Today, the President addressed the United Nations on the issue of climate change. Of course, it was carried by all of the cable networks. This continues a string of continuous media appearances over the past few weeks. Last Sunday, the President was interviewed on five news programs just a few days after he appeared on 60 Minutes. Last night, he was the only guest on the Late Night Show with David Letterman.
It seems that the President has a media appearance each day. The format is usually the same. The President is given a bunch of softball questions by fawning hosts who gush at every comment he makes. Not surprisingly, he refused to appear on Fox News, the only channel that would have had the courage to ask him tough questions.
By a large margin, Obama is the most overexposed President in our nation’s history. It is impossible to get away from the image and voice of Barack Obama. A study by TowsonUniversity professor Martha Joynt Kumar showed that Obama had done 114 media interviews after his first seven months in office, about three times more than George W. Bush and Bill Clinton at the same point in their tenures.
Why is the President bombarding the airwaves? For one, he loves being on television and taking advantage of media opportunities, but the real urgency at this point is his healthcare plan. He is trying to pitch a “reform” plan that is facing severe opposition in Congress and across the country. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 53% of Americans do not favor the Democratic plan.
It seems that the President believes that the more he appears on television and says the same thing, the more support he will generate for his healthcare plan. Unfortunately for Obama, just the opposite is occurring. In fact, support is dwindling and he is getting more and more desperate. People are not swayed by Obama because he is not that persuasive and is basically repeating the same talking points in each interview.
What are his options? Democrats can ram through a bill that is unpopular or drop the idea altogether. If they persist in pushing this unpopular plan, the President and the Democratic Party will suffer at the polls and at the mid-term elections.
In the meantime, the President should forgo governing and pursue his real dream, starring on his own television channel, the Obama Channel, all Barack, all the time. It can be the political equivalent of the Big Brother television show with video cameras capturing every move and every statement uttered by Barack Obama. It would satisfy the incredible need of President Obama to be on television constantly and provide many of us needed comic relief.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution - - - The Congress shall have Power . . . To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; . . . -- And - - - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. …………… The Coinage Act or the Mint Act, passed by the United States Congress on April 2, 1792, established the United States Mint and regulated the coinage of the United States. The long title of the legislation is An act establishing a mint, and regulating the Coins of the United States. This act established the dollar as the unit of money in the United States, declared it to be lawful tender, and created a decimal system for U.S. currency…………. Now Kp, what we have to look at is our government giving the keys to our nations industry, property, and population to someone else in another land….. It is inevitable unless we come to our senses……. I am so tired of the semantics, talk is cheap, get out there and produce something……………… Or get out of the way and let someone else become enabled…
Written by
on 10/9/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
It is the "wealthy few" Central Bankers, oil barrons and multi-national corporate heads who have steered this country - regardless of which political party is supposedly "in power" - on a course whereby our workers are forced to compete with slave-wage paid foreign workers. Our country's policies since the end of WWII has been a "redistribution of wealth" from the American workers to foreign countries. Why you would think having the Federal Reserve create money that devalues our currency to give to foreign bankers to "rescue" and "stimulate" their economies is good for the American worker or our economy ... quite frankly escapes me. Ron Paul has an "Audit the Fed" bill that will force the Federal Reserve to be transparent about "who, how much, etc." concerning the money they “create” which devalues our currency. Despite a majority of supporters/co-sponsors in the House, I suspect Pelosi will attempt to kill this bill. After all, why should the commoners’ representatives in congress have access to exactly what the Federal Reserve is doing to their currency, and who the beneficiaries are? Just who does the American public think they are? Those who oppose this bill are in the pockets of "the wealthy few" - we'll find out who they are by their position on this bill (including what “bill-killing” amendments they attempt to tack on to it). Written by kpf
on 10/9/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
There will be no noticable opportunities for improved economic status and quality of life for ALL Americans until their become opportunities in freedom in the lives of ALL Americans.............. Written by
on 10/9/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The only "fix" to all these issues is this: broad economic and especially employment growth that renders the federal deficit a somewhat less significant percent of GDP but also provides opportunities for improved economic status and quality of life for ALL Americans and not just the wealthy few. In short, it's still "the economy, stupid." Written by speak the truth
on 10/8/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
This question has been sincerely posed over and over but the conservatives have yet to furnish an answer: is not "tort reform," one of their favorite subjects, really more of a state by state issue than a federal issue? If someone brings a claim of medical malpractice why would that be in federal court? Written by speak the truth
on 10/8/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Oh, o.k., o.k., I guess noone really is interested in fixing anything, they just want to sit around whistlin' Dixie.................. Written by
on 10/8/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
O.K., O.K. Tdub, Jake………. Health care….. First there has to be the bottom line understanding that folks want health care but they don’t want to pay the bill……… (sort of like deciding whether or not to leave a tip, or how much of a tip to leave after eating a dinner that a person isn’t really convinced was worth all that much in the first place)………………. Let me give you some choices… You can choose one, some, all, parts of some, or even come up with your own additional ideas….. #1 Criminal fines in court, or traffic fines in court, or any other ‘fines’ that equate out as punishment so the perpetrator ‘can pay its debt to society’. Right off the bat 10% off the top, forward that amount to the federal treasury (or a larger percentage, take your pick). #2 Insurance policies…. Any insurance policy sold period, 3% taken off the top of the billing cost or the policy price and forwarded to the federal treasury……. Health and beauty aids (you know in the pharmacy section, tooth paste, bandaids, asprin, prescriptions, shampoo, soap, etc., etc., etc.) 25% of the associated sales tax in that sector at the register segregated out (they ha ve computors that can do that you know, and it even tallies up the days ‘take’) and sent to the federal treasury……. At the grocery store, soda pops, tobacco, candy, foods with high fructose corn syrup, dyes, preservatives, etc……… 25% of the sales tax collected segregated and sent off to the federal treasury (again, we have computors that cando that)…….. Foreign tourists, or visitors, or whatever…… When their feet hit U.S. soil $5.00 right then and there and it is forwarded off to the U.S. Treasury……. Foreign aircraft at the ‘gate’…….. $100.00, forwarded off to the U.S. Treasury……… Foreign ships or boats at the dock…… $1,000.00 forwarded off to the U.S. Treasury……. Foreign food entering the country…….. 10% duty forwarded off to the U.S. Treasury…….. Foreign goods entering the country…… 10% duty forwarded off to the U.S. Treasury…….. Real Estate title transfer…….. $200.00 forwarded off to the U.S. Treasury……. Stock trade or commodities trade…… .20 cents forwarded off to the U.S. Treasury each trade……. All income taxes, sales taxes whatever paid by non-citizen immigrants legal or illegal segregated out and sent to the U.S. Treasury… Income/personal - - 1% taken off the top and forwarded to the U.S. Treasury….. Now, you can issue Medicare to everyone if that is what you want, but everyone should be able to receive healthcare at least comperable to that which U.S. Service personell are afforded… Illegals, or legal non-citizens? They can receive that also except that their bills will be segregated out and sent to their country of origin for payment…. And if payment is not received in 30 days, it will be charged an extra duty on imports at our borders…… And if a person wants additional insurance, they can purchase it……… Any surpluses in the U.S. Treasury are to be forwarded on a quarterly basis to the Social Security Trust Fund where it cannot be drawn upon except for Social Security or public works projects that will provide a return as well as create jobs……. That’s a starting place……….. Written by
on 10/7/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
But, back scanning through past posts on this article, your concerns are well grounded Jake..... I believe that where health care is concerned it should be funded by something that poses a health risk to the nation..... and that of course to start with are foreign imports..... Got 15 or 20 other points of comment, but I guess a lot of folks are worried that James Carville isn't going to get enough exposure time, so I guess I will simply wander around and take care of some other unimportant things today instead.... Written by
on 10/6/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Oh yeah, Tee Dub and the democrats and their union backers are all about competition in the global market. Written by
on 10/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
And women in America should stop shaving their pits and legs because they don't do that in Europe! We must be like Europe! Written by Shazzbot
on 10/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jacob's argument is exactly why we should have just expanded Medicare for all instead of this Frankenstein's monster of a bill we're looking at now. It makes economic sense, it would allow our businesses to compete with companies based in other countries where businesses don't have to pay for their employees' health insurance - that's taken care of by the state. And since Medicare expenses have been growing at a much lower rate than those of private insurance, it's win/win. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 10/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Nevermore cried the Raven, Nevermore.................... Written by
on 10/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
It may turn out to be another case of "you don't know what you've got 'till it's gone." Perhaps when government regulations, schemes and manipulations, spending, debt and inflation have completely ruined the private sector economy, things will change. Then again, so many are convinced "government is the answer" that we may become a typical third world socialist country: not much there "there" - but it is redistributed in a manner acceptable to the left. I actually think the "millionaire lefties" desire to cripple the economy and middle class, that way they get to enact their agenda (with the majority of the people looking for a government handout) - while still living THEIR lavish lifestyle of course. The peasants are so much more compliant when they look to "their betters" for their needs; they will need to be disarmed eventually of course. Written by kpf
on 10/5/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well then let's just "speak the truth" right now. If we spend a trillion dollars on a health care "reform" bill without a deficit neutrality, while simulataneously raising the cost of employment in the midst of a recession with 9.8% national unemployment (17.5% among African-Americans), it's only going to get much worse. Try to imagine what will happen if the House bill with the public option and universal employer mandate becomes law. Take a look anywhere, but especially New Orleans, at small businesses like the little theme restaurants. They might open for just breakfast and lunch, or lunch and dinner, and have maybe 6-15 employees, but they don't provide health care. Their customer volume is small and they cannot charge much for what they serve as a result, because they won't be able to open their doors. I think many of you know of businesses like these and, if you do, you will also know that they usually have a single owner who may make $50,000-$75,000 a year in profits, which is the owner's income. Now, put in the universal employer mandate and you add -- what? $20,000 new costs for about 10 employees? -- and suddenly the range of profits becomes $30,000-$55,000. And at the lower end of that scale, the business cannot survive because the owner will not be able to take care of himself/herself and his/her family. So the business will close and those few employees will be out of work, they will no longer pay income taxes, and the business will no longer buy from wholesalers, and pay no corporate income taxes either. Are those small businessmen/businesswomen such bad guys for not providing healthcare to their employees? And can you think about who their employees are for a moment? They will usually be workers who either possess few marketable job skills or who have skills for which there are no jobs available. In New Orleans they will frequently be African-American. Where do think the unemployment rate among African-Americans will go if these kinds of changes are put in place? Where is your compassion for them? Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 10/4/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Gabriella, I do not want to see people in this country suffer as the citizens of California are due to government fiscal irresponsibility. It truly saddens me to see the harsh steps your state is being forced to take. It is very sad and hurts the poor and state employees most of all. If someone had "spoke the truth" - no matter how ill-received it would have been - and steps had been taken to cut spending then the suffering of the poor and loss of state jobs would not be nearly as severe as it is now. The "steps" taken would have meant cutting some jobs and departments, and cutting some entitlement programs, but it would have been more focused and not nearly as severe as what California is going through now. The difference is the Federal government has the "trick" of printing money to continue funding programs, but that is similar to walking the edge of a cliff; the fall is sudden and extensive. Written by I'll shut up now, talk amongst yourselves
on 10/4/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
As far as the middle class being squeezed - the "well thought out plan" - would be to stop government from instituting policies that squeeze the middle class. Let's see ... government removed tariffs that protected American jobs; government forces hospitals to treat the indigent (I agree with this, BTW) which means those who CAN pay are forced to pay MUCH more as they are paying for those who cannot pay; government will not institute tort reform which many doctors claim is responsible for "defensive medicine" estimated by some to account for 25% of medical costs; government spends tax dollars overseas - taking this money from working families' finances; government allows the Fed to cause inflation which devalues the money government doesn't take from the middle class. The middle class is squeezed all right; it appears that Barak Obama is attempting to wring out the last few drops from them. Written by kpf
on 10/4/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Inflation is theft. Say you spend much time and money to dig for gold, you slave for years - gathering gold dust, and one day retire with "x" amount of dollars. Then the Federal Reserve "creates" - out of thin air - an amount equal to what your gold (the value of your risk, sweat and labor) is worth. This created money is worth exactly the same as the results of your labor and risk, and it also devalues the money you worked for and saved. That is taking value from you, that is causing your savings to be worth less. Just who gets this "created money" - some blood in da hood or some poor cracker in the Appalachian Mountains? No, I imagine the entities getting this money that devalues people's savings and the funds of those on fixed incomes goes to the politically well connected few - who of course kick back some of this "manna from heaven" back to those who are supposedly the "champions of the common folk" - our legislators in D.C. 300 supporters for Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill which will make the dealings of this institution transparent to congress and the public for the first time, can Pelosi and the other protectors of big banking and the multinational corporations kill it with "poison" amendments? Stay tuned. Written by kpf
on 10/3/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Mr. "Speak the truth" - explain to me - I SINCERELY MEAN THIS, no sarcasm here - explain how we deal with Medicare and Social Security's problems to me. The problem - as I understand it - is that these programs are hurting due to an increased life expentency and lower birthrate, among other factors. Which means fewer people will have to pay an ever larger percentage of their pay for them. The government ("the government" mind you) projects the unfunded liabilities to be tens of TRILLIONS of dollars over the next few decades. Barak obama said himself that Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable (good for him BTW) so this is not an "evil right wing" thought process (unless Barak Obama is part of the "vast right wing conspiracy"). Compounding this problem - as you mentioned - is that the people (those who receive this now, and those - LIKE ME - who are soon to receive these "benefits" after paying many thousands of dollars into them over decades) really do not want to hear that "OUR" benefits need to be cut. So yes, no politician will bring it up. The BIG PROBLEM with all this is, people wanting "MY BENEFITS" and poiticians being TOO AFRAID to bring the subject up ... does ... not .... solve ... the ... problem. So "conventional thinking" is... "just ignore it." "Just ignore it" until circumstances FORCE us to address it. Is THAT what you advocate? If so you are certainly in agreement with mainstream Republican Right Wing AND mainstream Democratic Left Wing "thinking" on this. So .. is that "the plan" you advocate on this problem, "ignore it." I really am interested in what you think should be done - or if this is even recognized as a problem to you. Written by kpf
on 10/3/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
That giant sucking sound is only getting worse as we circle the drain under Obama's spending policies. The United States of America has been committing a kind of slow hara-kiri for decades now, which got worse under Bush Jr. and is very close to the point of finishing us off under Obama. Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 10/3/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The economic right winger deficit hawks do not have a realistic, well thought out plan. That much is readily apparent. What exactly is the "government Ponzi scheme?" Social Security? Medicare? Are those programs to be shut down altogether? Good luck getting even David Vitter to vote for that. He won't. Neither will almost anyone else. The conservative politicos aren't even about to begin to mention anything about cutting back on Medicare or Social Security benefits. And if Obama wants to talk about cutting back on Medicare Advantage and using the savings to pay for basic coverage for people who lack insurance right now then they pounce all over him for that. All these people care about is inflation. How about the jobs in this country that have been disappearing? Remember the "giant sucking sound?" How about the middle-class consumer that's been having their income/quality of life squeezed by health care costs and/or stagnant wages? We have to hope that in years to come that somehow American goods and services will be attractive to Chinese or Indian or other Asian customers. Written by speak the truth
on 10/3/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Just as a quick followup to my previous post, here is a quote from a Murray Rothbard article from 1992 entitled "Repudiating the National Debt" which puts the Austrian school's attitude toward government spending in perspective: "Government spending, therefore, rather than being "investment," is consumer spending of a peculiarly wasteful and unproductive sort, since it is indulged not by producers but by a parasitic class that is living off, and increasingly weakening, the productive private sector." That is exactly my perspective. The Austrian economists would be the ones to tell everybody, but especially the Bush Jr. tax cutters: "It's the deficit stupid"! And it is. Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 10/3/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Gabriella; I'd like to ask you to cite some of your sources at the Mises Institute, which as an adherent of the Austrian school of economic thought I visit regularly. Authors and titles will do, I can find them. I suspect you are quoting some of the articles by Murray Rothbard, who led the intellectual assault on Reagan's use of "Supply Side Theory" -- and in my personal opinion absolutely destroyed it -- and they have blasted conservative Republicans for failing to come to grips with the problem of debt, as I have done repeatedly in numerous discussion threads on this site, even though I am a very vocal Republican on fiscal matters. The charge is essentially that conservative Republicans have sold their birthright by turning their attention away from reducing deficits. But do not be misled to think the Austrian school approves of the alternatives Democrats offer, because they absolutely do not. There is a "take no prisoners" confrontational style to Austrian economics, which may inform some of you who have followed my posts as to what makes me tick. I would really say the attitude of Austrian economists to deficit spenders is "hang them all, God will know his own," which sometimes misleads readers when they criticize Republicans, so please be careful there. Many Republicans love to cite this or that Austrian economist when discussing economic and fiscal policy, though they ignore them when it's time to do the budget bills. In Bush Jr.'s first term he appointed a prominent Austrian economist as Chief Economist at the Department of Labor who taught me the History of Economic Thought in grad school, but very quickly fired him because he would not toe the party line on spending. Regarding some of the quotes you posted, may I say that with respect to Reagan it is improper to merely post percentage change of GDP figures without also citing the surge in economic growth that accompanied it, which frames the debate, because the tax cuts did produce economic growth, as Austrian economists will love to tell you. But they are far more concerned with the debt. And before you go too far on what you posted about Reagan, and I have no problem with it, you might look at some of the comparative evidence -- do not think I present this an apology for Reagans' deficits, I do not -- in an article by Veronique de Rugy entitled "President Reagan, Champion Budget Cutter." I disagree with the fervor with which she presents her argument, but she has an interesting table which shows that in Reagan's 1st term, the budgets were cut in 8 out of 15 departments and agencies, and in his 2nd term in 10 out of 15. But it is defense spending which alters the overall equation, and you can use the quotes you cited to put that in perspective. Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 10/3/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Of course, keep in mind that even if we ran a balanced budget from now until the end of time, we still have a debt (accumulated annual deficits) of 11.9 trillion dollars - which is serviced by an annual payment of 400 billion dollars (or so). So in addition to running a balanced budget, we should use some of the revenues to also pay off this massive debt. Instead however, Obama & Co. plan to increase it by 9 trillion (or so) more. What could possibly be wrong with that? Sounds like a great plan to me. What could possibly go wrong? These people were educated in elite Northeaster universities; they know what they're doing. So we will soon take 350 billion a year that we now use for "useful and wonderful" government projects, and instead pay that in additional interest on the debt. Cool, sounds like a plan. Don't worry, be happy. (Egads! am I running a fever? I hope not, my wife said if I get the swine flu out here, to not come home. I don't suppose anyone out there has a room for rent perchance?) Written by kpf
on 10/3/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Specifics??? Where to begin. Eliminate or revise all government Ponzi schemes; eliminate all foreign "entanglements" (foreign aid, inflation-creating Federal Reserve "loans" to foreign banks, foreign troop deployments, foreign wars); eliminate subsidies that only cause higher prices for the consumers; eliminate subsidies on things that are completely (and ridiculously) unnecessary (mohair subsidies; the Helium Reserve - oh yeah, we don't want our fleet of dirigibles to fail to take to the skies in defense of America, do we?); any government jobs that are not needed SHOULD be cut; any bases the military wants closed SHOULD be closed; goodness, there's plenty of waste in government, watch C-Span and learn things you will never hear about in the papers or television. On C-Span you can see the "pork" being added; it's quite disgusting - albeit similar to watching grass grow. The biggest problems are our "entitlements" - "Google" the letters "GAO" along with "Social Security" and/or "Medicare" - add the phrase "unfunded liabilities" - this will allow you to see what THE GOVERNMENT (not "Libertarians" or the "von Mises Institute" - the “Federal Government of the United States of America” – them people) projects shortfalls to be in the coming decades concerning either of these programs. It is alarming. It is a call to eliminate wasteful spending NOW. But instead politicians tell the people what they "want to hear" instead of what they "need to hear." Bad financial times are ahead. Our "leaders" lack the will to stick their political necks out to "speak the truth" and the people just want "their entitlement" and screw what that means to others or future generations. The good news is .... after the financial collapse, people's attitudes will change and government will be more fiscally responsible - but only after the crises caused by government irresponsibility occurs - that's the "good news" - and really, it's not that "good" actually. Written by kpf, time for lunch in this swine-flu infested TLP
on 10/3/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
If someone believes that deficits are so bad, then what's their exact plan to eradicate the federal deficit? In which exact areas is spending to be cut and by how much? Which taxes, if any, are to be increased and by how much? Answers in specifics, please. Written by speak the truth
on 10/3/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Things also are not as "simple" as your assertions suggest. When the military says they do not want a particular aircraft or desire to keep a no longer needed base open, but congress forces them to accept aircraft (built in their district) or force them to keep a base open (located in their district) that is actually "social" spending, not "defense" spending. Written by kpf
on 10/3/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
My failings and faulty mental processes aside, do you believe deficits to be good or bad? Do you believe the 400 billion a year in interest payments we make annually on our current debt is a good use of taxpayer money? Do you think an additional 400 billion a year in annual interest on the debt will make things better? When the Federal Reserve puts money "in circulation" it is no different than what a counter fitter does - except on a larger scale - it devalues the currency in circulation and equally devalues savings. Is that "a good thing?" I recall the budgetary battles of the eighties quite well - this is not something "I read somewhere" - and know what took place. I am not a defender of Reagan but know all too well how members of congress like to spend money, and recall in perfect clarity the battles and compromises between him and Tip O'Neal, who laughingly declared every budget submitted by Reagan as “dead on arrival.” As for the differences in political parties and deficit spending - while both do it - the last two administrations have gone beyond anything done during the eighties. On Bloomberg.com I read where the dollar has lost 14% of its value this year compared to seven other currencies. That should be a concern to anyone who is not stoned or otherwise clueless. I don't know if you recall the double-digit inflation of the seventies but we are setting ourselves up for something far worse. I hope it doesn't happen. I would much rather be considered a foolish alarmist (and have my lifetime savings keep their value) then to be considered prescient about an economic collapse (and see my savings become worth far less because of this collapse). Written by kpf
on 10/3/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
kpf, let me understand your haphazard logic. According to you, because you read somewhere that Tip O'Neill allegedly said, "for every $2 in additional military spending there would be a $3 increase in social spending," makes it truth? Under Reagan, "domestic programs (excluding mandatory spending like Social Security) fell from 4.9% of GDP to 3.7%, while defense spending rose from 5.1% of GDP to 6.4%." [LA Times] Domestic spending down, defense spending up; how does that support your Tip O'Neill quote? The "excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget." [Mises] Carter ran "deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion." [Mises] When Reagan's White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan was "asked why more appropriations bills have not been vetoed: 'Congress keeps slipping in, just over the edge, just taking a little bit so there has been nothing mammoth to veto.'" [Heritage Foundation] But then, in 1982 "Reagan vetoed a 14.2 billion appropriations bill, which he claimed would 'bust the budget.' In fact, the bill's spending levels were lower than his original request indicating unconvincing reasons for his decision." [Heritage Foundation] Reagan's fiscal 1984 budget "was so impractical, carrying a deficit of $189 billion, that the Administration could not find even a single Republican in Congress to introduce it." [Time] And "one way in which Ronald Reagan has tried to seize the moral high road on the deficit question is to divorce his rhetoric from reality even more sharply than usual. Thus, the PROPOSER (my emphasis) of the biggest deficits in American history has been calling vehemently for a Constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. In that way, Reagan can lead the way toward permanent $200 billion deficits, while basking in the virtue of proposing a balanced budget amendment, and trying to make Congress the fall guy for our deficit economy." [Mises] kpf, only those "who are incapable of logical thought" would fathom the skyrocketing deficits from the Reagan era were the responsibility of anyone but Reagan's administration. Too bad you cannot share what you are smoking, it's rather mind-altering stuff. Written by Gabriella
on 10/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Actually there is no one who wants to see the economy go into depression. There is disagreement on what actions to take, and what actions not to take. Do you really think anyone wants to see a depression? The thought for not attempting to "maintain liquidity" is to have a sharp but short-lived downturn (as occurred in the early twenties when government “did nothing”) as opposed to the actions of FDR which many believe only lengthened the economic downturn. Different approaches to recovery, but no desire to make things worse. Your saying so would be like me saying that Bush and Obama had the Fed print money "to devalue the dollar and ruin people's savings." I (unlike you) realize that no one WANTS to harm our economy. You however are one of many people who simply must believe that those who have different ideas from your own must have "evil intentions." Um ... not really. BTW, I read an article where foreign countries were complaining that the U.S. dollar lost 14% of its value due to the actions taken to "provide liquidity" as you put it. So our dollar has lost 14% of its value in 9 months (wow) - obviously Mr. Bernanke's and Presidents Bush and Obama's (and your) idea of "recovery" and mine are quite different. The "strong economy" we experience was not in fact “strong” - if it were it would still be strong. It was a "bubble" created by unwise credit decisions by both lenders and borrowers. The public will "behave differently" as many of them now realize that saving more and having less debt is wiser that the alternative. A non-inflationary economic recovery would use the savings of the public to fund projects. The interventionist ("providing liquidity") approach "creates" money to fund projects and devalues the money people are saving. Time will determine if the unprecedented level of deficit spending and Federal Reserve creation of money will be good or bad, long term. With the dollar declining 14% in 9 months, it's not looking too promising. Written by kpf
on 10/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Bush the son and Obama both had to or have had to do address the need for liquidity in the economy. Perhaps one could debate the approach taken to achieve that end but if there is no liquidity then the economy will definitely come to a complete stop. It's just astounding how much the economic right wingers/deficit hawks seem to want to see a full blown economic depression. They so seem to not want anyone to try to do anything to get the economy going. Plus, they somehow also seem to be assuming that somehow the economy would just get going again on its own, which is NOT a valid assumption. If anything, there's ample evidence that the behavior of the American consumer is not going to be the same for a long, long time. The hope, instead, is that growth in the emerging Asian/Pacific arena will lead the way of global recovery. Written by speak the truth
on 10/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The "approach" taken by both Bush and Obama is the same - bailouts, government takeovers and deficit spending. There are some of us who think that will both delay the economic recovery and make things worse long term. States with diminished revenues must cut back on spending, as well as local municipalities and everyday people in the same situation of having "less income" - they are forced to "spend less" (what a concept, "take in less, spend less" - wow). The fact that the Federal government can print money and run deficits instead of behaving responsibly is a double-edged sword; more "smoke and mirrors" than constructive actions. I refer to none other than Keynes himself who advocated short-term deficit spending - specifically targeted at infrastructure - followed by a return to a balanced budget. The Federal Reserve is printing money - which devalues our dollar - to prop up foreign countries, many of whom have a low percentage of their budget allotted to military spending due to American taxpayer paid U.S. troop deployment. Hmmmmm .... sounds like that is NOT in the best interest of the average American taxpayer, nor does it sound like what John Maynard Keynes advocated. Obama plans to run hundreds of billions in deficits for 8 years, and many question his revenue projections as overly optimistic. However as long as the bankers and multinational corporations - who grease the palms of politicians of both parties - are happy with things, who am I to complain. I simply cannot share your trust in politicians, of either party. My "hope" that politicians will make "things better" ended many years ago; instead, I hope they don't mess things up too badly. Written by kpf, an old frump ("got bonds"?)
on 10/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
This discussion started with the economic right winger response to the assertion that the current federal deficit projections have to do the slowdown in the economy which began under the watch of the Bush the son administration equating to projections of diminished tax revenues. In other words, if the economy weren't sucking then there would be less of a federal deficit issue for the supposed deficit hawks to harp on. Now, why has the economy been sucking? Does Bush the son deserve absolution of any responsibility on that? Absolutely not. The slowdown started *before* the election cycle. At some point is it likely that the economic picture will affect Obama's political fortunes? No doubt. That's got to be issue no. 1. But health is a major part of that. A large part of the reason for peoples' wages and salaries/incomes having been stagnant is health care coverage premiums eating up their businesses' resources. But...if we can't get the economy going steadily and have the jobs picture improving as opposed to worsening and have consumers being at least somewhat more confident then inflation is not going to matter. Written by speak the truth
on 10/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Gee, so I guess when Tip O'Neal said Reagan's budget was "Dead on arrival" he was mistaken. I suppose his "compromise" with Reagan - whereby for every $2 in additional military spending there would be a $3 increase in social spending is - in your mind - "an increase in military spending caused by Reagan" (with no corresponding culpability by the majority party in the House). "The budget begins and ends with the president? Really? Is that how it works? Are you certain of that? Perhaps you are the one who is ill informed. I did say that revenues in the early eighties INCREASED due to Social Security increases AND people no longer being able to claim interest on credit cards - not quite "the same thing" as "spouting Reagonomics tripe" as these two assertions were processed in your brain. I am glad to see you agree that government revenues steadily increase, which leaves any administration's deficit spending defined as "spending in excess of revenue." As far as "what administration" or "what party" runs deficits or "what programs" the deficit spending is used for, it does not matter, any more than "what brand" of cigarette matters to your lungs. The deficits and debt can - I hope it doesn't but it “possibly could” - cause hyperinflation; basically our money becomes worthless. If this happens then many people beside myself will look back at all the nonsense our government spends money on and question - far too late - the wisdom in funding many of the things we currently (going back decades, not a knock on Obama) fund. It won't be "pretty" when the money liberals intend to "redistribute" becomes worthless, not pretty at all, very ugly in fact. Many think "not in this country" - well, many also think they will never get cancer or be in a plane crash, but "$#it happens" - particularly when people get arrogant and think it cannot happen. Speaking of "fiscal responsibility" and "tax and spend" liberal policies, how's that California state budget thing coming along? Written by kpf
on 10/2/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
kpf, you are either ill-informed or intentionally distorting facts, so, I will revisit your Reaganomics tripe. "Reagan made cuts in taxes - KEY QUESTION!!! - Did government revenue go up or down or stay the same????? (music from "Jeopardy" playing) ......TIMES UP! Government revenue INREASED after the tax cuts of the eighties." Did revenues nearly double in the 1980's? Yes, there was a 99.6 increase. But, you conveniently overlook that revenues have doubled every single decade since the Great Depression. They went up "502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well." Your comment, "(actually there were increases in SS taxes and people could no longer claim credit card interest, but any case the revenue increased)," is sheer farce. How about stating facts? Reagan RAISED taxes in 1982 with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA). Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan advisor wrote, "TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year." Reagan proceeded to raise taxes in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987. Reagan's tax-increasing-smorgasbord raised taxes "by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy." It is most hypocritical, kpf, to imply that revenue generated from tax increases was revenue generated by tax cuts. "IMPORTANT QUESTION NUMBER TWO: How did we have deficits with increased revenue???...We had deficits despite increased revenue because the SPENDING INCREASED (wasn't that one obvious- duh)." Was there an increase in spending? Yes, primarily by Reagan, not the Congress. Reagan increased military spending by about $1.6 trillion over five years, while "relative to the size of the economy, one-third of domestic discretionary spending disappeared." Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, wrote about Reagan's unwillingness to cut defense spending was a key factor for the increased deficit. "IMPORTANT QUESTION NUMBER THREE: Who was responsible for these deficits? Well, the House of Representatives has the ‘purse strings’ - so they must approve ALL spending." Interesting that Reagan said in 1980, "Mr. Carter is acting as if he hasn't been in charge for the past three and a half years; as if someone else was responsible for the largest deficit in American history." [Federal deficit under Carter totaled $252 billion; end of Reagan's 8 years, federal deficit was over 1.4 trillion.] What applies to the goose, apparently does not apply to the gipper. It is true that over Reagan's two terms Congress, on average, spent 2.8% beyond Reagan's budgets. When a President's budget depicts an overly rosy scenario, the shortfalls MUST be paid by Congress. For example, if the unemployment rate turns out to be greater than what was projected and covered by the President's budget, then Congress must pay for the higher rate of unemployment costs; this is done automatically without Congressional action. It is also true that Congress passed budgets with $29.4 billion less than what Reagan proposed. How many balanced budgets did Reagan propose to Congress? Zero. The budget starts in the White House and ends in the White House. Written by Gabriella
on 10/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Look dude, congresses' own economists say that we cannot afford to pay for Social Security and Medicare - do you understand the concept of "cannot afford"? I'm sure you do. So people who use Social Security and Medicare today don't want it cut backed any - that is understandable. Politicians don't want to have these pissed off voters going to the polls to vote against them - that is understandable. However - what I FAIL to understand - is how avoidance of this problem will in any way solve it. Inflation is only the "emphysema" of our currency problems; the "lung cancer" of our currency problems is financial collapse. Don't think that the actions taken by our government over the last year is anything but a "gamble." The government won't call it that (must keep up the consumer's confidence you know ol' boy eh what ol' chum) - don't think that higher than ever deficits and higher than ever "printing" of money does not carry a "higher than ever" risk associated with it. P.S. I DO NOT want to be in a position to say, "I told you so" - I WANT to be wrong. Personally, I wish the "risk" would be cut by cutting back on foreign entanglements (of all sorts) and eliminating any and all unnecessary spending. Unfortunately, our administration (and the previous one - you know the dumbest president <boy is THAT a clue!!>) believe they can use debt to overcome a debt problem. That DOES carry a "wee bit" of risk, difficult as that may be to believe. Written by kpf
on 10/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Okay ... so once the changes the liberals put in place are ... "in place" - what does one call those who wish to keep the new status quo in place? Hmmmmmmmmm? So I guess today's liberal (by YOUR definition) is tomorrow's conservative. No matter ... more meaningless drivel. The gap between rich and poor, eh? Gee, what did the Democratic "inspired" idea to allow poor women to have children and receive a monthly government check do since it was enacted in the mid sixties? (a.k.a. the "War on Poverty" - excellent "Doublespeak" BTW). Why let's see ... we have an illegitimacy rate that has skyrocketed and brought with it generation after generation of people who are .. um ... I KNOW! ... "POOR." Plus we allow millions of poor illegal immigrants to enter and stay in this country which means even more ... um .... (oh yeah!) ... even more "poor people." Who pays for these poor people - why the taxpayers do. Who benefits from these poor people? Both those who hire these low wage workers (instead pf hiring higher paid middle class workers) and those whose politics pander to the ever rising numbers of "poor" voters who are willing to see more taxes taken from workers and given to ... (gee .. "the suspense") and given to them (of course). I fail to see how the middle class conservative taxpayer benefits from any of this; in no way shape or form do I see ANY benefit from an ever-increasing welfare state due to rising numbers of people in poverty. On the contrary, the more poor we have, the less of our wages we get to keep. Now, how about we give up the nonsense about an "all powerful being in the sky" and start forcing welfare queens to have abortions. Much, much cheaper to abort the ... fetal tissue .. than to pay for its upbringing. OH YEAH! DON'T FORGET! Fewer people will also mean less global warming, a good thing, a very good thing. BTW, many extreme greenies advocate limiting the number of children, that is .. "far left" advocates of forced abortion. Personally, I'm all for it. Oh my! Does this mean I'm "not a conservative" - eh .... "labels".... labels are such nonsense really. Written by kpf, think "Green"
on 10/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
How about this? Conservative basically=keep "conserve" the status quo. Any disagreement over that? Didn't think so. Liberal=in favor of not keeping the status quo, i.e. in favor of change, particularly in the direction of greater freedoms, both personal and economic (and if one is poor/in debt how exactly free to practice one's freedoms is one anyway?). Reactionary hard-right conservative=in favor of rolling back existing liberal initiatives where possible. So, yes, if the shoe, the boot being kept on the throats of the working classes, fits then by all means wear it. Again, there's no disputing the data recently in the news showing the gap between rich and poor becoming ever wider. The mark of a strong society and a great nation is a vibrant, thriving middle class. These days these are the people caught in the squeeze of stagnant wages/salaries, ever-rising health care costs and the disappearance of good-paying jobs. What's the right wing policy prescription for these peoples' needs? More tax cuts for the wealthy? Attacking inflation? Cutting back on Social Security and Medicare benefits in order to slash federal spending? Health care reform designed to push people away from employer-based group coverage and toward having to buy health insurance in the individual-based market where premiums will be much, much higher? Written by speak the truth
on 10/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
In your binary world of "liberals" (who want good things for people) and evil "conservatives" (who want to place their boots on the people's necks to hold them down) this is something you probably won't "get" - but "fiscally responsible" people desire our bank loans to be made from savings - not from "created" money by the Fed which LOWERS the value of people's savings - and in no way desire to see jobs being shipped overseas, or a lowered standard of living, or corporate welfare, or corporate bailouts, or foreign economic bailouts, or the Fed "creating" money to "loan" to foreign banks, or - for that matter - to see our people fight and die on foreign soil. These people who you do not recognize are outside of the Democratic and Republican parties, but unfortunately must suffer due to the policies mentioned above that BOTH of these parties practice. Written by kpf
on 10/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The link provides Paul Krugmann's fears of runaway inflation in 2003 - and how this is even more likely with this administration's spending. As far as the question you asked on the previous post, I said the Democrats gain power the more people are dependent upon government - meaning they gain power the poorer the people become as these people depend upon government redistribution. The other point was that the wealthy supporters of the Democratic Party would not support "redistribution" if they had to pay something like 70, 80 or 90% of their earnings in taxes to make things "more fair" - nothing "contradictory" in those two statements. The link to Krugmann's warning about Bush's deficit spending (he sees nothing wrong with Obama's deficit spending - but that is HIS contradictory beliefs): ach-tee-tee-pee colon double forward slash mises.org/story/3691 Written by kpf
on 10/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
We are seeing the markets pull back today over concerns about the future growth of the economy being fairly sluggish and especially unemployment remaining steady as opposed to decreasing. This talked-about scenario of an overheated economy featuring runaway inflation is simply not plausible in the near to intermediate term. Also, when there's been runaway inflation before fuel prices have had a lot to do with that and right now those aren't going anywhere but down. If anything, the behavior of the American consumer has probably changed for the long term. Of course this is exactly the favored scenario going back over decades and longer of the economic right wing types. Downward pressure on wages and costs mean better earnings. And, yes, the absence of good-paying jobs in sectors such as manufacturing is a huge issue. The U.S. is not a manufacturing economy and hasn't been for years and then the better-paying jobs that there are in the service sector are also being shipped overseas. This is why the hot-button issue for many on the right, immigration, is probably going to become even hotter and quite possibly a wedge within the ranks of conservatives. Pro-business conservatives like the idea of keeping labor costs low and want immigrants that they can keep employed at the lowest-paying level be able to come into the country while others of course detest that notion for economic and other reasons. It will be interesting for those not on the right to see how that all plays out. Written by speak the truth
on 10/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
In one place, Democratic Party supporters are all rich while in another place the Democratic Party gets flack for supposedly being the party of the poor. So, which is it? Written by speak the truth
on 10/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
You think the Kennedys or Rockerfellers are "po folks" - hardly. I've seen bumper stickers saying "I'm too poor to be Republican" - well, my outlook is I'm not rich enough to be socialist. When and if I get in the same financial situation as these rich Democratic supporters I'll consider becoming a champion of government redistribution. I wonder if the Democrat's Hollywood supporters would like to see our country enact the 99% tax rate that England had in the 1960's? You want "redistribution" well there it is! I'm sure (just like the Beatles) these advocates of "redistributionist social policies" would soon move out of the country before they would pay even 70 or 80% of their income in taxes. Yet, middle class slobs like me are "excessively greedy" for desiring to keep 70% of my money - what a crock. Written by kpf
on 10/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Alan Greenspan has just come out saying the Federal Reserve needs to remove money from circulation to prevent inflation. That is what I read on Bloomberg at least, just today. As far as "conservatives wanting people to be poor" - what utter nonsense! Middle class tax payers want as few people as possible to be poor - because the larger the welfare rolls are the more the government needs to tax us to pay for these people's "welfare." On the other hand, the "party of Big Government" gains voters (and power) by growing the ranks of the poor. Try "thinking" things through and get your facts straight. Don't confuse the Upper Class Ivy League corporate/banking class with the middle class blue collar work force - they are not the same and neither is their political outlook. One example, the upper class (including the Bushes, Clintons, Obama's, etc.) intermarry with each other and thrive despite the fact that manufacturing has steadily moved overseas in the last few decades. Whereas the middle class workers are the ones who have fewer and fewer good-paying jobs due to this class's "handling" of our government and economy. The difference between a "Michael Moore" and myself is he thinks these people can be trusted to "redistribute" the wealth to the poor whereas I believe they gain and maintain power by keeping the people needy on them (and their "Big Government"). One of us is terribly wrong. Written by kpf
on 10/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Why is it that conservatives are the only ones that are considered rich? What about Pelosi and the rest of the millionaire dems? They are not conservative, but they are very, very rich. And conservatives are the only group that won't talk about cutting back on social security, etc.? I didn't know we had so many conservative democrats in Congress. Thanks for the info! Written by CN
on 10/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Alan Greenspan has lately weighed in the state of the economy and currently as he has sated there is no danger of inflation but still more of a danger of deflation with the employment picture still a cloudy one. But of course, conservatives have no problem with this. Low wages mean higher earnings per share and higher dividends and high unemployment means downward pressure on wages. The gap between the very rich and the working classes grows. It's as if we're living in a renewed "gilded age" like the late 1800's when there was deflation when Republicans clung to their beloved gold standard out of allegiance to the bankers and gave the shaft to the farmers. Written by speak the truth
on 10/1/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The undeniable fact is that conservative politico's are totally unwilling to discuss cutting back on Social Security or Medicare benefits the least little bit because they themselves that their very own constituencies, i.e. conservative voters, would reject such talk, no matter how reasonable, out of hand and vote those politico's right out of office in a flash -- and senior citizens are the most reliable of all groups when it comes to making it to the polls time after time. Written by speak the truth
on 9/30/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
" ...the response to the economic mess is.." first, admitting how the idea of providing "affordable housing" as the Carter administration's CRA was expanded by the Clinton administration helped to cause the mortgage crises, and vow to not interfere in the market ever again in such a manner and secondly to not make matters worse by adding to the deficit and causing inflation. "Solving" problems with other people's (future generations) money is neither responsible nor sustainable. As far as no politicians of either party being willing to tackle the problems inherent in Social Security or Medicare, well ... that doesn't make these problems go away .. it merely keeps these politicians in power by their avoidance of taking on issues that would be unpopular with those CURRENTLY receiving these benefits ..... again, neither responsible nor sustainable; but unfortunately what we have that passes as "leaders." Written by kpf
on 9/30/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"Clueless" = only blaming one party, not blaming lifetime politicians in Washington that have lost touch with reality! Written by CN
on 9/30/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
This discussion has already been had many times but again the plain truth is that no, Reagan deserves no absolution...the president still has the responsibility to submit a budget to Congress in the first place and the last U.S. president to have submitted a balanced budget was actually that Great Satan Lyndon Johnson. Since then there have been 5 different GOP administrations covering 36 years. And even when the GOP had total control of everything they still didn't balance the federal budget but instead incurred record deficits. However, even more important, all of the right wing policies of these administrations have had exactly what effect on the lives of most Americans? The latest data show unambiguously how the few and the rich have gotten richer while the gap between them and the rest of us has widened. If trickle-down economics worked it would be great. Most of us would have no problem with that. But that policy has failed and failed miserably. But the response to the economic mess is "so what...we'd rather a full blown depression than spend on domestic needs?" The right wing is out of touch and not only that but also a bunch of hypocrites who have no intention for all of their talk of giving back their Social Security and Medicare (find any GOP politico who will talk about cutting those programs back). Written by speak the truth
on 9/29/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Sadly enough, all rhetoric and discord only seems to be from some broken record anymore........ Doth the Raven truely cry; Never more!! - Never more!! ----------- Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary, Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore, While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping, As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door. `'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door - Only this, and nothing more.'……………… Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December,
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor. Eagerly I wished the morrow; - vainly I had sought to borrow from my books surcease of sorrow - sorrow for the lost Lenore - For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels named Lenore - Nameless here for evermore……………. And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain thrilled me - filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before; So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating `'Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door - Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door; -This it is, and nothing more,'…………….. Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,`Sir,' said I, `or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore; But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door, that I scarce was sure I heard you' - here I opened wide the door; - Darkness there, and nothing more……………. Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before.. But the silence was unbroken, and the darkness gave no token, and the only word there spoken was the whispered word, `Lenore!' This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, `Lenore!'
Merely this and nothing more………………… Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before. `Surely,' said I, `surely that is something at my window lattice; Let me see then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore - Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore; -'Tis the wind and nothing more!' Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter, in there stepped a stately raven of the saintly days of yore. Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he; But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door - Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door - Perched, and sat, and nothing more………….. Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling, by the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore, `Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven. Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore - Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!' Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'…………………. Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly, Though its answer little meaning - little relevancy bore; For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door - Bird or beast above the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as `Nevermore.'………………. But the raven, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only, That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour. Nothing further then he uttered - not a feather then he fluttered - Till I scarcely more than muttered `Other friends have flown before - on the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before.' Then the bird said, `Nevermore.'…………….. Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken, `Doubtless,' said I, `what it utters is its only stock and store, caught from some unhappy master whom unmerciful disaster
Followed fast and followed faster till his songs one burden bore - Till the dirges of his hope that melancholy burden bore of "Never-nevermore."'………. But the raven still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling, straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door; Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore - What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore meant in croaking `Nevermore.'………. This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing to the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom's core; This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining on the cushion's velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o'er, but whose velvet violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o'er, She shall press, ah, nevermore!.............. Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer
Swung by Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor. `Wretch,' I cried, `thy God hath lent thee - by these angels he has sent thee - Respite - respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore! Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe, and forget this lost Lenore!' Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'………… `Prophet!' said I, `thing of evil! - prophet still, if bird or devil! - Whether tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore, desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted - On this home by horror haunted - tell me truly, I implore - Is there - is there balm in Gilead? - tell me - tell me, I implore!' Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'…………………….. `Prophet!' said I, `thing of evil! - prophet still, if bird or devil! By that Heaven that bends above us - by that God we both adore - Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn, it shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels named Lenore - Clasp a rare and radiant maiden, whom the angels named Lenore?' Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'………………. `Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!' I shrieked upstarting - `Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore! Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken! Leave my loneliness unbroken! - quit the bust above my door! Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!' Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'……….. And the raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting on the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming, and the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor; And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor shall be lifted - nevermore!
Written by E.A. Poe - listless man waiting at the door
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I’m sailing away,……………… Set an open course for the virgin sea…… I’ve got to be free, - - - free to face the life thats ahead of me……………. On board I‘m the captain, - - - so climb aboard………..We’ll search for tomorrow, - - - on every shore . . . . . And we’ll try, oh lord best we can, - - - - Yes we’ll try lord………………….. to carry on - - - - - - - - - I look to the sea, - - - - - reflections in the waves spark my memory……… Some happy, - some sad - - - - I think of childhood friends and the dreams we had………………….. We live happily forever, - - so the story goes - - - But somehow we missed out - - on that pot of gold……………… But we’ll try lord best that we can - - - -- Yes we’ll try Lord to carry on…………………….. A gathering of angels appeared above my head - - - - They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said - - They said “Come sail away, - come sail away - Come sail away with me lad - Come sail away, come sail away, Come sail away with me”…………………. I thought that they were angels, but much to my surprise - - - They climbed aboard their starship and headed for the skies -- - Singing “Come sail away, come sail away - Come sail away with me lad……………. Come sail away, come sail away- - Come sail away with me………………………………”
Written by STYX AND STONES, NOW ROLL THE BONES on 5/5/2009
Written by
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I would suppose Kp, that 'everything in moderation' is a viable concept to participate in..... So many chiefs and not enuf injuns...... morals? values? worth? self esteem? faith? satisfaction? tenacity? motivation? inspiration? truth? liberty? care? willingness? capability? understanding? maturity? experience? honesty? thriftiness? boldness? innovation? compassion? Oh hell, we are merely a bunch of great pretenders.... And no longer the chief contenders.... Where is it all going? What do you want from life? - - - - To kidnap an heiress... or threaten her with a knife???????..... What do you want from life? - ? - ?.... To get cable TV - and watch it every night...... There you sit / a lump in your chair..... Where do you sleep - and what do you wear..... when you're sleeping....................... //////....What do you want from life? - - - - An Indian guru.... to show you the inner light?????? What do you want from life ? - ? a meaningless love affair - - - - with a girl that you met tonight???????....... How can you tell when you're doin' alright?????? - - - - Does your bank account swell - - While you're dreaming at night..................?????..>>>.... How do know when you're really in love.......? Do violins play - - - when you're touching the one that you're loving/ - ? - ? - ???????...... What do you want from life - - - - Someone to love - and somebody that you can trust? / ? / //???? What do you want from life ..... To try and be happy while you do the nasty things you must??????...... [CHORUS BREAK/GAME SHOW HOST ANNOUNCER].....Well, you can't have that, but if you're an American citizen you are entitled to: a heated kidney shaped pool, -- a microwave oven--don't watch the food cook! - A Dyna-Gym!!!! --I'll personally demonstrate it in the privacy of your own home,.. A kingsize Titanic unsinkable Molly Brown waterbed with polybendum,,,,, A foolproof plan and an airtight alibi,.... Real simulated Indian jewelry!!!!!!! A Gucci shoetree!!!!! A year's supply of antibiotics, - - - - A personally autographed picture of Randy Mantooth - - - - and Bob Dylan's new unlisted phone number!!!! - -A beautifully restored 3rd Reich swizzle stick, - - - Rosemary's baby!!!!!!! A dream date in kneepads with Paul Williams, A new Matador! A new mastadon, a Maverick,,,, a Mustang,,,, a Montego,,,, a Merc Montclair, a Mark IV, a meteor, a Mercedes, an MG,- - - - - or a Malibu, a Mort Moriarty, a Maserati, a Mac truck, a Mazda, a new Monza!!!!!!! - or a moped, a Winnebago--Hell, A WHOLE HERD of WINNEBAGO'S!!!!!!! WE'RE GIVING 'EM AWAY!!!!!!! or how about a McCulloch chainsaw, a Las Vegas wedding, a Mexican divorce? a solid gold Kama Sutra coffee pot?? - - - - Or how about just a baby's arm holding an apple?...................... {sic end}
Written by ..........THE TUBES...... back in '77..... on 6/23/2008 - - - Download the musical versun of it today kids!!!!!!!!
Written by
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Okay Speak da truth, here goes... Reagan made cuts in taxes - KEY QUESTION!!! - Did government revenue go up or down or stay the same????? (music from "Jeopardy" playing) ......TIMES UP! Government revenue INREASED after the tax cuts of the eighties (actually there were increases in SS taxes and people could no longer claim credit card interest, but any case the revenue increased) so IMPORTANT QUESTION NUMBER TWO: How did we have deficits with increased revenue??? (Jeopardy music again) ... TIMES UP (I knew you would not get this one, easy as it is) We had deficits despite increased revenue because the SPENDING INCREASED (wasn't that one obvious- duh). IMPORTANT QUESTION NUMBER THREE: Who was responsible for these deficits? Well, the House of Representatives has the "purse strings" - so they must approve ALL spending. Tip O'Neal ran the House for the Democratic (majority) Party during Reagan's terms in office. He called each of Reagan's budgets "Dead on Arrival" - he also "compromised" with President Reagan whereby for every $2 in additional military spending there would be $3 in additional social spending. HOWEVER – despite these “truths” (which I know are so near and dear to you) according to leftist propaganda the deficit was cause by "Reagan's tax cuts and spending on the military" - a sad and pitiful lie only believed by those mindless followers of the left who are incapable of logical thought (or who's greed at sucking at the government teat prevents them from "speaking the truth" - which is quite ironic in your case). Written by kpf
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
lil' teedledeetee appears apprehensive about anykind of healthcare considerations that are contrary to what folks are being told to believe 'for their own good'.... This healthcare debate needs to end right now..... Shelve it... Public option? The requirement for everyone to be mandated to buy a health care policy? consider this, to issue more bailouts will seal the fate of whoever is in office..... so the trick is to make a tax that doesn't look like a tax... And where is the money that is going to fund bailouts going to come from? Not the social security fund, that is tapped out... How about a national 'Public option policy' that everyone is pumping in at least 650 bucks a month into? And if they fail to make their 'Public Option Policy' payment fine them, uhhhhh 6 times the monthly rate that'll teach those non tax payi------ er uhhhhh,,, non policy paying a-holes that they aren't going to fool with the big wheel................... Written by
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Everyone needs to listen to Tee Dub and quit goofing around on this site. World leaders rely on the bayoubuzz forums for Tee Dub's insight and understanding. Your insolence is depriving Tee Dub of his pedestal and putting the world at greater risk. Please, Tee, don't let these simpletons silence your wisdom or dim your beacon of enlightenment. Without your musings, the world is doomed. Written by
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -anonymous- I guess the question is who is getting dragged? :) Written by CN
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
We know you can't help yourself. And no one else can help you either. A sad, disgusting, hopeless case. Written by
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"dumbasses" "borderline retarded" "pathetic" "party of dumb" "clowns" "pompous ass" "rightards" "I doubt you're capable of this, given the usual tripe with which you foul this site" "clowns"(again) "incredibly, unbelievably, and stupendously stupid" Now this is a prime example of how a liberal debates. Speak the Truth posted a diatribe of democratic talking points having nothing to do with the healthcare debate that was occurring at the time. You, TW, step down from your lofty throne to insult those whom you disagree with...all the while not entering the debate. I hope you're not to hard on those middle school students. Tenure is a great thing! Written by CN
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Hey dumbasses, try to stay on message. "Speak power" wrote a thoughtful, well-reasoned post, to which CN, who apparently is borderline retarded, had a one-word retort - "Clueless". That's really pathetic, and it sums up the debating style of 90% of Republicans these days - the party of dumb. You see, clowns, whether I am a pompous ass is irrelevant. What you rightards should aspire to is to write posts like Jacob Salzbach (n.b.: I doubt you're capable of this, given the usual tripe with which you foul this site). I don't agree with much Jacob says, and if I had more time today, I'd write a retort to his latest series of posts over on the other thread (I may get to that by Wednesday, if I'm lucky). But unlike you lot, Jacob is a conservative who can actually think. He can also write in complete, grammatically correct sentences, and he can engage in thoughtful debate. You clowns get caught up in useless nonsense like how ego maniacal I am (guilty) or what a pompous ass I am (guilty) or how I think I'm smarter than you all (GUILTY!!!!) rather than dealing with the issues of the day. And I am guilty of that too, but only when I see something so incredibly, unbelievably, and stupendously stupid that I can't help myself but point it out. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
You have to remember, CN. In Tee Dub's world, it's ALL about LOOKING smarter. Written by
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Dear professor, hypocrisy becomes you. Written by CN
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Mocking people only makes you look smarter if you have a PhD. Written by
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
If you don't believe Tee, just go to ratemypompousassmyself dot com and see how magnificent Tee Dub's rankings are. Written by
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Newsflash: Mocking me doesn't make you look any smarter. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Everyone quiet, the god of academia is about to speak and offer a cogent argument on the subject matter! Avert your eyes do not look upon the magnificent junior highmiddle school professor! We thank you TW for your insight and inspiration! Written by CN
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Another "cognizant" argument from the brain trust known as CN. Liberals should just throw in the towel; he's that good. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/28/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
for the deficit hawks...OK where to begin? We have all heard all of your protesting and screaming about how bad federal spending is? OK...what's the exact solution? And don't just say "spend and tax less?" The point is that conservatives were perfectly happy with irresponsible huge tax cuts enacted during a time of war during the Bush regime (a historical first). We've all heard since the 1980's about such tax cuts would "pay for themselves...." Well, it's never worked out. OK, explain that one, conservatives. Trickle-down economics practiced by Reagan and then later by Bush the son has been a total failure both in terms of improving the lives of middle-class Americans whose incomes have been essentially stagnant for decades and for the federal deficit. A major part of the reason for the current projection of the federal deficits is decreased economic activity overall producing decreased tax receipts -- a legacy of the disastrous economic policies of the Bush the son regime. The first item on Obama's plate -- of course, not his choice but he had to deal with it -- was to get the economy going again. The conservatives would rather a full blown depression than for Obama to do anything to get the economy going again, even though what happens with the economy will most likely be the main determining factor in whether he gets re-elected. Stimulating the economy was something that had to be done. Trying to assure liquidity in the banking system, as much as so much that Wall St. has done lately has been way over the top and it's so very easy to say that the bankers truly deserve to be left alone to fail, was also vitally necessary because without it the economy can go nowhere. Conservatives would seem to not care whether the country is moving, whether the economy is delivering the goods of the promise of a better liefe for most middle-class people. They just want their tax cut and to shut the door in the faces of anyone not part of the country club set. Written by speak the truth
on 9/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
And then there's that nasty little line that states you will get the insurance or face a hefty fine or go to jail. God bless America! What's left of it. Written by CN
on 9/26/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Here we go again, Medicare, Medicade, and SS are basically insolvent. Fix them before we add to the growing deficit with this massive government intervention into the private sector. The Prez says they will help pay for the healthcare plan by correcting the corruption, overbilling, etc. with medicare..why must we wait to do that? If the healthcare pacakage doesn't pass does that mean we won't go after those savings? Why can't we let providers cross state lines? The government run provider/co-op will be able to do so? Let small businesses pool together to get better rates and coverages. The Baucus plan requires businesses to report almost every transaction in real time rather than the end of the year in order to get more money/taxes. This will be a paperwork nightmare for every company & corporation in America not to say the IRS which will have to hire thousands to handle the extra paperwork. Another plan requires that all employers provide health insurance per the government mandate or face a fine of $750 per employee per year. Duh! Businesses will be dumping employees by the millions to pay this rinky dink fine and save money while the government run provider grows and grows. Pass laws to protect those with pre-existing conditions, etc. don't scrap the system...fix it. Finally, every amendment brought up that states that Congress must be part of this system or does not allow for illegal aliens to particiapate, or even allow for the bill to be published to the web has been shot down along party lines. That coupled with the fact that this is being rammed down our throats makes me sick. Written by CN
on 9/26/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Gabs, you probably cannot do everything you would like to - own the house of your dreams, the cars you prefer, take all the vacations you would like to, etc., etc. That is because you cannot afford "everything" you'd like. Neither can government. The difference is you don't need your children's vote to remain in charge, you simply tell them "no" - whereas the government is populated by people who remain in office (this is THE VOTERS' FAULT) by avoiding "unpleasant" and "unpopular" issues such as ... Medicare cannot be funded with the current level of taxes and benefits or .... that Social Security cannot be funded with the current level of taxes and benefits .... and so they instead simply act as though THERE IS no problem. They also "fund" government projects with inflation-creating "funny money" and also with debt, either of which is unsustainable. Their approach to the most pressing budgetary problems is to let future generations deal with it. Keep in mind both parties do this; also keep in mind this type of irresponsibility does not have to exist IN ANY FORM (capitalist, communist, whatever) of government. So it is the SPECIFIC irresponsible actions whereby OUR government avoids making the "tough choices" and "deals" with problems through deficit spending, debt and denial that many of us oppose, not "government" per say. You live in California, where taxes drove many to leave the state and the existing level of entitlements and government jobs has driven the state to bankruptcy. Surely you realize many of us want to avoid a similar occurance nationwide? Healthcare is but one issue where we can choose to fix what is broke or put government in charge. Governmet that has shown itself to be irresponsible with money, all too willing to avoid even bringing up "unpleasant facts" to the public is not deemed trustworthy by me. Written by kpf
on 9/26/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
You see, before you can approach health care coverage, you have to cover the basis related to price fixing, price gouging, overbilling, restrictions, oversupply, undersupply, glut, abuse, and of course the social problems such as lead poisoning, and getting shafted all the time (you know, guns 'n ka nives) and the fat pigs that roll on the couch stuffing their faces all day long with crap, and the drug abuse, and the mental factors, etc., etc., etc.... Folks, a realistic solution to health care and the economy is years away............. Need to start figuring out how to reduce costs... There is no majic wand nor any fairy godmother or pixie or elf that is going to fix this for us with the stroke of a pen......... Written by
on 9/26/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Oh T-duhb, can't you figure out anything relevant to say? Tweedle dee and tweedle dum? You remind of a hooka' smokin' catepillar..... Here's a diddy fer ya there t-dub, you do get music downloads doncha? - - - - One pill makes you larger - And one pill makes you small,,,,, And the ones that mother gives you - Don't do anything at all........... Go ask Alice...... When she's ten feet tall...... And if you go chasing rabbits,,, And you know you're going to fall,- - Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar - Has given you the call........... Call Alice - When she was just small.............. When the men on the chessboard get up and tell you where to go - - And you've just had some kind of mushroom, And your mind is moving low..... Go ask Alice - - -- I think she'll know........ When logic - and - proportion, Have fallen sloppy dead, - - And the White Knight is talking backwards - - And the Red Queen's "off with her head!" - - - Re-member - - - what the dormouse said: -- - - - "Feed your head. - - - - Feed your head. - - - - Feed your head"................................................................. Oh, and back to the muse , ,, , , , Hmmmmm,,,,,, Hey Gab, how about if health care in general in all its varied proportions and facets with supportive and alternate abstracts were to strive to reduce costs across the board.... Oh, and how about the sickbay patrons doing their part too....... Ahhhhh, discussions, discussions, discussions....... FEED YOUR HEAD........................................ Written by
on 9/26/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jacob, with all the malarkey of our government making medical decisions, rationing and death panels, well, no wonder folks poll with an average of "47.9% oppose, 45.2% favor." How many versions of healthcare bills are floating around? There is no singular bill to focus on or to grasp. [From pollsterdotcom] When CBS News / New York Times asked, "Do you mostly support or mostly oppose the changes to the health care system proposed by Barack Obama, or don't you know enough about them yet to say?" 30% Mostly Support, 23% Mostly Oppose, 46% Not enough to say. When polled, "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?" 65% Favor, 26% Oppose. Yep, 65% favor a public option when it is not called a public option. And from Rasmussen: "Seventy-eight percent (78%) of U.S. voters say every American should be allowed to purchase the same health insurance plan that members of Congress use." Americans get it. We understand that Congress provides their members what they refuse their employers. The most popular health insurance plan offered to Congress has a monthly contribution of $152 per person or $357 per family. Around 72% of their plan is paid by their employer; we, the taxpayers. A member of Congress can pay $4284/year for family coverage. The average family health insurance policy in 2009: $13,375. What coverage does Congress receive for $4284 per year for their family? ~ No annual or lifetime limits for major services; Deductible of $600 per family; Out-of-pocket limit of $5,000 per year with preferred providers, which includes most deductibles, co-insurance, and co-payments; Inpatient and outpatient hospital care; Inpatient and outpatient doctor visits; Prescription drugs; Diagnostic tests; Preventive care, including routine immunizations; Chemotherapy and radiation therapy; Maternity care; Family planning; Durable medical equipment, orthopedic devices, and artificial limbs; Organ and tissue transplants; Inpatient and outpatient surgery; Physical, occupational, and speech therapy; Outpatient and inpatient mental-health care. If premiums increase for Americans as they have for the last five years (6.1% per year), the average for a family will be about $24,180 in 2019. If premiums increase at the average for the last ten years (8.7%), we will pay about $30,800 in 2019. [Kaiser Family Foundation] Written by Gabriella
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
CN, though I peruse through BayouBuzz on a fairly regular basis, I by no means have read all comments. Do you think there is cause to reform healthcare as it has been provided in America? If yes, what reform would be appropriate? The cost of healthcare is rocketing upward, placing the cost of coverage out of financial reach with more families and individuals each year. When you said "Liberals want to completely change it, not just make it better," if reform made healthcare better (more affordable and accessible by all), would it matter to you that our current system was completely changed? When a person loses their job or when someone wants to start up their own business, should they have access to affordable healthcare? Is the goal to maintain the status quo or to seek solutions? I am extremely liberal, but I do not follow your sweeping generalities of, "Kinda like the liberals who believe that government is good and more government is better." Your life and mine are enhanced daily by the work of our government; when government works well it does not draw attention, it does not bring protest. Government can accomplish good. Do I believe that "more government is better"? No. But then, what bothers me about our government may not be what bothers you. There is much that bothers me about Obama, but there was much more which bothered me about Bush and Reagan. I believe we are the worse for the Patriot Act, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, warrantless wiretaps, the policy of torture and the pursuit of trickle-down economics, to name a few. Now here, CN, you have got to be kidding me, "like todays liberals who prefer Obama over the Constitution?" What the heck are you talking about? Just asking. Written by Gabriella
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Anyone BESIDES Tweedledee and Tweedledum, that is? TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Tee, doesn't matter. No one pays any attention to your posts anyway. So as long you're happy with believing he's wrong, we're happy with not having more of your BS cluttering up the web. Written by
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Huge? The rock of Gibralter is Huge TW, CN's pointed, yet accurate observations are much like the grains of sand beneath the seas that rest upon the outer bedrock of that monolith......... And at the same time, they are no less relevant than the ripping undertows the surface hides with influx and outgoing of the constantly moving tides...... Written by
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Would anyone like to point out the inconsistencies in CN's logic? They're so huge one could drive a truck through them, but I'm sick of dealing with him. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
All knowing and great one, thank you again for helping me understand! We are so blessed to have someone from the intellectual ranks come down among us, mere mortals, to enlighten us with pithy tomes! Bless you TW. So please help educate me. If the Irish Catholic Bandits/Conservatives/Tories/Loyalists preferred royalty over Parliament would that not be like todays liberals who prefer Obama over the Constitution? Just asking. They believed in the King's perogative as well, which means that government/the rulers are right and should be revered? Kinda like the liberals who believe that government is good and more government is better. The Tories as you point out were opposed to reform. Reform is to make things better, not completely overhauling and changing it...kinda like healthcare. Liberals want to completely change it, not just make it better. So after today's TW lesson I have learned that the revolutionaries were probably conservatives, by todays standards, and those that liked the King were liberals by todays standards, right? Oh and only conservatives want blacks to study hard, learn more, and work hard...liberals want them to stay where they belong so that the Tories can maintain control over them. How'd I do TW? Written by CN
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Don't know about Tory lessons there, but in answer to your inquiry KJ, I looked it up and find it to be inconsistent with regards to what U.S. policies both foreign and domestic should be where the subject of security in any mode be it personal, health care, or any other topic...... It does glance on topic headings, but those in their selves do not remedy the problems we are faced with..... I believe it is time for individual states to step up to the plate and be allowed to formulate cause and effect cures to the problems..... When this is done increased productivity, production, jobs, and tax revenues will find a balancing point that can cause our national debt issues to become less and our population to be more self supportive and curiously enough could even invigorate additional trade with problem areas that could benefit them and us while further reducing common costs we incur right now on a sliding scale..... Domestic and foreign policy is the important issues..... And within those issues are the things that are crippling us, they need redress....... Written by
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
So based on the Tory lesson we've just been taught, then those who want to use the 10th amendment to limit the powers of the federal government and exercise states' rights must be liberals. Once you tie together irrelevant scraps of history, the current situation becomes perfectly clear. Written by
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
You should stay out of it, too, not-quite-as-funny-nor-nearly-as-clever-as-you-think-you-are-guy. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Cook County, Illinois ring any bells, anyone? Written by
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
So you see, my ignorant students, the misguided opposition to Obama's policies lies in a deeply rooted misunderstanding of the political sentiments of the Tories in the 18th century. Written by
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
CN, if you don't understand an argument, please do us all a favor and stay out of it. Why you insist on proving to us all how stupid you are is simply beyond me. And you don't get to say that liberals liked the crown during the Revolution, dumb*ss, because the historical FACT of the matter is that the Tories were the wealthy conservatives who because of their love of the British crown either fled to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick during the Revolution, or remained in more conservative British colonies who chose not to join the American Revolution, like West Florida (Fort New Richmond ring any bells, anyone?). TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Interesting BS, Conservatives only want black people to work hard, study hard? What about hispanics or white kids, what do the conservatives wnat for them? What does any parent want for their children? Apparently you are stating that liberals don't want this? They apparently want the children singing obama songs and becoming sheep...easier to herd along ehh? Oh and I must disagree with your history lesson. Liberals would have wanted to remain British citizens, more government control. The revolutionaries want what we want less government control and no more taxation without representation. We want a say in Congress and we don't have it yet. Obama ran on "change" but Congress hasn't changed it's gotten worse and apparently he likes it that way. Written by CN
on 9/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
If one wishes to rely on silly and degrading generalizations, e.g. "all liberals (and the black people that they love) are all about fostering a culture of irresponsibility..." to support one's contention then two can easily play that game, e.g. one supposes that it could be said that conservatives need not opt for a life of depending on government largess given they're usually born with the silver spoon or foot or both in their mouths. No...BS is BS and one has to call BS when one sees BS. If "liberal" means change in the direction of greater freedom AND opportunity for ALL, in contrast to maintaining the status quo and keeping the door shut in the faces of all who want to move up and better themselves, then call Obama a liberal. If "conservative" means working hard and pulling one's own weight, then call Obama a conservative. The truth is that neither "liberal" nor "conservative" have some monopoly on either virtues or vices (conservatives are NOT the only people in this country who are working hard and being virtuous) BUT this country really and truly was founded on liberalism to the extent that conservatives (those opposing change) were on the side of the British crown and maintaining the status quo for the privileged posteriors. Written by speak the truth
on 9/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The truth hits a nerve, huh? Written by speak the truth
on 9/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"... what conservatives want black people to do" - what an ass!!! What do YOU WANT your children to do? Have kids while they are still in high school? Dropout of school? Do drugs? There are good choices people make that payoff in the private sector economy we have, and there are poor choices that people make that pay off in welfare, AFDC, Food Stamps and other ways that liberals reward and enable those who choose a life of government dependency. Each of us choose whether or not to be a self sufficient tax payer who supports themselves and the government whereas others choose to knock up women and not be a father and let government be the Daddy. Whereas with the former political allegiance is split between the two parties, the latter is a reliable Democratic party faithful. If they aren't going to support their offspring, then why not vote for the party who will take from those who are responsible and do the job of a "provider" for them? Written by kpf
on 9/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The point is that Obama has done exactly what the conservatives want black people to do, i.e. stay in school, study hard, work hard, make good grades, try to make something of himself, not settle for not achieving something good and so on. Aren't all of those conservative values? Written by speak the truth
on 9/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Smitty-- have you read up on the H.A.A.? (Healthy American Act) - Oregon Senator Wyden's plan?... Has anybody?... Your thoughts?... (especially "Speak Truth's).... supposed to save 1.5 trillion over first 10 yrs. Written by KJ
on 9/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
So truth speaker, am I to understand that because a person is black he is mandated to spend his "life on the streets or in some lowly profession..." unless he studies hard and makes good grades? Dosen't this analogy apply to all, why just to blacks? None of us are guaranteed moonbeams and unicorns, don't we have to work for it? Don't make excuses for the President, he can do that for himself. He has an agenda and he laid it all out before the election, some people chose not to pay attention. Now people are seeing the direction he wants to take us and they are waking up. He is not conservative, never has been. Written by CN
on 9/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Perhaps calling for an immediate "cut and run" in Afghanistan would be the final act that would lead to his political undoing..... Do you wonder why a large number of folks walked out of the U.N. during Ghadaffi's 'speake'? Obama is doing the best he can I suppose, but is Obama's best really what we need here in the United States? Is Jindal's best what we really need here in Louisiana? Is the GOP's best what we really need? How about the Democratic party's best? Is that what we really need? It is all in perceptions folks, perceptions, actions, and effects.. Obviously can't please them all, but if something is pursued that will provide for the most good for the most people in a positive fashion, now that is democracy...... Folks supporting that kind of democracy, well now, that is a horse of an entirely different colour...... Written by
on 9/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
This column and some posts seem to reek of some jealousy from certain quarters just as there was jealousy over Clinton and his success. And just like Clinton co-opted some conservative themes (infuriating some on the left), Obama has, too. In fact, what about Obama is there for conservatives not to like, really? Here he is, a black male who did not settle for life on the streets or in some lowly profession but did, shall we say, overcome...study hard and make good enough grades to make it to law school and actually get on the Law Review and then later become a successful public servant (when Irish who were at one time treated as a despised group of immigrants followed this route to social legitimacy we all gave them credit for assimilating). Here he is, proving that anyone at all of any color who works hard can be president. Here he is, taking care of Big Finance (much to the dismay of some on the left) not too unlike his predecessor administration. Here he is, proposing a health care reform package that does not replace Big Insurance with a single-payer apparatus that some on the left would prefer. Here he is, getting an economic stimulus package passed that's bailed out and helped the careers of many a GOP governor a state having a budgetary crisis. Here he is, not having called yet for an immediate "cut and run" withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, despite how much some on the left want to see just that. Written by speak the truth
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jeff, How can you be fair and balanced when you are leaning so far to the right? You are beginning to sound just like Rush and Fox News. Fair and balanced, indeed, give me a break. Written by gosh!
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Obama delivers every line of every speech as if that sentence will go down in history. But the only thing going down is the USA. Written by Churchill he ain't
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
O.K. folksies...... HUMANA let the cat out of the bag, and it is being acknowledged....... The Health care reform package being pushed right now is officially dead............ Unless of course the government wants to see the riots in the streets.... Little secret, when everything has been taken away from someone, and a fight is imminent, it all of a sudden isn't such a bad idea, especially when there is nothing to lose...... Yes America, we are now all equal, let the games begin................................................... Written by
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"Substance" and "answering questions" who are you talking about? obama? Noooo, can't be. Written by CN
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jeff seems to have forgotten about Ronald "photo op" Reagan. At least Obama is capable of talking substance and answering questions. Written by David Quidd
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
KJ, did you catch him on Letterman last night? I listened to him for a couple of minutes then turned on South Park.... It was a little easier to believe and the entertainment value was outstanding... I got a letter from the President the other day... Thrilled to death he appreciates my efforts and work and all, but for some reason it seemed sort of 'patronizing'.... Oh well, those stones gathering moss, what can one say I suppose.... Written by
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
15% must be a big number. That's more than double the percentage of votes that David Quidd received in his last political race. Written by
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Only 15%? I guess there are not too many people who watch the Discovery Channel. Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
It's called the feathered nest of academia. Too cozy to leave. Written by
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jacob, it's "only" 15%, according to a Bigfoot enthusiast by the name of Don Keating. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
It's not about "what people think" rather it is about "reality." Doesn't matter what percentage of the earth's population thought the world was flat, it wasn't. You "choose" not to hear those who spoke against Bush's deficit spending - I KNOW I heard both Limbaugh and Hannity speak out against it; I can assure you that Paul and the Libertarians were consistent about both the deficits and foreign wars .. .but that is not what is important. I know you are an intelligent man, so think about this: our debt "problem" is very similar to the global warming "problem." Similar as in the things we are doing are making it worse, and the longer we wait to correct things, not only will the worse the problem be but the more likely "the problem" will be too big to fix. If you understand one, you understand the other. Of course, you (or I) may not believe one or the other IS a problem, but that's another matter. I find it sad that people cannot disagree without denigrating the opposition; I still wonder if that isn't a display of insecurity. ("I think 'x' and I'm a good person, so if anyone thinks 'y' they must be bad" - yeah, that sounds like insecurity to me). Written by kpf
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Tee Dub, what about the Sasquatch? We need to get all the relevant poll data in here. Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well, Jacob, since 20% of Americans believe in alien abduction, and only 40% believe in biological evolution, I don't really care what percentage think the opposition to Obama's plan is racist - they're hardly a reliable group. I'll say it again - where were the cries of outrage over the deficit when Cokesnort McDrunkdrive raised it to new heights? I don't remember hearing a peep out of the GOP hacks over that. But "They're talking about giving brown people health care, with MY tax dollars?" Suddenly everybody's a deficit hound. Democrats and Republicans both spend our money like drunken sailors, but at least the Democrats spend it at home, and it doesn't all go to military contractors. I'll take the Democrats as the lesser of two evils, any day. Did you see the hand-held signs at the 9/12 rally, Jacob? You don't think there were a sh*tload of racists there, really? And CN, maybe I stay here because all of my family's here, or maybe because I don't like cold weather, or maybe I stay here to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable - and I know I've done the latter with you. If I make but one rightard uncomfortable per week, then that's a job well done. Finally, maybe I love it here, despite the idiots. It is home, after all. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Why do you live in the South, TW? "Talibaptist"...not to shabby there TW. But really, why do you stay in the south with all us uneducated religious right wing nut bags? Does it make you feel superior? Written by CN
on 9/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
In truth, I do not expect the GOP to win all three Senate seats in Delaware, Connecticut, and Illinois -- Delaware is the GOP's best shot, because Biden's son is not popular -- because the poll numbers should effect a change of strategy and bring some sense along with them. Several different pollsters have shown recently that the budget deficit is the biggest concern of Americans, with health care coming in second, usually something in the range of 40% who want the deficit addressed most, while about 25% think health care is the biggest issue, and only among Democrats does health care take first place and not by as wide a margin as the national trend that places the deficit first. The party leadership is already woefully out of touch with the people. But if political common sense goes out the window and Obama and Co. just decide to torch another $800 to $900 billion (the latest cost estimate from the Wall Street Journal on the Baucus Bill) in a "non-deficit neutral" health care bill -- Did anyone really think that Obama's deficit neutral pledge ever had any truth behind it? -- the Senate numbers could go as high as +5 for the GOP after the 2010 election. I see the reasonable expectation of Republican gains in the House in 2010 admitted. Right now Rasmussen -- again, the most accurate of the pollsters in recent history -- has the Republicans at +4 percentage points ahead of the Democrats on the Generic Ballot poll. He had the Democrats at +7 just before the election, already an 11 point swing in ten months, so that trend is right on track to fit in with the historical record. And with respect to public support for the health care reform bills now in Congress, since I notice that there was an immediate rush to bash Rasmussen's numbers, the truth is that he is right in step with other major pollsters. Pollster.com, which really writes for an audience that is at least modestly skilled in quantitative analysis and is therefore not the easiest to read, has a couple of recent articles which show that there is widespread opposition to the Democrats' "health care plan" revealed in the findings of numerous pollsters, including just about all the big ones (I counted 16 right quick, it might be more). Their latest average is 47.9% oppose, 45.2% favor. (Source - Google [minus the quotes]: "pollster.com health care favor / oppose") They also have a more advanced analysis that presents five different ways to statistically manipulate these poll results, especially with respect to the "outliers" who seem out of step with the general trend, and in four out of five support for the plan is weaker than opposition to it, the fifth has them pretty much dead even. And for one last poll, Rasmussen released one last Wednesday, the 16th, which showed that only 12% of Americans say that opponents of Obama's health care plan are racist. (Source - Google [minus the quotes] "rasmussen reports 12% Obama health care plan") I think it fair to say that a number like 12% indicates that the racist charge is a "fringe" attitude. Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I think he means that the republicans should be more demacornic. Written by
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Une autre chose avant dormir - Kerry, of course we are not a one-party nation, but if the GOP wants to be one of the top two parties it has got to move to the left, especially on social issues. The Talibaptist tendencies of today's GOP turn off people in most of the country, and you can't win the Presidency carrying only the South. C'est tout. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Oh, one of those homemade yard sign people. Thanks for that credibility indicator. Written by
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The Republicans may pick up some House seats next November (it almost always happens that the new President's party loses some seats in the mid-term election) - however, you're delusional if you think a Republican is going to win a Senate seat in DE, CT, or IL. And Kerry, that was a pretty nasty little post down there - been on the rig too long? TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Oh, my!
Jeff and Jacob,
You two share so much more than just your initials.......of "J", I also see,,,two big Radical, Right Wing R's as in... mad dog Republicans.....
I feel so good as a Yellow Dog Democrat, when I see how both of you by advising...such as the President should not be on the air......because it will hurt his image according to certain polls, I say No Way! Keep 'em coming.......The more President Obama speaks, the more we remember how shallow were the shallow speeches of his predecessor. I really felt badly for President Bush, who was pushed into a position he was unsuited for in so many ways.
No, Jeff,
The President must and will continue to press his points to counter such lunatics as Beck and Limbaugh. You have to hammer at some people relentlessly to force them to start listening to and discerning facts and lies.
In my yard, under my beautiful spreading oak tree, I have a sign that says:
TRUST LOCAL TV.. WITH A LARGE "CHECK SIGN)(HOUMA HTV CHANNEL 10)
Under this sign I have this message: X Fox 57 LIES
I always felt Fox 57 lied,,,,,,but it was quite evident when they stated that CNN, '
ABC, NBC, MSNBC did not cover the Washington Tea Party organized by Glenn Beck and Fox News reporters two week ends ago......It was a flop, but did successfully reveal many untruths, ignorance as well as vicious, racial attacks on our President.
Because of the negative displays, I believe that there will be much fewer tea parties in the future.
Written by Cajun Tsunami
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The only way this country will "win" is if both parties become fiscally responsible - if not all else matters very little as we'll be too poor to afford anything (health care, war, etc - "anything" as in both the good and the bad). So perhaps the GOP will move way from the social conservatives and the Democratic Party will become realistic in their budgets, then they can fight over the small stuff that remains. "Freedom and a sound currency" - is that asking for too much? Written by kpf
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
On the subject of the state of the GOP with American voters as it stands now, you might find it interesting to note that RealClearPolitics.com has published poll results for impending elections this year for Governor in Virginia and New Jersey and the New York City Mayor's race. Republican candidates are leading in all three. (Source - Google [minus the quotes]: "realclearpolitics election 2009") Their polling statistics for next year's Senate races show that in early polling for the Senate seats now held by Democrats in Connecticut, Delaware, and Illinois all have Republicans leading. (Source - Google [minus the quotes]: "realclearpolitics election 2010 senate races") You will also see there that if Republican Pataki chooses to run for the New York Senate seat that is Democrat, he will be favored. Additionally, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid trails either of two potential Republican challengers for his 2010 Senate seat next year. In 3 polls conducted by 3 different pollsters from Aug 17 - Sept 14 for a potential race between Republican Danny Tarkanian and Reid, Tarkanian has won all three by an average of 7.7 points. (Source - Google [minus the quotes]: "realclearpolitics Nevada Senate Reid Tarkanian Polls") In a potential matchup with Republican Sue Lowden conducted during the same period, Lowden has also won all three polls by an average of 6.0 points. (Source - Google [minus the quotes]: "realclearpolitics Nevada Senate Reid Lowden Polls"). All of these are in states Obama won last year and, with the single exception of the New York City Mayor, all are for public offices now held by Democrats. I'm not making any of this up, go and see for yourselves. I'm willing to bet Jeff has already looked. Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The GOP is dead. Democratic supporters don't even have to go to the polls any more. This nation now officially has a one party system. If you don't like that, you are obviously racist and ignorant. Now TW, you claim the South has an "oversupply of ignorance" - I assume you are referring to GOP supporters - not black Democratic supporters - that is what I'm assuming here. I'm pretty sure that is what you meant. Of course you did!!!! Silly me - duh. You did not mean blacks in the south as they are 90% likely to vote Democratic. Okay. I understand YOUR point.... Written by kpf
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Forgot to sign that last post. Written by Get A Room
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Quit teasing her, Tee. She's already begging for companionship tomorrow night. Next she'll ask you to show her your poll in person. Written by
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"You left out one option Jeff. Obama and the Democrats can pass a bipartisan bill over GOP intransigence and make the GOP look even more irrelevant. Have some more tea Jeff.
Written by David Quidd on 9/22/2009 What?????????? Did you mean a partisan bill with no Republican Votes for? They might just do that. Written by Sharon
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Rasmussen is the nation's most accurate pollster. I know that angers a lot of people, but it's true. For 2008, his most recent test, Google [minus the quotes]: "pollster accuracy fordham" and read the Fordham University analysis. I don't make this stuff up. Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Hey KjunLady, how about this Research 2000 poll that came out just this month? Favorable or unfavorable view of the Republican Party - Northeast US: Favorable: 7%, Unfavorable: 87%, No opinion: 6%; Midwest US: Favorable: 13%, Unfavorable: 78%, No opinion: 9%; Western US: Favorable: 14%, Unfavorable: 75%, No opinion: 11%; Southern US: Favorable: 50%, Unfavorable: 37%, No opinion: 13%. Not much of a future as a national party, I would say. So Jeff and the Southern GOP hacks like Jacob Sulzbach who talk to no one except people who agree with them can slap each other on the back and say "People are growing weary of Obama" or "People are opposed to the Democratic health care plan" all they want - most of the country is not buying their snake oil, with the exception of the South, with its oversupply of idiots. And I can say that, because my roots in the South run deep. But let's face it, we have A LOT of stupid people here - the kind of people who read Jeff's columns and like what they read, for example. You know, every time I read a column by Jeff, I think it's the stupidest column he's ever written, and then I read his next one. TW
Written by Tee Dub
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Wow, if only Hugo Chavez could get a shot on Sabado Gigante now. Written by Uncle Miltie
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jeff says that the President "is basically repeating the same talking points in each interview"...... ONLY you talking heads are watching every appearance...... Exactly the same message to diferent audiences sounds pretty smart to me....I only caught him twice... Meet the Press.... and of course, Letterman... (Eat ya hawts out) Written by KJ
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Calm down, Jacob....Rasmussen is a Republican pollster... that's like me quoting Dkos...You want numbers? All the polls show that Americans overwhelmingly (over 70%) want HealthCare Reform. Written by KjunLady
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"Not surprisingly, he (the President) refused to appear on Fox News, the only channel that would..." not broadcast Obama's Speech to the Joint Session of Congress.... FOX didn't want to hear the President "THEN."....... (Jeffie-poo, what would YOU do without FOX network?) Written by KJ
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
You left out one option Jeff. Obama and the Democrats can pass a bipartisan bill over GOP intransigence and make the GOP look even more irrelevant. Have some more tea Jeff. Written by David Quidd
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
<DOROTHY> Yes, sir. So we'd like you to keep your promise to us, if you please, sir. - - OZ'S VOICE - - - Not so fast! Not.... ...so fast! I'll have to give the matter a little thought. Go away and come back tomorrow! (MS -- Dorothy, with her three friends behind her -- she reacts, speaks --
the Tin Man and the Lion put in a word for her --) <DOROTHY> Tomorrow? Oh, but I want to go home now. <TIN MAN> You've had plenty of time already! <LION> Yeah! - - OZ'S VOICE - - - Do not arouse the wrath.... (Toto at Dorothy's feet -- CAMERA PANS right with him as he runs to a curtain that hangs near the throne steps) - - OZ'S VOICE - - ...of the Great and Powerful Oz! I said -- come back tomorrow! (The Four -- Dorothy speaks as she looks o.s. to right f.g. – CAMERA PULLS back to right to enter the curtain where Toto ran in the b.g. – it shakes as Toto starts to pull it back --) <DOROTHY> If you were really great and powerful,you'd keep your promises! <OZ'S VOICE> Do you presume to criticize the....(Toto pulls back the curtain to reveal the Wizard at the controls of the throne apparatus -- his back to the camera) - - OZ'S VOICE - - ...Great Oz? You ungrateful creatures!
(The Four react with fear -- Scarecrow looks o.s. to right -- points
for Dorothy --) - - OZ'S VOICE - - Think yourselves lucky that I'm....
(Shooting past the Four at left to the Wizard at the controls of the
throne apparatus -- the Four react as they see him after Dorothy calls
their attention to him --) - - OZ'S VOICE - - ...giving you audience tomorrow, instead of....(The Wizard at the controls -- his back to camera -- he speaks int0 the microphone -- he turns, looks o.s. to f.g. and sees that the curtain is gone -- reacts and turns back to the controls) - - OZ'S VOICE - - ...twenty years from now. Oh -- oh oh! The Great Oz has spoken! Oh -- Oh ---... (Shooting past the Four at left to the Wizard as he pulls back the
curtain --) - - OZ'S VOICE - - ... Oh .... Oh .... (The Wizard peers out from behind the curtain – the Tin Man, Lion, Dorothy and Scarecrow react as they look at the Wizard o.s. to right - Dorothy speaks) <DOROTHY> Who are you? (The Wizard peering out from curtain - he ducks back out of sight and
his voice booms out again -) - - OZ'S VOICE - - Oh - I - Pay no.... (Shooting past the Four at left to the Curtain in b.g. – Dorothy goes over to it and starts to pull it aside --) - - OZ'S VOICE- - ...attention to that man behind the curtain. Go - before I lose my temper! The Great and Powerful ---.... (Dorothy pulls back the curtain to reveal the Wizard at the controls
-- he reacts as he sees Dorothy -- Dorothy questions him -- the Wizard
starts to speak into the microphone -- then turns weakly back to Dorothy --
CAMERA PULLS back slightly as the Lion, Scarecrow and Tin Man enter and
stand behind Dorothy --) - - OZ'S VOICE - - ... -- Oz -- has spoken! <DOROTHY> Who are you? - - OZ'S VOICE - - Well, I -- I -- I am the Great and Powerful -- Wizard of Oz. <DOROTHY> You are? * * WIZARD * * Uhhhh -- yes... <DOROTHY> I don't believe you! * * WIZARD * * No, I'm afraid it's true. There's no other Wizard except me. (Dorothy and her three friends react -- Camera shooting past the Wizard at left -- the Scarecrow and Lion speak angrily --) <SCARECROW> You humbug! <LION> Yeah! (Wizard -- shooting past Dorothy, the Lion and Scarecrow – the Wizard speaks --) * * WIZARD * * Yes-s-s -- that...that's exactly so. I'm a humbug! <DOROTHY> Oh .... (Dorothy -- Tin Man and Scarecrow behind her --) <DOROTHY> ...you're a very bad man! (The Wizard reacts, speaks humbly --) * * WIZARD * * Oh, no, my dear -- I'm -- I'm a very good man. I'm just a very bad Wizard. (Scarecrow and Dorothy - Scarecrow threatens the Wizard o.s. -) <SCARECROW> You'd better be good enough to send Dorothy back to Kansas! (Wizard - shooting past Lion, Dorothy and Scarecrow in f.g. -) * * WIZARD * * Uh - now, please don't be angry with me. I'll - I'll do anything you say, only... only if you don't shout at me. It makes me nervous! <SCARECROW> It makes you nervous? * * WIZARD * * Yes. (Tin Man, Scarecrow, Dorothy and Lion -- shooting past the Wizard in left f.g.) <SCARECROW> What about us? * * WIZARD * * Well, I -- <SCARECROW> What about the heart that you promised Tin Man --? <WIZARD> Well, I -- <SCARECROW> -- And the courage that you promised Cowardly Lion? * * WIZARD * * Well, I -- <TIN MAN AND LION> And Scarecrow's brain? (Wizard - shooting past Lion, Dorothy and Scarecrow in f.g. -) <WIZARD> Well, I-- but you've got them. You've had them all the... (Tin Man, Scarecrow, Dorothy and Lion - shooting past the Wizard in
left f.g. - the four react, speak together - the Scarecrow moves around to
the Wizard -) * * WIZARD * * ...time! <ALL TOGETHER> Oh, no we haven't! <TIN MAN> You don't get around us that easy! <LION> Not no-how! * * WIZARD * * Well -- <SCARECROW> You promised us real things -- a real... (Wizard - shooting past the Scarecrow at right - the Wizard reacts to
their demands - starts to speak -) <SCARECROW> ...brain! <TIN MAN> A real heart! <LION> Real courage. That's what we want. * * WIZARD * * You do? boys, you're aiming low. You not only surprise, but you grieve me. (The Wizard speaks to Tin Man, Dorothy, Lion and the Scarecrow – the Wizard becomes eloquent -- steps closer to the Scarecrow --) * * WIZARD * * Why, anybody can have a brain. That's a very mediocre commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the earth – or slinks through slimy seas has a brain! (Wizard -- shooting past the Scarecrow at right --) * * WIZARD * * From the rock-bound coast of Maine to the Sun.... oh - oh, no -- -- ah - Well, be that as it may. Back where I come from we have universities, seats of great learning -- where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts -- and with no more brains than you have.... But! They have one thing you haven't got! A diploma! (The Wizard reaches back and obtains several diplomas – selecting one and presents it to the Scarecrow as Dorothy, Tin Man and the Lion look on --) * * WIZARD * * Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Universitatus Committeeatum e plurbis unum, I hereby confer upon you the honorary degree of Th.D. <SCARECROW> Th.D.? (Wizard -- shooting past the Scarecrow at right --) * * WIZARD * * Yeah -- that...that's Dr. of Thinkology! - - The Scarecrow recites the Pythagoras Theorem -- reacts with joy -- <SCARECROW> The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side. Oh joy, rapture! I've got a brain! (Wizard, Scarecrow, Dorothy, Tin Man and Lion -- the Scarecrow thanks the Wizard -- Wizard takes the Lion and leads him forward – CAMERA TRUCKS back and PANS right -- the others follow -- the Wizard pauses on the throne steps -- opens a door and takes out a black bag -- takes a medal from the bag --) <SCARECROW> How can I ever thank you enough? * * WIZARD * * Well, you can't. As for you, my fine friend -- you're a victim of disorganized thinking. You are under the unfortunate delusion that simply because you run away from danger, you have no courage. You're confusing courage with wisdom. Back where I come from, we have men who are called heroes. Once a year, they take their fortitude out of mothballs and parade it down the main street of the city. And they have no more courage than you have. But! They have one thing that you haven't got! A medal! Therefore -- for meritorious.... (Lion -- shooting past the Wizard in the f.g. as he presents the
medal to the beaming Lion --) * * WIZARD * * ...conduct, extraordinary valor, conspicuous bravery against wicked witches, I award you the Triple Cross. (Scarecrow, Tin Man and Dorothy watching as the Wizard presents the
medal to the Lion --) * * WIZARD * * You are now a member of the Legion of Courage! (The Wizard leans forward and kisses the Lion -- the Lion reacts,
speaks --) <LION> Oh -- Oh -- shucks, folks, I'm speechless! (Dorothy, Tin Man, Scarecrow watch the Lion as he beams with joy over his new medal -- the Wizard turns to the Tin Man -- speaks to him --) * * WIZARD * * As for you, my galvanized friend, you want a heart! You don't know how lucky you are not to have one. Hearts will never be practical until they can be made unbreakable. I could have been a world figure, a power among men, a - a successful wizard, had I not been obstructed by a heart. <TIN MAN> But I still want one. * * WIZARD * * Yes -- .... (Wizard -- shooting past the Tin Man in left f.g.) * * WIZARD * * ...back where I come from there are men who do nothing all day but good deeds. They are called phil...er -- er -- phil -- er, yes...good-deed-doers. And their hearts are no bigger than yours. But! They have one thing you haven't got! A testimonial! (The Tin Man waits as the Wizard bends down and gets a heart-shaped watch from his black bag -- CAMERA TRUCKS forward slightly as he presents it to the Tin Man as Dorothy, Lion and Scarecrow look on --) * * WIZARD * * Therefore, in consideration of your kindness, I take pleasure at this time in presenting you with a small token of our esteem and affection. And remember, my sentimental friend.... (Wizard -- shooting past the Tin Man in left f.g.) * * WIZARD * * ...that a heart is not judged by how much you love, but by how much you are loved by others. (Tin Man -- shooting past the Wizard in right -- Dorothy standing at left -- the Tin Man listens to his watch, then holds it up to Dorothy's ear --) <TIN MAN> Ahh --- Oh, it ticks! Listen! <DOROTHY> Yes...! (Scarecrow, Lion, Dorothy react as the Tin Man shows them the watch -- the Wizard smiles as he watches them -- Lion points to his medal --) <DOROTHY> ...yes. <TIN MAN> Look -- it ticks! <LION> Read...read what my medal says. (CU of the Medal on the Lion's chest -- reads COURAGE --) <LION> Courage!... (Int. Throne Room -- Scarecrow, Dorothy, The Wizard and Tin Man admire the Lion's medal -- then they ask about Dorothy's request --) <LION> ...Ain't it the truth! Ain't it the truth! <DOROTHY> Oh -- oh -- they're all wonderful. <SCARECROW> Hey -- what about Dorothy? <TIN MAN> Yes -- how about Dorothy? <LION> Yeah. * * WIZARD * * Ah -- <LION> Dorothy next! * * WIZARD * * Yes. Dorothy -- ah -- Dor -- (Dorothy --) <DOROTHY> Oh, I don't think there's anything in that black bag for me.
(The Wizard protests - mumbles as he starts to look into the bag -) * * WIZARD * * Well, no - no -- on the contrary, on
the ---- .... (The Wizard rummages through the bag as Dorothy and the others look on -- he finds nothing, so he speaks encouragingly of what he'll do - CAMERA TRUCKS forward slightly -) * * WIZARD * * ...I -- ah -- on the contr -- -- Here -- Well, you force me into a cataclysmic decision. The only way to get Dorothy back to Kansas is for me to take her there myself! (Dorothy reacts, speaks --) <DOROTHY> Oh, will you? Could you? Oh -- but are you a clever enough Wizard.... (-- The Wizard --) <DOROTHY> ...to manage it? * * WIZARD * * Child -- you cut me to the quick! I'm an old Kansas man myself...born and....(Dorothy is pleased -- looks about at the others --) * * WIZARD * * ...bred in the heart of the western wilderness -- Premier balloonist par.... (Scarecrow, Dorothy, Lion and Tin Man listening to the Wizard --) * * WIZARD * * ...excellence to the Miracle Wonderland Carnival Company -- until one day, while performing spectacular feats of stratospheric skill never before attempted by civilized man, an unfortunate phenomena occurred. The balloon failed to return to the fair. <LION> It did? (- The Wizard -) * * WIZARD * * Yes. There was I, floating through space -- a man without a continent!(-- Dorothy --) <DOROTHY> Weren't you frightened? (Scarecrow, Dorothy, Wizard, Tin Man and Lion on the steps near the throne -- the Wizard speaks as they come forward -- CAMERA PULLS back to left as they come forward to door -- they pause -- then again come forward to the doorway -- all react to the Wizard's announcement --) * * WIZARD * * Frightened? You are talking to a man who has laughed in the face of death – sneered at doom and chuckled at catastrophe. I was petrified. Then suddenly the wind changed, and the balloon floated down into the heart of this noble city, where I was instantly acclaimed Oz, the First Wizard de Luxe! <DOROTHY> Ohhh! * * WIZARD * * Times being what they were, I accepted the job, -- retaining my balloon against the advent of a quick get-away. (laughs) And in that balloon, my dear Dorothy, you and I will return to the land of E Pluribus Unum!
Written by
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Jeff; you should have checked Rasmussen this morning. The opposition to Obama's health care plan as of last Friday, 9/18, is up to 56%. The conclusion of your analysis is stronger than you have presented it. Source - Google [minus the quotes]: "rasmussen reports health care reform opposition" Written by Jacob Sulzbach, Lafayette, La.
on 9/22/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Today, the President addressed the United Nations on the issue of climate change. Of course, it was carried by all of the cable networks. This continues a string of continuous media appearances over the past few weeks. Last Sunday, the President was interviewed on five news programs just a few days after he appeared on 60 Minutes. Last night, he was the only guest on the Late Night Show with David Letterman. 
