published Sunday, October 17th, 2010

The Holdout

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

97
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
rolando said...

Yeah, right. You are showing your sour grapes, Clay.

Rasmussen [historically the most accurate] has the reds gaining 40 House seats and 8 in the Senate with 5 up for grabs.

October 17, 2010 at 7:28 a.m.
woody said...

Hey, RO, call it "Sour Grapes" after the election. As of this moment, however, the "Red" states haven't had much positive to add to any useful conversation.

And it is a shame. Quite a few on your side of the aisle do have some good ideas, now and then. To mesh with the oft-times valuable notions "The Left" can muster up.

Why not try working together, or is that such a hard compromise to swallow. It's a whole lot easier than trying to do it all by yourself.

Share the load, Woody

October 17, 2010 at 8:25 a.m.
Francis said...

actually, rolando, this morning i read rasmussen has the republicans gaining 55 seats in the house.

sour grapes is right.....must be frustrating for libs to have whined for 8 years about bush/cheney...attempting to criminalize them....then have their golden boy in the white house blow it.....

time to defund!

October 17, 2010 at 8:26 a.m.
Francis said...

woody..give it up. the democrats own everything for the last two years..and have had control of the house since 2006......it's always the republicans who have to compromise and be bipartisn....they didn't go along with anything obama and the libs wanted..because it's crap. who wants to be assosicated with it. if the democrats didn't accomplish what they wanted in the last 2 years in complete control, then it's their own damn fault.

republicans and democrats created a lot of this mess...but it's clear obama has no clue how to improve things.

October 17, 2010 at 8:34 a.m.
hambone said...

Where's the Tea Party Clay? Looks like there's a Third brush there.

Francis why don't you tell us about you're past With Obama?

October 17, 2010 at 8:48 a.m.
alprova said...

Rasmussen has only been around for seven years, and a few wild guesses that came to pass does not make the man or his company "historically the most accurate" when it comes to polling.

His firm also does all of their polling electronically, which is a very weak means by which any firm can reach all those who cast ballots in an election. Most of their polling is done on Facebook and Twitter.

What matters is who shows up to vote on November 2nd, and no one yet has a clear idea who will and will not be doing that. Underestimating or overestimating anything at this time is rather reckless and will certainly result in many having egg on their faces.

Here's the results of 1,000 recently and randomly dialed phone polling of likely voters, that you haven't seen in the press:

Overall approval of Democrats in Congress; Approve - 38% Disapprove - 60%

Overall Approval of Republicans in Congress; Approve - 31% Disapprove - 68%

Do you approve of the way the Republicans are handling the economy? Approve - 34% Disapprove - 64%

Do you approve of the way the Democrats are handling the economy? Approve - 39% Disapprove - 59%

If vote were held today, would you vote for Republican or Democratic candidate? Democrat - 47% Republican - 47% (Most recent) Democrat - 43% Republican - 53% (Two weeks ago) Democrat - 45% Republican - 49% (One month ago)

When asked the question, "Which party do you want to see in control of Congress?, The percentages change in favor of either party almost each week. One week, Republican. The next, Democrat. And that has been the case for the past 8 weeks straight.

On President Obama;

How do you feel President Obama handled the situation in Iraq? Approve - 60% Disapprove - 39%

How do you feel President Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan? Approve - 53% Disapprove - 46%

How do you feel President Obama is handling relationships with other countries? Approve - 59% Disapprove - 39%

How do you feel President Obama has handled health care? Approve - 50% Disapprove - 50%

How do you feel President Obama has handled terrorism? Approve - 58% Disapprove - 42%

How do you feel President Obama is handling education issues? Approve - 59% Disapprove - 39%

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of President Obama? Favorable - 57% Unfavorable - 42%

Do you think President Obama understands the problems of ordinary Americans" Yes - 54% No - 47%

(To be Cont.)

October 17, 2010 at 9:08 a.m.
alprova said...

Cont.)

General questions;

Do you blame President Obama for the current Financial Crisis? Blame - 26% Do not blame - 52%

Do you blame former President Bush for the current Financial Crisis? Blame - 51% Do not blame - 24%

Do you blame former President Clinton for the current Financial Crisis? Blame - 20% Do not blame - 53%

Do you blame banks and lenders for the current Financial Crisis? Blame - 82% Do not blame - 8%

Do you blame the Government for failing to regulate banks close enough? Blame - 69% Do not blame - 13%

On the Tea-Party;

Do you consider yourself a supporter or not a supporter of the Tea-Party movement" Supporter - 28% Not a supporter - 68%

Do you consider yourself to be? (same group of 1,000)

Very liberal? - 10% Somewhat liberal? - 12% Moderate? - 31% Somewhat conservative? - 25% Very conservative? - 20%

Margin of error - 4.2% Confidence level - 95%

October 17, 2010 at 9:09 a.m.
rolando said...

Here is part, if not all, of the problem with compromise, woody. It is just a snippet but it goes along with what many conservatives have said all along:

[quote] Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it. [unquote]

The article goes on at some length detailing Obama's methods. See the rest at http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/obama-s-agenda--overwhelm-the-system-95716764.html

So the problem is much deeper and widespread than can be resolved by compromise. For your side, compromise means nothing less than total acceptance of Obama's socialized America.

Se conservatives must compromise to the deliberate destruction of the United States? The only free country left? The one most cognisant of human rights?

Not bloody likely.

We remember only too well the people in Russia standing in line to buy something, not even knowing what it is. Empty department store shelves, etc -- except for the stores reserved for the elite.

The only questions are: Is Mr Root correct and is it too late for us?

It only took 2 years to destroy a 240 year old country...by promises of bread and circus.

October 17, 2010 at 9:33 a.m.
fairmon said...

The destruction of the economy has already occurred we have not yet faced that reality but will soon with either hyper inflation or severe depression caused by taxation regardless of who is elected.

You can't recover from forty one cents of every dollar being borrowed money and approximately one half of your income paying interest on debts. Extreme sacrifice will come either willingly or by default.

I couldn't care less which party wins or loses, we will all lose anyway. The wise political strategy would be to avoid being the controlling party. The party in power when it hits will not be able to be influential for a generation or more. If the pubs are successful they just stepped in it. They would serve their party better long term by helping the dems stay in control.

October 17, 2010 at 10:03 a.m.
miraweb said...

Are people still seriously looking for communists and witches under every rock and tree? I thought we were done with that nonsense.

Besides, Rolando, you've fallen off the talking point train. The rumor mill is supposed to be filled with "Barack Obama Never Attended Columbia" (which he actually did).

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/columbia.asp

All I can figure is that folks who have to go all the way out there to find something bad to say have very little real stuff to work with.

October 17, 2010 at 10:11 a.m.
woody said...

I am not surprised, at all, that Francis isn't schooled enough as to the fine art of compromise, Rolando. However, I had thought of you as being far more intelligent than Francis.

So sad, it is true I may not be as good at judging people as I once was. Still your rhetoric and Francis' were on two separate levels..at least until you broke out "Not bloody likely."

However, if you sincerely believe all of this country's ills have come about in just the past few years..I'm glad you are retired because you need a really long rest.

Sunday is HIS day, Woody

October 17, 2010 at 10:11 a.m.
miraweb said...

Harp,

Funny how basic economics is so rarely taught. This week the Fed did start a policy of "quantitative easing" which is a fancy way of saying "printing money."

Why would they do that?

The Fed was very clear - it is because Deflation (not Inflation) is the real risk.

A little hyperinflation would be a sign of some real healing in the economy - but we are no where near that problem.

Which is perfect with Clay's cartoon - We've had a massive economic train wreck, and the GOP leadership, who have personally felt little, if any, real pain from this, are still sitting on the sidelines smoking a cigarette.

October 17, 2010 at 10:19 a.m.
Francis said...

what does that mean, miraweb? "personally felt little, if any, real pain"

ask the insulated and extremely well off "public servants" christopher dodd, barney frank, nancy pelosi, charlie rangel..etc.....if they feel any pain.

you naive liberals are a joke..do you think any of the democrats that have passed any of the sewage they call legislation , feel it will affect them? when lawmakers pass freedom killing legislation, it's not intended for them. the democrats own the last two years...they have one standard for them and one for eveyone else.

if you think obama thinks he'll have to abide by any of the bull**** he's put into law, you're wacked. he'll never feel the "pain"...

October 17, 2010 at 10:43 a.m.
miraweb said...

Francis,

Can you make it less personal?

I am trying to listen to your argument but it is hard to understand what you are really trying to say when it is peppered with "naive", "wacked", and other schoolyard namecalling. You may have a good point here, but people won't take you seriously in that mode.

October 17, 2010 at 11:04 a.m.
fairmon said...

miraweb

I do have some understanding of basic economics and did study economics with interest. I fail to share your confidence the fed can manipulate the economy precisely enough to prevent double digit or hyper inflation.

I am aware of the fed's concern and have no doubt that deflation is the current short term threat the fed's Quantitative easing, printing money, devaluing the dollar whatever you call it is intended to address.

However, it does not address the root cause which is the debt, unemployment, availability of good paying jobs. Taxing to depress or inflating will both impoverish more people until the debt and unemployment issues are properly addressed.

I hope I am wrong about what we are facing but obviously I don't think so. The offering of the two parties locally as candidates for congress confirms my belief who is elected doesn't matter. You can hire the best jockey in the world but if you put him riding a barn yard nag you are not going to win the derby.

Don't you think fiat money not backed by anything of value is wonderful? Just print some more if you run out. A good way to tax people without calling it a tax. Wasn't that a brilliant move, taking us off of that old restraining gold standard?

Invest wisely and enjoy the exciting ride.

October 17, 2010 at 11:35 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Francis, you wrote that printing money "does not address the root cause which is the debt, unemployment, availability of good paying jobs."

How can you talk about the debt and not talk about George Bush? Really dude?

How can you talk about unemployment and the lack of good paying jobs and not mention George Bush?

Bush and his cronies gave tax incentives to American companies to outsource high paying jobs overseas.

So far under Obama, there have been 860,000 private sector jobs added to the economy. That's more than George & Co. accomplished in eight years.

Health Insurance companies can no longer drop your coverage because you get sick. They can't refuse to cover cancer surgery because you had measles when you were a kid.

You say it's all Obama's fault so let's look back, shall we?

When Bush took office: America good.

When Bush left office: America in the crapper, i.e., Wall Street meltdown, real estate meltdown, $1 trillion in debt to China for the Iraq War and the economy shedding thousands of jobs every week.

To blame Obama for any of this is nuts. Obviously it's too soon to say if his policies will work or not in the long run because everything remains to be seen, but we're better off now than we were when he took office. I know that's not popular but at the risk of you and Rolando and your cadre of like minded neo-conservative anarchists having your heads explode, that's my opinion.

October 17, 2010 at 4:07 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

We who are Right can blame President Bush and ourselves for bloated spending and deficits and (despite deficits) high joblessness--we shoulda been harder on 'our' guy, the best guy actually available--but, B48, deficits and joblessness have gotten worse under President Obama, not better, and it's fair to blame him and his party for that, We could even say truly that things were better in A.D. 2006, before Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid took over, than they have been since. The Left promised us that the porculus bill would keep joblessness under 8%. Well? Promised that the 'health' bill would keep costs down, and let us keep existing plans and doctors. Well? Wash off the blue lies, even if the red ain't perfect, which it ain't.

But Jesus the libertarian President of presidents is, whom most voters and politicians here claim to follow, while absorbing politics from the world instead of learning from Him. To be sure, politics ain't His top priority; learn love and obedience to God from "Christ died for OUR sins," learn expectation from his resurrection and his word "I will build My Church..."

In politics, what works? Small government works: the U.S. economy grew faster A.D. 1840-1860, with a cabinet of about 7 departments and banks printing their own money, than it has grown in any 20-year-period since, with bigger government. (Thank God slavery is gone; don't let Big Massa in the White House re-enslave us, taking money we've earned as if he could spent it better than we can) Jesus is rather libertarian.

Christianity works: look at the world. Countries under Christian influence tend to be richer and freer than atheistic, pagan, or Muslim countries, and the latter, when doing well, have learned wisdom from Christendom.

So vote red (moderate), or Tea, or libertarian, or constitutionalist, and so on.

October 17, 2010 at 4:43 p.m.
moonpie said...

I know this is a bit off topic from the cartoon, but it follows a lot of this thread.....

Both parties are so eager to place responsibility for our economic mess at the feet of the other party.

I am curious to know if there is anyone else out there besides me who really does not blame Republicans or Democrats for our current economic mess, but rather blames our system of enterprise?

(I'm not suggesting there aren't things that Democrats or Republicans could have done differently.... but it seems to me that most of the problems were a result of free enterprise.)

October 17, 2010 at 4:55 p.m.
acerigger said...

After 2 yrs. of watching the repub "holdouts" obstruct,say "NO" to any efforts to improve conditions for "Real Americans", why would any thinking person want to put these liars back in charge? Oh, I get it, that "Kenyan,commie-marxist,socialist,usurper must be stopped before he destroys America". Get real,wake up people,the right is lying to you!

October 17, 2010 at 5:06 p.m.
rolando said...

So what would YOU compromise away, woody? ObamaCare? Government Motors? Unlimited spending? Cap N' Trade? Global Warming?

You speak so loudly about the wonders of compromise, you must have something important you would trade to gain something else of importance...

Taxing the rich, perhaps? Green cars? Alternative power? Restricted oil drilling? Higher taxes on business? Abortion at will? Same-sex marriage? Special laws and rights for homosexuals? ObamaCare? Racially-oriented law enforcement? Bread and circus? Activist judges? What?

All WE want is our constitution to be observed not ignored.

October 17, 2010 at 5:27 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"How can you talk about the debt and not talk about George Bush? Really dude?"

Deficit spending has tripled under the current administration.


"How can you talk about unemployment and the lack of good paying jobs and not mention George Bush?"

The unemployment rate has risen a significant amount over the last 2 years.


"Bush and his cronies gave tax incentives to American companies to outsource high paying jobs overseas."

Too much MSNBC. There is no tax provision which was enacted to reward companies for sending jobs out of the country.


"So far under Obama, there have been 860,000 private sector jobs added to the economy. That's more than George & Co. accomplished in eight years."

We need 1 million+ new jobs per year just to stay even. Odumdum is WAY behind. You might want to go find a source showing the actual jobs growth from 2001 till 2007 when the Dems took control of Congress, before you write such silly stuff.


"Health Insurance companies can no longer drop your coverage because you get sick. They can't refuse to cover cancer surgery because you had measles when you were a kid."

Yes, and premiums are shooting through the roof for those who have not already lost their coverage. Well, unless you get a special waiver from the Administration allowing your business to ignore the new rules.


"When Bush took office: America good."

Forgot the dotcom bubble burst recession, did you? How about the repercussions of 9/11, which further depressed the economy. It's way to soon to be trying to rewrite history on this already.


"When Bush left office: America in the crapper, i.e., Wall Street meltdown, real estate meltdown, $1 trillion in debt to China for the Iraq War and the economy shedding thousands of jobs every week."

This is true, but how did the economy look in the fall of 2006 right before the Dems took control of Congress?


"To blame Obama for any of this is nuts."

He's been in the W.H. for almost 2 years, and was a part of the Dem takeover of Congress in 2006. To pretend that he has no culpability requires intensive concentration.


"Obviously it's too soon to say if his policies will work or not in the long run..."

No it's not, his ideas are the same failure based ideas the left has been pushing for 70 years.


"because everything remains to be seen, but we're better off now than we were when he took office."

In what way would you consider the country "better off"?

October 17, 2010 at 7:01 p.m.
Francis said...

ace, you sure sound desperate. must be the new rasmussen poll out that predicts a 55 seat gain by the GOP on nov. 2nd.

"repub holdouts".?...what do you need them for..you libs have the majority.

you got what you wanted.

"lies"....like what?

you forgot jackass in your list.

he is trying to destroy america, ace..the america that most people have taken pride in. he needs to go. he's a bad man with bad attitude.

October 17, 2010 at 7:03 p.m.
Francis said...

you liberals have to ask yourselves how did obama in less than 2 years go from the messiah to someone who is avoided like the plague by members of his own party? the reason is, ace, that that he lied. since you brought up liars.

he lied about who he was during the campaign. casual observers and independ ents ignored his past and bought his campaign act and took a chance on him. and what do you know...he's no moderate...he's a fire breathing leftist radical.

that's why he and you libs are going down.

October 17, 2010 at 7:22 p.m.
miraweb said...

I heard a remarkable interview with Andrew Sullivan, the conservative commentator on NPR today. It was remarkable because while my politics and his are on the opposite spectrum in many ways, I probably agreed with 80% of what he said today. Yeah, I was surprised, too.

It suits politicians and marketers to divide the public into hostile little groups (Coke! Pepsi!) - but I am believing less and less it reflects any kind of reality.

Go Jon Stewart!

http://www.cafepress.com/+rally_to_restore_sanity_flag_button_large_35_in,396341211

October 17, 2010 at 8:19 p.m.
hambone said...

Hate and name calling, that's all you seem to be about Francis. Never anything constructive just never ending rants about how you hate Obama and democrats. You and Obama both came out of Chicago, What's in your past that makes you hate him so? You should let up before you get a ulcer or blow a fuse!!

October 17, 2010 at 8:29 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Scotty, son of a gun, you've changed my mind.

I can't wait for Republicans to regain control of Congress and get this Country back to the glory days of George Bush.

Don't know what I was thinking!

Use reconcilliation to pass tax cuts that aren't paid for, start wars that aren't paid for, and deregulate the oil industry to get this country back to energy independence (yell it with me: Drill baby, drill!)

Even though wages for working stiffs will drop five percent it won't matter because we'll all live on our credit cards again!

Best of all, we won't have to work. All we'll have to do is buy a house (banks will again be passing out mortgages like playing cards), flip it in a few months, and clear 40 or 50 thousand dollars. Then buy, flip, repeat.

I guess deep down I'm beginning to miss the linguistic stylings of old George, too, and maybe he didn't always talk good English right, but he always had a clear mind.

And the more I try to think like a Republican the clearer my mind becomes, too.

October 18, 2010 at 12:11 a.m.
anniebelle said...

Yes, blackwater, I could be a repuke too if I just closed my mind down to all facts swirling about me and just listen to the trash talk coming from the right-wing ditto heads like frances s., but I have too much invested in this republic to be ignorant and ill-informed like every repuke I've ever encountered. They are so full of hate for themselves, that it comes piling out on boards like this where, from all appearances, frances s. has one supporter of his childish and vile thoughts. Repukes are all about 'me, me, me' -- what's in it for me, is their primary question. From the looks of the LTTE's yesterday, this knuckledragging community is finally waking up to the 'real world' -- not some fantasy land projected by that drug addled lush limpbaugh and anti-American Murdoch on his 24/7 hate channel for the mentally deficient. The polls are open for voting -- go make your voices heard -- I don't hold out a lot of hope for this backward state (we keep moving down the list on just about every count), but fortunately, we are NOT the majority of Americans who love this country.

October 18, 2010 at 4:57 a.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "Deficit spending has tripled under the current administration."


And as has been the case since the day he took office, $700 billion was set in motion before President Obama took office. Deficit spending is also inevitable until revenue picks back up.

When the jobs situation does improve, and when tax rates are adjusted as needed, the deficit will take care of itself.


"How can you talk about unemployment and the lack of good paying jobs and not mention George Bush?"

The unemployment rate has risen a significant amount over the last 2 years.


"The unemployment rate has risen a significant amount over the last 2 years."


Yes it has, and it is strictly due to the fallout that occurred as a result of the reckless financial policies set in motion by the majority of Republicans, who pushed for an also voted to remove protections in place since 1933, preventing a repeat of what led to the same collapses in 1929.

Rectifying that mess will take more than two years to fix.


"There is no tax provision which was enacted to reward companies for sending jobs out of the country."


On the 28th of September of this year, the Senate Republicans, along with 4 Democrats, killed the American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act (S.3816)

Had this bill made it to cloture, it would have ended tax deductions for expenses incurred when companies close U.S. operations and shift work abroad.

It would have imposed a new tax on products once made in the United States but now manufactured by foreign workers.

And it would have offered employers a two-year payroll tax holiday on jobs brought back to the states.

So Scott, your premise is totally incorrect, and craftily worded as well. You may be correct to state that no specific legislation was passed giving Corporations tax breaks to move jobs offshore.

However, and currently, the IRS allows any and all U.S. Companies to deduct all expenses related to moving their operations out of this country, against the income derived when they import their goods back into this country and sell it to U.S. consumers.

They deduct all expenses up to and including what it costs to import the goods, including all duty taxes, on those goods that they dump onto the shelves of American retailers.

And, there are little savings to be had by American consumers as a result. Nike's still cost $300 a pop.

(To be cont.)

October 18, 2010 at 7:43 a.m.
woody said...

Rolando, Francis (though I highly doubt he will read this), Chattreb, et al...The following are just a few of the definitions of the word "Compromise."

  • make a compromise; arrive at a compromise; "...nobody will get everything he wants; we all must compromise, for the good of all concerned...."
  • settle by concession
  • a middle way between two extremes
  • an accommodation in which both sides make concessions

Since when did working together, "for the common good" become an abomination, something wholly, or just in part, unpalatable?? Since when did God take sides (Andrew)??

Well, naive I may be, but better that than downright ignorant of the facts. We are, as we have always been...in this together. And as the greatest Republican who ever lived once intoned, "...a house divided will fall...."

Wake up people, Woody

October 18, 2010 at 8:21 a.m.
alprova said...

(Cont.)

Scott wrote: "He's [Obama] been in the W.H. for almost 2 years, and was a part of the Dem takeover of Congress in 2006. To pretend that he has no culpability requires intensive concentration."


The last time that special interests played games with the economy of this country, it took nearly two decades to recover, and had it not been for WWII, it might have taken three.

The Republicans dismantled a rather decent economy over a period of 14-16 years, and it will take several years to glue it back together.

I am confident that there are people out there who are motivated, as I am, to cast my vote in favor of the party that will do their level best to rectify at least some of the wrongs that have been perpetrated against the common people of this nation, and keep the Republicans in the jump seat for at least the next several years.


"You might want to go find a source showing the actual jobs growth from 2001 till 2007 when the Dems took control of Congress, before you write such silly stuff."


Your argument is completely academic. The jobs situation all stems from the financial collapses of the housing market and that of the investment houses and banks.

And every last cent that went missing and that wound up in the pockets of inside traders, can be traced to that of three former politicians, who had an (R) next to their names. Specifically, they are Phil Gramm, Jim Leach, and Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.


"Forgot the dotcom bubble burst recession, did you? How about the repercussions of 9/11, which further depressed the economy. It's way to soon to be trying to rewrite history on this already."


The Dotcom bubble was nothing new, nor was it dramatic in terms of depleting investment accounts, save for those who had all of their eggs in one basket. Penny stocks have always been around. Some pay off, some don't. The internet and related start-ups was uncharted territory. What happened was inevitable. Recovery was almost immediate too.

9/11 affected many businesses, mainly airlines. It was rough, but they too rebounded.

Any comparison between those and that which happened that led to an almost complete bailing out of the financial network of this nation, is apples and oranges.


Blackwater48 wrote: "When Bush left office: America in the crapper, i.e., Wall Street meltdown, real estate meltdown, $1 trillion in debt to China for the Iraq War and the economy shedding thousands of jobs every week."

Scott's response: "This is true, but how did the economy look in the fall of 2006 right before the Dems took control of Congress?"


Scott, that argument is rhetorical and asinine. People with a brain know what led to the problems that almost destroyed the financial system of this nation, and who perpetrated it.

(To be cont.)

October 18, 2010 at 8:23 a.m.
alprova said...

(cont.)

Questionable lenders were allowed to write time-bombs into mortgages. They were then allowed to bundle and to dump those mortgages onto Wall Street as if they were legitimate and controlled investments, and they ran with the cash they collected when they sold them.

Like all good Ponzi schemes, those in the know and who initiate the game, sell it as a means to pick up some quick cash by luring in unsuspecting pawns. Many people who should have known better fell for it too. After all, for a few years, those investments paid off, handsomely. Smaller banks, not in on the rouse, were gored in the hind end.

Investors saw a good thing and got in on it a little too late, and didn't see it for what it was. Mortgage bundling by reputable lenders has always been steady income, always paying decent dividends. The players in this game were not what could be called traditional lenders, and only those with the good sense to resist the temptation, were spared.

When the market opened up and allowed practically anyone to broker a mortgage, and the push was made to sell ARM's over a period of a few years to unsuspecting consumers, someone should have pushed the panic button. That didn't happen because everyone was too busy picking up those fast dollars.

The Democrats, nor Obama, were in on the rouse, and they voted against Gramm-Leach-Blilely, with the exception of 86 of those who were misled by every last Republican in both houses who voted in favor of removing those protections dating back to the Great Depression.


Blackwater48 wrote: "Obviously it's too soon to say if his policies will work or not in the long run..."

Scott replied: "No it's not, his ideas are the same failure based ideas the left has been pushing for 70 years.


History and the Bureau of Labor Statistics refutes your statement quite easily and the proof was posted to that effect the other day;

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/oct/07/trickle-down/#c49092


Blackwater 48 wrote: "because everything remains to be seen, but we're better off now than we were when he took office."

Scott wrote: "In what way would you consider the country "better off"?..."


1.) Banks are stabilizing.

2.) Wall Street is much more stable than it was.

3.) GM & Chrysler were saved. GM is poised to go public no later than January.

4.) The world views the U.S. much more favorably than it did.

5.) He personally shifted the focus of the war from Iraq to Afghanistan.

6.) He has moved to close offshore tax safe-havens and has negotiated access to hidden bank accounts by tax evaders.

7.) He ended the previous administration's policy on torture.

8.) He signed legislation ending predatory lending practices by banks.

9.) He ended stop-loss policy by our military.

10.) He signed legislation, expanding health care coverage and access to millions who had none.

October 18, 2010 at 8:48 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

"When the jobs situation does improve, and when tax rates are adjusted as needed, the deficit will take care of itself."

Really? When's the last time a Congress of Democrats balanced the budget? When's the next time they plan to? 40 years ago, and, never?

anniebelle, marry francis; you have a lot in common.

"The last time that special interests played games with the economy of this country, it took nearly two decades to recover, and had it not been for WWII, it might have taken three."

Did you read Thomas Sowell's column on this? After the crash of A.D. 1929, joblessness stayed under 9% and was drifting down until President Hoover started messing with the economy. After that it rose above 10% and stayed there under Hoover and Roosevelt for ten years. The stimulus stimulated joblessness rather than the economy, because all it did was move money from place to place--positive stimulus here at the cost of negative stimulus there. (I've heard of a book called FDR"S FOLLY that makes this point at length. Haven't read it.) Same today; no wonder the porculus bill failed to keep joblessness under 8% as promised, a point not mentioned in your extensive research.

"Questionable lenders were allowed to write time-bombs into mortgages. They were then allowed to bundle and to dump those mortgages onto Wall Street as if they were legitimate and controlled investments, and they ran with the cash they collected when they sold them."

Johm McCain wanted to check out Fanny and Freddie, but Barney Franks and Christ Dodds stopped him. (Not denying some useful regulations might have been dismantled, though plenty of regulations need to be gotten rid of, as the Institute for Justice, www.ij.org, is working on.)

October 18, 2010 at 9:17 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

"Scott's response: "This is true, but how did the economy look in the fall of 2006 right before the Dems took control of Congress?"


Scott, that argument is rhetorical and asinine. People with a brain know what led to the problems that almost destroyed the financial system of this nation, and who perpetrated it."

Scott's argument deals with facts: the Reid-Pelosi Congress has seen the economy tank. Alprova has a point: Bush was too liberal, spending and regulating, so the economy had problems.

Freedom works; the Bible commends it.

October 18, 2010 at 9:21 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Scotty, you deserve a more serious reply than my last post. Maybe I was a little giddy from a rare win in fantasy football, and I was having a little fun at your expense. Sorry.

You wrote, "The unemployment rate has risen a significant amount over the last 2 years." Correct. Obama promised that unemployment would be at seven percent now and he was flat wrong.

But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the stimulus package created between 1.4 and 3.3 million jobs. If Republicans were in charge we would have at least another 1.4 million people out of work.

<p>FactCheck.org pointed out that "It's just false to say that the stimulus created 'no jobs.'"

Republicans claim that the stimulus bill aggravated the debt. The CBO estiate is that the bill will worsen the deficit by $814 billion over a the next ten years, but Republican proposals, like extending tax breaks for the richest, will add $700 billion to the debt.

They also want to repeal the Health Care bill. The CBO suggests that repealing the bill with increase the deficit $455 billion. The CBO also pointed out that keeping the bill would trim $170 billion by 2020.

The Democrats will worsen the deficit by $640 billion, while the Republicans would worsen it by $1.1 trillion.

The Republicans are promising higher unemployment, greater deficits, and more freedom.

October 18, 2010 at 9:26 a.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Yawn. Same ol'

October 18, 2010 at 9:39 a.m.
FM_33 said...

Username: alprova | On: October 17, 2010 at 9:09 a.m.


Polling data is a bunch of rubbish !

The only thing that counts is which one the the American people choose to place in office on election day.

October 18, 2010 at 12:18 p.m.
moonpie said...

FM, perhaps you canary, dewey, francis and whatever can start your own site and see who can be the most prolific!

I'll admit I'm not sorry to see you leave the site. I'm always disapointed when I notice there are about 10 new posts and they all are little snippets from FM, most of which are inane.

Speaking of canary.... was she finally spewified for good?

October 18, 2010 at 1:38 p.m.
acerigger said...

"Clay thanks for the good laughs but i am pulling this account and going to a site where people aint such rednecks and one sided progressive left bastards ! Username: FM_33 | On: October 18, 2010 at 1:11 p.m>>>>>Don't let the door hit you in the a$$!

October 18, 2010 at 1:39 p.m.
una61 said...

FM_33; Take Francis with you, Please.

October 18, 2010 at 1:43 p.m.
miraweb said...

Harp,

Good points. I guess I am having a hard time seeing why I should vote for people who are promising to cut taxes and reduce the deficit (two policies that never, ever work together) at a time when the current risk is Deflation. Cutting taxes is always lovely but it means cutting jobs (both Federal and private who depend on those contracts) and reducing the demand in the economy. Reducing the deficit is important - but not when demand is already very damaged.

I see people who are riling people up on bad data for a bad policy at the worst possible time. The only up side is there is really very little possibility of them doing any real damage.

I should vote for these guys because in 3 - 5 years the Fed (who pays little attention to Congress) will shift its policies to control inflation?

Congress will continue to increase collections (as it is doing now) and add fees (but not taxes) for as long as it can, and coddle the banks with bad mortgages.

October 18, 2010 at 1:51 p.m.
alprova said...

Andrew Lohr wrote: "Really? When's the last time a Congress of Democrats balanced the budget? When's the next time they plan to? 40 years ago, and, never?"


Well now, you're not as dense as I took you to be. Wording the question the way you did, you seem to win a cookie, but that's not the whole story, is it?

Do you remember what happened in 1995? The newly elected Republican dominated Congress wanted additional cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, and for environmental controls in their proposed budget. Clinton refused to sign it. Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich played chicken, thinking that he ruled the roost. He lost.

The Republicans tried their darnedest to blame Clinton for the shutdown, but that backfired miserably. President Clinton's approval rating rose to the highest they had been since his election.

Two days after the shutdown began, Gingrich made a widely-reported remark to the press about being snubbed by Clinton, having been "made to sit in the back of Air Force One." The public was not sympathetic at all.

Republicans had control of the House and Senate, but Bill Clinton adamantly demanded balanced budgets, and he refused to sign any budget bill until he got it, which resulted in balanced budgets from 1998-2001. GWB came in and led the Republicans into a spending spree of 3 trillion dollars of money that this country could not afford to spend.

Does the spending of a million dollars a day to invade two nations, where hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been accidentally murdered, not trouble you at all?

Andrew, your assertions are really starting to trouble me. You claim to be a devout Christian, yet you have a great deal of trouble sticking to the truth. You defend the defenseless.

President Obama is a good man, who is doing his level best to get this nation back on track. Where he seems to fall short, is in trying to appease the rich white men of this nation who have always run the affairs when it comes to certain things, and who have prospered off the backs of the middle and lower classes of this nation. And GOD BLESS HIM for that.


"Same today; no wonder the porculus bill failed to keep joblessness under 8% as promised, a point not mentioned in your extensive research."


It was not a promise. It was a hopeful prediction and a goal. Foreclosures are STILL rising as a result of financial manipulation by the Ponzi players. Add to that, that banks are refusing to lend money too most people of lesser means, and are sitting on reserves, trying to increase fees instead.

What will they do when the Republicans do not gain control in two weeks?

(To be cont.)

October 18, 2010 at 1:54 p.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "Johm McCain wanted to check out Fanny and Freddie, but Barney Franks and Christ Dodds stopped him."


Fannie and Freddie have not EVER been the problem. They were made to be the scapegoat by the Republicans, in order to disguise what was being done, and if you had an ounce of financial insight or the ability to think for yourself, you would know it.

Fannie and Freddie bought or guaranteed those tainted mortgages because the Government MANDATED IT. They were pressured by politicians, starting in 1999, to grant risky loans to make homes more 'affordable' to people with bad and nonexistent credit histories.

They were seduced into eventually buying those 'sub-prime' loans originated in the private sector by brokers, to bundle them, and to place them up as investment opportunities, which also included no-documentation and low-documentation mortgages, most often taken out by "flippers," who have walked away from more mortgages than any of the people who's sole motivation was to live in a home that they owned.

Fannie and Freddie were saddled with those mortgages when the bubble burst, because the banks who originally wrote those loans refused to buy them back.

How do you think banks were able to write so many mortgages each year? They wrote the loans, sold them for reduced amounts, but fast profits, and repeated and rinsed.

Did Fannie and Freddie know what was going on? Probably. Were they in any position to do anything about it? Not on your life. The Republican dominated Congress forced them to do it and then pointed fingers at Frank & Dodd.

John McCain's interest in Fannie & Freddie was a farce, urged and perpetrated by the very players who orchestrated this entire rouse.

"Blame the Democrats." It's always worked before.

It's not working this time. There's too many people like me out here, who have a brain and the determination to refute that crap. It's the very thing that has turned me into a flaming Liberal.

Your willingness to spread the Republican rhetoric only makes to a tool for a political machine that doesn't know your name and who's members will stab you in the back for a dollar bill.

October 18, 2010 at 2:29 p.m.
alprova said...

FM_33 wrote: "Clay thanks for the good laughs but i am pulling this account and going to a site where people aint such rednecks and one sided progressive left bastards !"


Interesting. One day you write as if you are right-winger, and the next you write as if you lean to the left. Until today, I was never sure what you stood for or were against.

I don't like to see people leave either, but if they can't at least make any points worth reading, or if they can't stick to at least making a point every now and then, then maybe it's for the best.

October 18, 2010 at 2:41 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I have been impressed with the back and forth on this thread. Perhaps you guys can tell me the relationship between the Dow and the economy. The Dow at last look was up 80 to 11,143; if the economy is doing poorly what does the stock market measure? If I sound ignorant it is because I am. Thanks in advance...

October 18, 2010 at 4:21 p.m.

The way that it stacks up no matter how you look at it both party's have failed the american middle class. Thank you Mr.Bennett for showing us this point in a funny way.

October 18, 2010 at 5:01 p.m.
miraweb said...

Sorry "country's" and "company's" - blood sugar getting low . . .

October 18, 2010 at 5:44 p.m.

FM_33 wrote: "Clay thanks for the good laughs but i am pulling this account and going to a site where people aint such rednecks and one sided progressive left bastards !"


What's wrong with that guy he must of woke up on the wrong side of bed. I hope the guy never will get married to a progressive woman because she'll put him back in his place real quick.

October 18, 2010 at 6:35 p.m.
alprova said...

Ikeithlu, the stock market and index funds are doing rather well at the moment, considering all that is being reported that is supposed to convince us that the economy is in terrible shape.

Of course, the only people who benefit from upticks in the markets, are those who have money invested in stocks and investment funds.

At the current level, the Dow has risen nearly 40% from where it was 20 months ago, when it reached it's lowest level in decades. That is fantastic news, especially for those who have money invested in retirement funds and in individual stocks.

It will also give people who watch the markets reason to pause and wonder if all the doom and gloom being spread is valid or not.

The key to the road to recovery will start will begin to be paved when people start spending money again, and trust me, when the markets are doing well, people tend to crack open their wallets.

I'm seeing people starting to resume deducting money from their paychecks and to start building their 401k's again. This is especially true for those who suspended contributions for the past two years.

And the Republicans are not going to be the ones who will announce any good news. They want total and utter failure for the President and the Democrats.

October 18, 2010 at 6:56 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Thanks, alprova, for your answer. I was having a tough time reconciling doom and gloom by everyone (not just republicans) with a steadily rising market. I guess we'll see.

October 18, 2010 at 7:10 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

bw48,

Thanks for the reply.

You wrote, "But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the stimulus package created between 1.4 and 3.3 million jobs."

The problem with the CBO's numbers is that they are purely a result of poor logic. The CBO hypothosizes (with no empirical evidence) that X number of jobs are produced for every stimulus dollar spent. So, they just take the total amount spent, multiply it by X and say that's how many jobs have been created. It's totally bogus, but the average person buys it because, hey, it's the CBO, they wouldn't make up numbers, would they?

(It's much the same logic used by "climate scientists" who hypothesize that CO2 in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming. They then build a numerical model which is programed to show warming when CO2 is added during the run, then they run the model, add CO2, the temperature goes up [as programmed] and then they point at those models as proof. It's total crap.)

October 18, 2010 at 7:47 p.m.
fairmon said...

Stocks and the economy

International companies that have a high percent of their sales in other countries then timing the conversion of the currency to dollars when it is down are doing well and most are in the DOW 30. Other specialty companies are also profiting. Commodities and metals have a favorable impact and will likely continue doing so. People feel good when they hear the market is up but that is an index of 30 stocks which does not always indicate the trend of many of the thousands on the exchanges. Members of both parties invest and favor wall street. For example hedge funds pay only 24.6% taxes on millions of dollars in profits.

The U.S. economy is worsening at a slower pace but still in the wrong direction. The fed is in a difficult position if they print money hyper inflation is a risk if they don't deflation is a risk. They can't raise interest rates since that would tank the economy worse.

There is a lot of blaming one party or the other but the fact is both have contributed about equally over several years. You can find data and statistics to make either look good or look bad.

No politician can take the position necessary and retain the power and prestige of their position. Again there should be a simple tax system that is indexed to progressively higher rates with the wealthy paying as much as 80%. No exemptions, deductions, incentives, subsidies etc. Congress should not be allowed to spend more than ninety seven cents of each dollar of revenue. One dollar in .97 to spend with .03 reducing the debt.

It would be devastating to those spoiled Americans that have been takers all their lives and living like 5&10 millionaires. But, what right does anyone have to obligate future generations the way we have? If we don't stop the slide the results will be terrible regardless of who is in office. Drastic conditions require drastic action.

October 18, 2010 at 10 p.m.
rolando said...

For those of you rejoicing in FM-43's departure from this forum and even hoping canaryinthecoalmine and Francis go with him, let me remind you of something.

You won't like it.

This thread Clay Bennett produces for us would not exist except for the likes of FM, canary, et al. It thrives on controversy; it will die without it. Where will you meet then? washpost.com? nytimes.com? You will love it there; everyone is just like you, pasting their little gold stars on each other butts and burying their heads in the sands of Ignorance.

There have been a goodly number of conservatives driven off this forum by your detestation; by thick headed, kool-aid drinking, history-deprived, tunnel-visioned lemmings.

Personally, I like it here. I don't pull punches and I don't over-analyze each sentence of someone's post -- it's called "looking at the big picture". This isn't a high school debating class or some popularity contest; it is our country.

Additionally, it is fun tweaking the censors/reviewers noses on occasion...maybe they will think before they eliminate English words -- like that pointy shovel or the winning suit in cards, for instance. Or comparing Maobama's drive for a socialistic America to the regimes of Stalin, Castro, etc.

So if you enjoy Clay's cartoons as much as i [usually] do, you might give your attacks on the messenger a bit of thought. They don't have to take that day after day. Try responding to their posts in a civil manner and they might suprise you. Unless you absolutely cannot stand criticism or or opposition to your every odd-ball, tin-hat idea.

[How,s Alcoa/Reynolds doing, ham?]

October 18, 2010 at 11:01 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "This thread Clay Bennett produces for us would not exist except for the likes of FM, canary, et al. It thrives on controversy; it will die without it. Where will you meet then? washpost.com? nytimes.com? You will love it there; everyone is just like you, pasting their little gold stars on each other butts and burying their heads in the sands of Ignorance."


Considering how many times that you have been proven to be wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, combined with the fact that you repeatedly refuse to cite sources of your information, I'm not sure that you are a good judge of who is ignorant and who is not.


"There have been a goodly number of conservatives driven off this forum by your detestation; by thick headed, kool-aid drinking, history-deprived, tunnel-visioned lemmings."


Ah...I see. It couldn't be that they could not stand their ground, prove their assertions, or because they never retract their proven misrepresentations, mistakes, and outright lies.


"Personally, I like it here. I don't pull punches and I don't over-analyze each sentence of someone's post -- it's called "looking at the big picture". This isn't a high school debating class or some popularity contest; it is our country."


I like it here too. You don't pull any punches, that is true. You don a blindfold and start swinging wildly, hoping to hit a target.

While you may want to be able to dump your trash in here and to have it left alone to simmer and bake in the Sun, that's not going to happen. Facts are more important than your dignity.

Your choice to have zero percent credibility is yours to make. You're entitled to do whatever you want. No one is going to beg you to rise up and to take responsibility for your comments.


"Additionally, it is fun tweaking the censors/reviewers noses on occasion...maybe they will think before they eliminate English words -- like that pointy shovel or the winning suit in cards, for instance. Or comparing Maobama's drive for a socialistic America to the regimes of Stalin, Castro, etc."


Huh?


"So if you enjoy Clay's cartoons as much as i [usually] do, you might give your attacks on the messenger a bit of thought."


Maybe the "messengers" you are referring to ought to give a bit of thought before they post, so that they will not find themselves whining about being attacked all the time.


"They don't have to take that day after day. Try responding to their posts in a civil manner and they might suprise you. Unless you absolutely cannot stand criticism or or opposition to your every odd-ball, tin-hat idea."


Do you really think anyone is bothered by your sense or style of criticism? You are about as bothersome as a bumble bee.


[How,s Alcoa/Reynolds doing, ham?]


It's up a penny today, to $13.14 a share. If it goes up another nickel, it will be at it's one year high.

October 19, 2010 at 12:43 a.m.
alprova said...

Ikeithlu wrote: "Thanks, alprova, for your answer. I was having a tough time reconciling doom and gloom by everyone (not just republicans) with a steadily rising market. I guess we'll see."


You're welcome.

I'm in no manner claiming that is is still not bad out there in many areas, because it is.

We are very fortunate in that unemployment in the Chattanooga metro area currently stands at 8.6%. The current national rate is 9.6%. The Chattanooga metro area topped out at 10.1% in June 2009.

Jobs are up 8% in the Chattanooga area since February 2009. Now THAT's good news.

There is also very good news when it comes to unemployment. It's down, dramatically from times when it peaked, in all but three states.

Here's the latest current state unemployment rates and their peak rates within the past three years;

AL - 9.3% - 11.8% (Jan 2010) AK - 7.1% - 9.7% (Feb 2010) AZ - 10.0% - Currently the highest rate AR - 7.7% - 8.6% (Feb 2010) CA - 12.4 - 13.2 (Jan 2010) CO - 8.0% - 8.6% (Jun 2009) CT - 9.3% - 9.8% (Jan 2010) DE - 8.5% - 9.5% (Jan 2010) DC - 10.0% - 12.0% (Jan 2010) FL - 12.4% - Currently the highest rate GA - 10.3% - 10.8% (Jan 2010) HI - 6.6% - 7.7% (Jun 2009) ID - 8.6% - 10.6% (Jan 2010) IL - 9.9% - 12.2% (Jan 2010) IN - 9.9% - 10.8% (Jun 2009) IA - 6.6% - 7.5% (Jan 2010) KS - 6.7% - 7.9% (Jul 2009) KY - 10.0% - 12.0% (Feb 2010) LA - 8.2% - 8.3% (Jun 2010) ME - 6.9% - 9.4% (Feb 2010) MD - 7.6% - 8.2% (Feb 2010) MA - 8.3% - 10.4% (Jan 2010) MI - 12.9% - 14.9% (Mar 2010) MN - 6.9% - 8.9% (Mar 2009) MS - 8.8% - 12.1% (Feb 2010) MO - 9.4% - 10.2% (Mar 2010) MT - 6.8% - 8.1% (Feb 2010) NE - 4.3% - 5.6% (Jan 2009) NV - 14.2% - 14.4% (Jul 2010) NH - 5.7% - 7.7% (Feb 2010) NJ - 9.4% - 10.3% (Feb 2009) NM - 8.4% - 9.0% (Mar 2010) NY - 8.2% - 9.4% (Jan 2010) NC - 9.8% - 11.8% (Feb 2010) ND - 3.5% - 4.9% (Mar 2009) OH - 9.8% - 11.8% (Feb 2010) OK - 6.8% - 7.4% ( Feb 2010) OR - 10.3% - 12.2% (Mar 2009) PA - 8.9% - 9.8% (Feb 2010) RI - 11.8% - 13.4% (Jan 2010) SC - 11.5% - 13.1% (Jan 2010) SD - 4.4% - 5.5% (Mar 2009) TN - 9.6% - 11.4% (Jan 2010) TX - 8.4% - 8.6% (Jan 2010) UT - 7.8% - Currently the highest rate VT - 5.5% - 7.9% (Mar 2009) VA - 7.0% - 7.8% (Feb 2010) WA - 8.8% - 10.4% (Feb 2010) WV - 8.9% - 10.9% (Feb 2010) WI - 7.7% - 9.7% (Feb 2010) WY - 6.4% - 8.6% (Jan 2010)

October 19, 2010 at 2:41 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

rolando, on one level I agree-everyone needs to come here to express their views. However, one can express one's views without the repeated posts off topic (FM) or religious-based condemnation (canary) or rants without substance (Francis) There are many on both sides that do a good job.

October 19, 2010 at 6:43 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

SCOTTYM wrote:

"The problem with the CBO's numbers is that they are purely a result of poor logic. The CBO hypothosizes (with no empirical evidence) that X number of jobs are produced for every stimulus dollar spent. So, they just take the total amount spent, multiply it by X and say that's how many jobs have been created. It's totally bogus, but the average person buys it because, hey, it's the CBO, they wouldn't make up numbers, would they?"

Well, actually, your premise is wrong. Here's how the Congressional Budget Office arrived at their numbers for the third quarter of 2010.

"Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), also known as the economic stimulus package, certain recipients of funds appropriated in ARRA (most grant and loan recipients, contractors, and subcontractors) are required to report the number of jobs they have created or retained with ARRA funding since the law’s enactment in February 2009. The law also requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to comment on that reported number.

"Recipients report that about 640,000 jobs were created or retained with ARRA funding through September 2009. Such reports, however, do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the law’s impact on employment in the United States. That impact may be higher or lower than the reported number for several reasons (in addition to any issues about the quality of the data in the reports.)"

They go on to point out that,

"Estimating the law’s overall effects on employment requires a more comprehensive analysis than the recipients’ reports provide. Therefore, looking at the actual amounts spent so far (where identifiable) and estimates of the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues, CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy. On that basis, CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA.)"

Your premise that the problem with, "the CBO's numbers is that they are purely a result of poor logic," is just plain false. If I thought you knew better I would call you a liar, but I think you sincerely believe the CBO bases their numbers only on abstractions and politically motivated prayer.

This information isn't squirreled away in the bowels of the National Archives; its a matter of public record.

October 19, 2010 at 8:10 a.m.

The democrats are expected to lose up to 46 seats in the House this time around in one of the most hottest mid-term elections ever.

2012 will be a hot ticket indeed on both sides of the fence.

October 19, 2010 at 1:53 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Another STUPID cartoon. If the blue painter was painting a hammer and sickle flag and the red guy was sitting out you would have a good cartoon.

The "blues" are not painting anything that even remotely resembles the United States of America.

October 19, 2010 at 3:38 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Perhaps you guys can tell me the relationship between the Dow and the economy. The Dow at last look was up 80 to 11,143; if the economy is doing poorly what does the stock market measure? If I sound ignorant it is because I am. Thanks in advance... Username: lkeithlu | On: October 18, 2010 at 4:21 p.m.

I think it is up based on speculation that the Republicans are going to gain seats in congress and the run-away government is going to be reigned in. In the beginning it may have been buoyed by silly claims that the recession was over.

Expect another big drop early next year. After loosing complete control, the Democrats will switch from talking up the economy to talking down the economy and the MSM will trumpet their message loudly. When they scare the crap out of investors and cause the market to free fall they will claim that all of it is a result of what ever the Republicans are trying to do.

October 19, 2010 at 3:48 p.m.
Shock said...

BigRidgePat - so the free market doesn't work? It's only controlled by whatever the mainstream media claims?

If you don't believe in the free market, what economic system do you support? Sounds like you don't believe in socialism or capitalism. . . I can only think of one big one left. . .

October 19, 2010 at 4:28 p.m.
alprova said...

People do not trade stocks based on speculation as to what political party may retake Congress. People trade stocks based on how the companies are performing.

No one, including the Democrats have been making any claims that the recession/depression is over. In fact, the Democrats have been very cautious not to point to any factors that are improving, because of the volatility over the past two years.

In two weeks, we'll all know what the deal will be. I'm not convinced that the Republicans are going to take either House at this point.

Given that Sarah Palin endorsed a West Virginia candidate on Twitter by appealing to Pennsylvanians to vote for him, that Sharon Angle thinks she is Asian and at the same time insulted a classroom of Hispanic children, and that Christine O'Donnell apparently thinks the 1st Amendment to the Constitution makes no mention of separation of Church and State, I'd say that there's time for many more statements to be made that will derail more than a few campaigns.

Oh, and Jack Conway is gaining ground on Rand Paul in Kentucky. Less than a month ago, Paul was leading by 11%. Today, following the yesterday's debate, the gap is now only 5%, or 42% to 47%.

October 19, 2010 at 4:43 p.m.
Shock said...

Al - "People do not trade stocks based on speculation as to what political party may retake Congress. People trade stocks based on how the companies are performing."

I would disagree. Remember when the market would react severely to the very small things Greenspan would (or would not) say? The traders in the market are always trying to get ahead of what direction the market takes and make trades based on speculation.

You are always saying how the republicans are friends of the greedy big businesses and their lack of regulation of these business will result in unfair profits. It is certainly not a stretch to assume if this is the case, traders are making an early move into the market ahead of the expected results of the election.

October 19, 2010 at 4:58 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: Shock | On: October 19, 2010 at 4:28 p.m.

The stock market leads on speculation and talking up and down the economy can strongly influence investors. When there is a bubble, talking down the economy can cause the inevitable adjustment. I think this last run-up is a bubble created by investors hungry to make money again who bought what the political leadership and the cooperative MSM have been telling them.

I believe in capitalism, but we are not dealing with capitalism in this country today. We are dealing with Statists, a cooperative media and crony capitalism primarily, with shreds of what is left of pure capitalism trying to survive.

October 19, 2010 at 5:03 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

What's "crony" capitalism?

October 19, 2010 at 5:07 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

People do not trade stocks based on speculation as to what political party may retake Congress. People trade stocks based on how the companies are performing. Username: alprova | On: October 19, 2010 at 4:43 p.m.

Professional investors do that, and some private investors, but a big part of the market is individuals participating through mutual funds in their 401Ks. These investors do not have the time to research individual stocks and in general do not invest in the way you are describing. When they loose confidence they move money to “income funds” and out of ‘growth funds”. This moves the investor away from a scary stock market and puts downward pressure on the market. This type of investing is a pretty big part of the market now and is very subject to individual investor confidence.

October 19, 2010 at 5:10 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

What's "crony" capitalism? Username: lkeithlu | On: October 19, 2010 at 5:07 p.m.

When industry and government work closely in cooperation, often to eliminate "unfair" market influences like a hot new competitor (which may be a completely different product, like solar energy verses coal) or overseas competition. Government then ends up legislating winners and losers and destroys the market influences that make capitalism work properly.

October 19, 2010 at 5:14 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Thanks, Bigridge, for your explanation. Still learning.... Makes me even more unhappy that large corporations can give money to campaigns without disclosure.

October 19, 2010 at 5:17 p.m.
miraweb said...

That's funny. My last post was removed by somebody. I thought it was a fairly innocuous piece about how I don't take the stock market all that seriously because it really is not tied that closely to companies actual performance.

Apparently, someone found that remark too extreme. ???

Posted on October 18 at 5:42 p.m. On: The Holdout (This comment was removed by the site staff.)

October 19, 2010 at 5:40 p.m.
rolando said...

So you don't go off the deep end when ranting against ANY religion, lkeith? Or when promoting the latest Discovery magazine half-baked article?

C'mon, give us a break. You do all those things you accuse others of doing...only in spades.

October 19, 2010 at 5:53 p.m.
rolando said...

Well, woody, with your last you fairly shouted from the rooftops your refusal to compromise on ANYTHING near and dear to the Lib-Prog's heart. Nice try with the old Texas Sidestep, though.

You are more than willing to give away any part of the conservative's side though, right?

Yeah, right.

October 19, 2010 at 5:57 p.m.
alprova said...

Shock wrote: "I would disagree. Remember when the market would react severely to the very small things Greenspan would (or would not) say?"


Is that comparable in any manner to speculation as to which political party may come into power? I'm failing to understand your point.


"The traders in the market are always trying to get ahead of what direction the market takes and make trades based on speculation."


No question about that, but I've yet to meet a man or woman who enlisted me to make trade requests based on the fact that a political party was poised to gain power.


"You are always saying how the republicans are friends of the greedy big businesses and their lack of regulation of these business will result in unfair profits."


I don't think I've ever worded it quite like that, but I will say this much -- There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Republicans do work 100% on behalf of Corporate America and work to further environments favorable to those who are in the upper income eschelon.

They make no bones about the fact that the middle and lower incomes are not on their radar screens. The proof in that is in their public statements in support of eliminating minimum wages, trimming Medicare, and privatizing, raising the age eligibility, and proposing a phasing out Social Security.

Twice in the past two years, they have resisted extending unemployment compensation to those who absolutely need it. The disconnect between the Republicans and the average citizen in this nation is at an all time high, and yet, some of the people who would be hurt the most by their ideals and goals are actually considering voting for them.


"It is certainly not a stretch to assume if this is the case, traders are making an early move into the market ahead of the expected results of the election."


They'd do better to buy a lottery ticket, because I guarantee you, the Republicans have no intention of doing anything but to resume the plundering of this nation for all they can, in order to put in into the pockets of those who already have more than they can spend during the rest of their lives.

October 19, 2010 at 6:22 p.m.
alprova said...

BigRidgePatriot wrote: "The stock market leads on speculation and talking up and down the economy can strongly influence investors."


There are lots of people who react to what is being talked about, and they are the investors who lose when speculation leads to rash trading.

Most people who invest are a little smarter than that. They look up the facts, the history and performance of a stock or fund, in order to understand what the LONG TERM aspects are.

Last year, when things were tanking, I had clients who made informed decisions to move their money around, who made interest and received dividends each and every month on their investments. They even did this with mortgage backed securities as well, but they were with long-established and time-tested banks who placed them up for investment.

I (now) wouldn't buy anything at all that doesn't have at least a five year history and no would any other savvy investor, unless they are prepared to take a gamble and are prepared to lose every last cent.

There are also mutual funds and pooled funds that weathered the market collapse rather well, while others were in double digit negatives.

Until last year, I was an aggressive investor, which is why I lost a bundle. No more. I've learned my lesson for good.


"I believe in capitalism, but we are not dealing with capitalism in this country today. We are dealing with Statists, a cooperative media and crony capitalism primarily, with shreds of what is left of pure capitalism trying to survive."


And who has fostered and allowed crony capitalism to thrive? The Democrats?

If it were not for Statism, capitalism as it has become, would have us all wards of the plantation owners all over again. As it is, not enough YET is being done to stop the flow of money from the pockets of the average Joe to the off-shore bank accounts of the Corporatists.

I throw up my hands in abject wonder, as to why people think that to remove any and all regulation and sense of fairness when it comes to our economy, would allow all to thrive.

It never has and it never will. Those in the know and with the power to manipulate win every time, even when they lose a little along the way. And if you don't think that's so, visit your nearest casino to get an idea how that works.

October 19, 2010 at 6:52 p.m.
alprova said...

I'm not naming names, but a certain big bank is in deep trouble this evening. A lawsuit was filed today to force the bank to buy back $47 billion in bad mortgages it wrote and that it placed up for investment through three major bondholders.

The Dow dropped 165 points, The S&P 500 slipped 19 points, and the Nasdaq dropped 44 points.

Now THAT'S the kind of news that causes panic by traders, especially if they own a piece of that bank.

This is just the beginning of a long and arduous process where all those who tried to make that fast cash by dumping their trash into the stock markets, are going to be exposed and toppled, one by one.

And if the Republicans win the House, and if they use their majority to vote for bailing out these Ponzi players, will there be any outcry by the same people who were so outraged by all the other bailouts?

Nope, they'll find some way, somehow, to pin it all on the President, just like they are doing now.

Sigh...

October 19, 2010 at 7:38 p.m.
Oz said...

BoA must have given money to the Chamber of Commerce.

October 19, 2010 at 9 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

"So you don't go off the deep end when ranting against ANY religion, lkeith? Or when promoting the latest Discovery magazine half-baked article?

C'mon, give us a break. You do all those things you accuse others of doing...only in spades."

What in the world does this mean? I have neither ranted about religion (actually, I don't really rant at all; I do however state my lack of belief if asked) and I don't read Discovery magazine. Explain yourself, sir.

October 19, 2010 at 9:06 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "So you don't go off the deep end when ranting against ANY religion, lkeith? Or when promoting the latest Discovery magazine half-baked article?

C'mon, give us a break. You do all those things you accuse others of doing...only in spades." ~~~~~ Ikeithlu responded: "What in the world does this mean? I have neither ranted about religion (actually, I don't really rant at all; I do however state my lack of belief if asked) and I don't read Discovery magazine. Explain yourself, sir."


You're holding your breath that he will, right?

I'm simply amazed at his hypocrisy, after attempting to lecture the more liberal regulars about being nice when they respond to the conservatives, so that their feelings will not be hurt and cause them to decide to leave the forum.

It's not the hypocrisy itself that surprises me. It's the fact that it only took him 19 hours from lecturing to offering up a such a pristine demonstration of his brand of hypocrisy.

October 19, 2010 at 9:34 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

"You're holding your breath that he will, right?"

Yeah, I'm turning blue here. He hasn't ever come through when asked before, so I'm not sure why I think this time will be different. I'd love for him to produce just one example of ranting from me (or a cite from Discovery, for that matter).

Maybe it's those stars he keeps talking about. I still don't see any stars....

October 19, 2010 at 9:47 p.m.
rolando said...

LOL. Thanks for that last, lkeith. You don't rant at all...that is rich.

All one has to do to get you started is make favorable mention about religion -- any religion -- and how it is so applicable in today's world.

Or state that the Earth is only 8,000 years old -- and defend the statement...

Or furnish credible evidence that Maobama is out to destroy the US.

Or mention the total lack of credible research, including that of the APA, showing homosexuality is inborn, uncurable, and not just a sport.

Discover/Discovery, same-o same-o; both have bad science and bad politics. So how about that "National Enquirer" of the yellow-journalistic science world and a contradiction in terms -- "Scientific American"?

But I needn't explain myself...I speak in pretty clear terms. Those above should give you enough one-liners to zero in on, FM-style, ignoring the larger picture.

Exactly what didn't you understand in my post?

October 19, 2010 at 9:59 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Lots 'o claims, but.... no evidence. Nope-nothing's changed. Funny-YOU don't think the earth is 8000 years old, and anyone who claims to has never defended it with evidence. I am quick to defend my many Christian friends and co-workers; you can see that in many of my posts. I will not give all religious beliefs a free pass if they are simply wrong and result in injury to or oppression of others. (outside of that I don't care what people believe) . I stay away from magazines in general, just like TV. Your definition of "credible" research is "research you agree with", so no place to start a discussion there. Besides, I have never gotten the impression from anything you post here that you know any science. At all. In any discipline. Or even what "science" is. So I'm afraid we will always talk past each other on that topic. Pity-it's a world of interesting stuff.

October 19, 2010 at 10:15 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: alprova | On: October 19, 2010 at 6:52 p.m.

alprova,

You state again that there are people that, "think that to remove any and all regulation and sense of fairness when it comes to our economy, would allow all to thrive", and I suppose you are projecting that onto my position.

Conservatives or Libertarians DO NOT THINK that there is no such thing as good government regulation or that all government regulation should be abolished. Your statement is silly hyperbole of the worst kind.

This is the kind of thinking that leads to statements like "Teabaggers are right wing extremists".

If you really believe what you are saying, you do not understand Conservatives, Libertarians or Teabaggers at all. You would be shocked and amazed to learn just what they would deem an expectable roll for the Federal government.

In reality, I don’t think you are so little minded as to believe what you say. Much more likely, you use grotesque exaggeration in the same way that Obama does to try to influence the weak minded to accept your positions on an emotional basis.

October 20, 2010 at 2:48 p.m.
rolando said...

I don't think it ISN'T 8,000 years old either, lkeith. It is an unproven subject. I cited the evidence in support of that statement -- from A. Einstein, actually -- you just didn't agree with it so you didn't even "see" it.

But you are right -- I will ALWAYS speak out against the hide-bound, the closed-minded, and those who deny history.

And "credible research" is that done by someone without a dog in the fight; nothing negative to or about homosexuals has been published by ANY APA sponsored or supported "research" in the last 25 years, no matter how long it took them to "salt" their goldmine to reach their pre-determined result. Most of the APA leadership were homophiles -- at least they were 10 years ago...I suspect it hasn't changed.

October 20, 2010 at 3:48 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I rest my case, rolando-you are just reinforcing what I said. I did answer you on the Einstein quote-Einstein accepted an ancient universe-his relativity theory has nothing to do with that. The age of the earth, like any scientific idea, is never "proven" but all the evidence supports an age of 4.6 billion years. ALL the evidence.

Not to mention that you provide nothing to support your claim against the APA, except narth.

It's strange that ignorance is so celebrated.

October 20, 2010 at 7:38 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.