stronger effects on income growth at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top. Similar partisan differences appear in the
distribution of post-tax income growth of households since 1980, despite the fact that the corresponding pre-tax income growth data for that period show little evidence of partisan differences.''


The comments to this entry are closed.