Comments for Death of the Neocons »
Posted By Progressive 6 months, 1 week ago in Political NewsPaul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan and the same old crew of discredited neoconservatives who pushed America into Iraq have returned again to chastise President Obama for not force-feeding Iran their democracy. That not even other Republicans are biting might spell the end of an era.
Read Full Story at thedailybeast.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 129
-
82%
Progressive6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The neocons have become impotent on the judicial branch as well:
Reply
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23991.ht...-
-
20%
galletta61216 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Liberal Democrats seek to dominate any area of our lives that can interfere with, weaken or destroy our individual’s rights. They need to achieve this in order to impose their politically correct; government knows best, freedom less dictatorship. In order for them to impose these freedom less laws upon its citizens, they must undermine the ability of the people to govern themselves according to what the people believe is best for themselves. These cocky liberal politicians no longer fear revenge from the people who elected them, because the people have been conditioned for so long to expect this type of behavior that their anger is short lived, and these Socialist power hungry dictators know this. They know the people will make some noise over losing their freedoms, and choose to ignore it. They assume that the politically demoralized population will forget and fall silent; accepting the loss of freedom after freedom, and unfortunately it’s true. At the speed Obama and the left are destroying Americas freedoms, it will come to a point that the only way we are going to prevent the total loss of all the freedoms we enjoy; will be to take to the streets armed and fight for what is rightfully ours.
Reply
-
-
rally-monkeyComment removed: Abusive
-
75%
UnusualSuspect6 months, 1 week ago
-
29%
Endoscopy6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This story is very silly. Using the stupid name neocons as a put down. Before there were times when the MSM and Democrats pronounced the Republicans dead. What happened then? Within 2 to 4 years the Republicans came roaring back. With Obama spending money like there is an unlimited supply that will probably happen again soon. All the rants that liberals had about the deficit resonated and caused the turnover, Now the country sees what the Democrat version of deficit spending is. Bush and the Republicans are pikers in comparison.
Reply-
-
100%
vor6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Republicans are not dead. There is a real danger that the public will not give Obama adequate time to rebuild our shattered economy. But changing leadership in the middle of the stream would be an absolute disaster. And changing back to Republican leadership would be an even greater disaster for the country. That would be like throwing the fox back into the henhouse.
Reply
The neocons aren't dead either. Given the right candidate (a nitwit like Palin for instance) the neocons could quickly re-assume control of our foreign policy. Bill Kristol is always at work keeping these goons organized and Cheney is still their Godfather. They screwed up Iraq royally but they will gladly start conflict anywhere else they desire. One shudders to think what their solutions would be on Iraq and NK. Nothing that would benefit mankind you can be assured. But remember these men are almost all chickenhawks. Armchair quarterbacks with a miserable track record.
And your simply an idiot (I mean that in the most literal sense) regarding the deficits. The day the government became the lender of last resort massive deficits and debt became inevitable. You guys just seem to have no inkling of how screwed up the economy really is ...or what is required to fix it. We don't understand the minute details either (almost no one does) but we do understand the concept. Under Republican leadership action would have been almost certainly delayed and we would be in even greater peril. And they would have been forced to do nearly the same thing Obama is doing only loading military programs instead of social. That is the advantage of being out of power. You can roll the dice that the other side fails then you can say you would have never done it that way. That is exactly the GOP strategy. They have nothing to lose and no new ideas to put forth. Without diversification of membership and new and creative ideas (are Conservatives even capable of such things) the GOP will be in huge difficulty by 2020.-
9%
beavith16 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And your simply an idiot (I mean that in the most literal sense) regarding the deficits. The day the government became the lender of last resort massive deficits and debt became inevitable. You guys just seem to have no inkling of ...how screwed up the economy really is ...or what is required to fix it. We don't understand the minute details either (almost no one does) but we do understand the concept. Under Republican leadership action would have been almost certainly delayed and we would be in even greater peril. And they would have been forced to do nearly the same thing Obama is doing only loading military programs instead of social. That is the advantage of being out of power. You can roll the dice that the other side fails then you can say you would have never done it that way. That is exactly the GOP strategy. They have nothing to lose and no new ideas to put forth. Without diversification of membership and new and creative ideas (are Conservatives even capable of such things) the GOP will be in huge difficulty by 2020...
Reply
i fully have an idea how screwed up th eeconomy is. so 'you guys' doesn't apply to me.
not only do 'we not understand the minute details' nothing is being done about it. there was a flash of action a couple weeks ago, but this has been rolling for 9 months. we remain really screwed up. and nothing of consequence is being done.
this is not partisanship. its simple observation. Geithner is rearranging deck chairs. sure. the Dow has gone up, buts that's because they took GM off the Average and put some other company on. there hasn't been a credible effort to sop up the CDO And CDS liability mess. none.
slamming the republicans for what they would or wouldn't do is a negative argument. the rest of your paragraph is pointless partisanship. feel better?-
-
9%
beavith16 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ummm, my text is a tiny portion of your screed.
Reply
you have yet to prove anything other than your partisan stance.
park your partisanship at the door.
i don't care if the boogeyman can fix it, someone, at least, please make an attempt to acknowledge it!
clearly Vor is happy playing in his shiny sand box.-
100%
vor6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's my opinion and you ain't changing it. It is very weird how this idea of partisanship has popped up in the last few days in numerous Republican posts. A new talking point? I guess the idea we blame Bush for everything (an obvious farce) was getting stale. I need to start reading my RNC e-mail closer.
Reply
I have seldom seen any criticism of Republicans on these boards by your own partisans. It surely slips my mind. I have seen claims of such things but they appear to be little more than myth. Not even criticism of Limbaugh. Very few moderate Republicans in this crowd.
I have ripped Air America (excrutiatingly boring), Nancy Pelosi (who has more self interest and nuttier supporters?), Al Gore and John Kerry (both horrific candidates) and the UAW (they killed Chrysler and GM), PETA (I just smashed a fly and I'm cooking red meat as I type) and Michael Moore (Fahrenheit 911 could have been so much more effective). I have said that Clinton didn't stimulate the economy so much as he rode the Tech boom and the economic wave that resulted.
I hear no such candor from your side. I want to hear even one Republican admit that the free market and poorly regulated capitalism failed! That regulation is necessary. That these people that took the quick profits sold us out. That trickle down is "voodoo economics"!
Sorry but forget you and your charges of partisanship. Put up or shut up!
The idea that Republicans were going to turn America around simply didn't appeal to voters in November. And unless there is national amnesia they will think long and hard before casting votes in '10 and '12.
The neocons aren't dead. I keep them close in my view. But you Republicans better start facing reality. You cannot expand with a dying demographic and little diversity.-
0%
beavith16 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
to answer your first paragraph:
Reply
i don't have to read my RNC memos. i don't get them. with regard to you, all i have to do is read your stuff to see the bald partisanship.
i know it hurts, but what you say might as well come from the NYT.
to answer your second paragraph, you won't see me slam Limbaugh et al very much. i don't listen to them.
your third paragraph surprises the hell out of me. i know this will hurt, too, but you are a nascent righty. its OK. (chuckle) accept yourself for who you are. really. its OK.
your fourth paragraph?
you won't hear me say the free market failed. Milton Friedman is my hero. yours, too, if you had an inkling as to what your talking about. it didn't fail. if you haven't heard me say it before, the regulation of new investment 'products' or 'vehicles' or 'contraptions' by the federal gov't is simply too slow. the geniuses on Wall Street can invent these schemes faster than any regulator could reasonably figure out the up and downside risks. when you use 'trickle down' and 'voodoo economics' that's just a knee twitch that your political masters have laid on you. throw off your yoke.
your fifth? silly.
sixth? look at the democratic 'plans'. they have none. they ran on the 'i'm not bush' platform. how's that supposed to work in 2010 or 2012. they play that card at their own risk. do you think they maintain their inside track if the economy fails later this year?
seventh: diversity is a throwaway democratic term. real leadership trumps diversity. real leadership transcends politics. what demographic is dying?
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Ratskii6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Beavith, if you mean 'idiot' in the most literal sense, don't you realize the person in question wouldn't be able to type or understand any language. I would certainly never call you an idiot, but sometimes I wonder if you might be moderately retarded.
Reply
Actually I don't think you lack in intelligence, but you'd do well to reduce the name calling.-
-
Neutral
vor6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Remember I used the term in the "literal" sense. LOL! Having been raised by someone who has evaluated intelligence for 45 years I should be more careful. The literal meaning I assigned actually pertains to the foolishness of the individual. I would assume you all are not profoundly retarded?
Reply
It is akin to saying someone is ignorant. Simply meaning they ignore the facts, or simply don't have them available, not necessarily that they cannot comprehend them. i.e. the authors of the Bible were ignorant, not stupid. They were probably of above average intelligence for their time.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Ciera-Marie6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hmmm, yet it's okay for you to constantly use "silly liberals?" AND that's the nicest thing you've said about libs and democrats that I can type without violating the TOU.
Reply
You like to complain about the plans of this administration, defend the previous one and not offer a reasonable solution. -
0%
Endoscopy6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here are some facts for the poor liberals who keep pronouncing Republicans dead.
Reply
1964, 1977 and 1993 - in each of these years Republicans were gleefully pronounced dead by the news media. But in each case, they came back.
1964 was followed by 1965, in which Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California. Two years later we began a 40-year period in which no overt liberal won the presidency.
In 1977, Jimmy Carter's popularity on inauguration day was higher than Barack Obama's. But in 1980, Ronald Reagan won a decisive victory and changed the course of America.
In 1993, they said Bill Clinton was creating a new, stronger Democratic Party. In 1994, the Democratic Party suffered its worst defeat in 40 years.
So rant on liberals and keep up pushing for more spending. Bigger deficits. Rants against deficits is what took the power from the Republicans. Now what is the public seeing? Drunken sailor spending by Obama and the Democrats. Nothing much really to stimulate the economy but a bunch of liberal agenda programs. Grow government like never before and say it is to stimulate the economy.
2010 is coming. The Democrats that ran as fiscal conservative are getting very nervous. They are the ones that took seats from the Republicans on the promise to kill the deficits. Now the House Democrats have to face the people in 2010. -
100%
mesodude6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This story is very silly. Using the stupid name neocons as a put down."
Reply
--Endo, as a member of the "Democrat Socialist Party" I don't understand why you're offended to be called a neocon. ;-(
"Before there were times when the MSM and Democrats pronounced the Republicans dead."
--That was before Democrats were routinely defeating Republicans in Red States.
"With Obama spending money like there is an unlimited supply that will probably happen again soon."
--LOL...So basically, cons are banking on the GOP getting back into power because even though Bush spent recklessly, he spent recklessly on a smaller scale? *This* will be your campaign platform? ;-x
"All the rants that liberals had about the deficit resonated and caused the turnover, "
--No. Cons are really hard-headed. It wasn't just that Bush spent an obscene amount of money. It was that he spent a lot of money on tax cuts and wars and now we have nothing but destruction to show for it.
"Now the country sees what the Democrat version of deficit spending is. Bush and the Republicans are pikers in comparison."
--No. Again, you're hopelessly confused, Endo. For the most part, Obama has been explaining his rationale for spending right now. You need to believe that all spending is created equal but the reality is, that's not the case. What explanation is there for giving trillions in tax cuts to Americans who least needed it, while ignoring the other 90% of America? And then there is the matter of that debacle Bush and Cheney lied us into. Americans will NEVER forgive you cons for that one. You will NEVER be forgiven, Endo. Mark my words. ;-P
-
-
-
37%
beavith16 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Alterman is an idiot. saying that we support democracy in Iran is a far cry from an invasion.
Reply
this guy is a professor? wow. i wonder if he smacked a student for using over-the-top rhetoric in a paper.
inveterate optimist? no. ****-eyed pea brain.
say! i've got an idea! why don't we just sit by and watch the youth of iran get its brains beaten in by Basiji thugs? its kind of like watching the beatings at Selma, only we don't have a hand in it.
all we would offer is our moral support. and for the left that's simply too much.
that really has to make the liberals feel good. they can puff THEIR chests out at the carnage and tell their kids i was alive and we WATCHED it all unfold.
(spit) what a bunch of LEADERS.-
-
77%
GWHayduke6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Once again, your thinly veiled faux outrage comes off as little more than asinine partisan lunacy.
Reply
I suppose you support the unilateral invasion and subsequent occupation of Iran so that the Iranian youth can fulfill their will?
Lord knows that wherever a US military force resides, peace and prosperity are soon to follow, huh?
Why not just declare the globe an extention of American style democracy that shall be enforced by ICBMs - NOW we're talkin' freedom and democracy! -
-
-
-
86%
bigG6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
True beav, but they apparently lost the election , at least until proven otherwise. Ergo, change will not come by their marching in the streets, nor by our President saying "shame on you Iran government".
Reply
Hey, maybe Obama should call them an evil empire or something. Yeah, that's the ticket. That will make everything better.-
-
-
-
86%
Ratskii6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While I agree with you that I think the election was fraudulent, The issue in Florida, while different, was equally outrageous. 55,000 people who were eligible to vote were the right to vote, while in Ohio thousands found their weren't enough voting machines to allow everyone who lived in democrat majority areas to vote.
Reply
Those who who defend the the Iran vote point out that many networks were calling the election in the U.S. 3 hours after the polls closed. I don't know everything about the mechanics of the election, but it does seem possible that vote counting began in the AM rather than when the polls closed.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78906 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The article uses the neocon take on our response to the Iranian elections as an example. Iran's not really its subject.
Reply
Regardless, I believe Progressive is wondering whether your indignation at what you're calling just sitting by and watching the youth of iran get its brains beaten in extends to everyone suffering at the hands of an oppressive regime.
Or are you content to just sit by and watch innocents in Sudan be treated even more brutally?
-
-
-
-
-
10%
beavith16 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
no. Obama is worried about stepping on the toes of the mullahs and somehow getting us blamed for the troubles in Iran.
Reply
face it. we're being blamed anyway. who are we protecting? who are we helping?
i know. when i quote Reagan and say "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall" your eyes will glaze over. sad thing is, the modicum of embarassment that the Soviet Union had to tolerate for Reagan saying that didn't hur t the SU at all. did it inspire the folks behind the iron curtain? who knows? did it insult them or insult their intelligence? idon'tthinkso.
when we stand up for nothing, we stand for nothing.
i'm sorry to the iranian kids and i'm embarrassed to be us.-
-
100%
Beau78906 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wait, we're not offering moral support? A few comments below, Hhussk says:
Reply
"On Friday, the House and Senate, both controlled by the Democratic Party, adopted resolutions for Iranian protests."
What is that, if not moral support?
You certainly know that if the U.S. comes out strongly and officially in favor of Mousavi, it will have the same effect as if Ahmadinejad came out in favor of a candidate here. It will help no one but the hard-liners we oppose.
What do you think doing anything stronger than we're doing now will accomplish?
Besides, though we all sympathize with the protesters, we also all know that Supreme Leader Khamenei holds the power. Little will change if Mousavi, a candidate selected by Khamenei himself, suddenly is declared president.
-
-
-
91%
Ratskii6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So what are you proposing? I don't know if those protesting the Iran elections can bring down the power structure -- probably not. I do know the if U.S. actually became militarily involved, they would unite against us. Here in the U.S. we certainly did not bring down the power structure with our protests, but we brought about Johnson's resignation(i.e. decision not to run for a second term) and helped bring about Nixon's downfall. Hopefully the Iranians will bring about at least as much over the next ten years.
Reply
-
-
43%
Wolfie20076 months, 1 week ago
-
-
86%
Progressive6 months, 1 week ago
-
33%
Hhussk6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A "Neocon", or neo-conservative, is a liberal who moves to the right. This was how it started in 1921.
Reply
In 1973, it was coined by the Democratic socialist, Micheal Harrington.
And then, the term morphed into "people who followed the Bush Doctrine".
The truth is, there is no standard definition for a NeoCon.
You are simply using it because it sounds like the conjunction of the words "Neanderthal" and "Convict".
But, there is a standard definition for liberal and socialist.-
-
-
91%
Charlson6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ha, ha, ha. you probably didn't even understand the irony of your statement that "neocons are liberals who moves to the right."
Reply
The neocon's philosophy as practiced by the Bush administration and supported by the Congressional Republicans were responsible for our foreign and domestic policy failures. So if they really weren't liberals or Democrats but a new breed of Republican, then the Democrats are lucky they are gone. Your party can have them and if you continue to follow them into extinction, you have my whole hearted approval. lol. -
92%
NoWayMan6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The truth is, there is no standard definition for a NeoCon. "
Reply
nope, the truth is, language and words have a life of their own.
so today's defintion does count (just like republican used to be one thing, now its another. just like the word "party" is now a verb as well, as in "to party")
and today, under the defintion of neocon you'll find the words arrogance, hubris, stupidity and failure.
deal with it. -
100%
Natureboy6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"A "Neocon", or neo-conservative, is a liberal who moves to the right. This was how it started in 1921."
Reply
A human is a featherless biped, but that doesn't make plucked chickens human.
A neocon is an adherent to the philosophy of Leo Strauss. Neoconservatism is distinct from paleoconservatism in many respects, including rabidly interventionist foreign policy and a view of religion as a "noble lie" which the ruling elites do not privately embrace although they promote religion to the masses as a form of social control.
-
-
-
-
86%
Natureboy6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Does this mean the liberal progressives are going to stop using the word neocon?"
Reply
I would be happy if everyone who bandies the term about actually understood what it meant. I doubt we have many true neocons on propeller - mostly just garden-variety right-wing reactionaries.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Ciera-Marie6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ratskii and others. i wasn't able to respond to this comment before now.
Reply
Yes Luvmyprez was Alphagnosis. However she was also friends (no matter the new name and was often the only one who would vote for deadly/atlass/etc submissions.) with deadlynightshades new member name atlasshrugged before deadly got banned again.
Both have had a lot of member of names so it's actually getting kind of hard to keep track of them.
Sorry for the confusion and mix up.
-
-
-
-
-
-
77%
Charlson6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your preference is noted and you are found sorely lacking in any mental capacity or capability so what you say can be swept off the edge of a table like spilled salt. We prefer you to call us whatever you like because it illuminates one trait that all far right ideologues have in common: when at al loss to defend their arguments, they resort to other methods which consists of thoughtlessness without substance.
Reply -
-
-
85%
Charlson6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Every single one of you neocons who urged interference in Iran's politics are probably the same ones shouting about invading Iraq. You were wrong then and you're wrong now. Hopefully America will never give you another chance to shape it's foreign or domestic policies.
Reply -
75%
Progressive6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"so why 90% sacrificed for the sake of 10, where is the logic ?"
Reply
Because 95% of the wealth is owned by 5% of the population. Global conglomerates exist to exploit third world resources and corporate greed drove the world economy into a ditch. -
40%
arhip6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
do not believe this a bit, everything goes as they planned including the new president election, money rules, always and forever, and they got all the stake holding at all economy forming enterprises , I could care less, but the what concerns me why america might and profound capabilities were sold off so cheaply to China for instance. Why these people just return back home all the companies where average Joe were comfortably working and could continue to do so with ease unless the bogus competition was force-fed upon to make every one cash strapped and attached to whatever low paid jobs are still remain. Is this a plan to create internal chaos, why new president just enforce protective measure on imported good? we are told that then other do the same to us, but we export only 15% and predominantly high tech output, and import low tech where all the American Joes were employed, for the benefits of who ? if we get all this jobs back, we going to reinforce 90% our economic production here, so the jobs, and might lose on the front of high tech where only 10% of our economy, which is doubtfully anyway, because what comprise this 10% is the product that can not be produced elsewhere, so there will be some insignificant lose not more , but 90% of average jobs will be back home . so why 90% sacrificed for the sake of 10, where is the logic ?
Reply-
79%
Goppy6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow ... I wonder if spadecaller is getting all this down.
Reply
You are a TOTAL FREAK!
It's freaks like you gravitating to the Right Wing Republican Party that made me realize the Republicans went over the deep end.
At some point ... one has to ask oneself ... how and why does a Political Party attract the most evil ... most insane ... most hate-filled goof-balls?
I figured it out when I realized that the Republican Party evolved into a Morally Vacant expression of the ultimate hypocrite ... the founder of the Republican Revolution ... Newt Gingrich.
.-
-
100%
orndorffter6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo look whos talking well if it isnt Endo what do you get out of putting Goppy down. you just back right up and be glad that we dont know each other, coming of with those words ! seems to me your the one who is going off the deep end . Over your head with ad horminem attacks that you are known for.
Reply
isnt there a place for people like you? Talk your garbage cause no one listens to you. because you dont make any sence in what you say. at least if you want to put us down do it were we can understand what your talking about.
Talking to you is like talking to a wall your just hard headed nuckel brain.Endo, wake up join the party dont worrie be happy we dont bite only if you cross me and my friends.
I dont know if your a man or a women but you must be a women because you sound like one or just some crackpot. turn around and look turn on your own.
-
-
-
-
southernxcross1Comment removed: Abusive5 Replies
-
80%
NoWayMan6 months, 1 week ago
-
23%
BB646 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First, can you drop the neo crap. That was a title you guys added to our party thinking the American people were dumb and think that implied the Nazis. Failed effort there.
Reply
You are correct, we did lose our way. We didn't hold to our conservative principles. We let members like McCain, Powell, Spector and the like, take control and run over our values. That time has ended. It's time for the conservative wing to be welcomed home. Rinos can go away.-
90%
NoWayMan6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
um, the liberals didn't give the neocons their moniker. time for you to get a clue.
Reply
instead of simply typing stuff without thinking or knwing anything, maybe check out the book: Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea.
Irving Kristol/ godfather of neoconservatism. big believer in strauss and the chicago school of econ (read: trickle down, the stupidest theory ever brought to bear on economics). and all the crap the right espouses that has failed us big time.
it was kristol who gladly grabbed on to the term neocon and ran with it. no one from the left applied that term to him or his theory.
to prove the point further, bush gave Kristol the medal of freedom in 2002. another award for failure from the bush admin (heckuva job!!!)
and your second paragraph shows us all why the GOP is the party of exclusion.
you actually thought McCain and Powell were running the GOP?
look at my thumb. gee you're dumb.-
-
20%
Natureboy6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"read: trickle down, the stupidest theory ever brought to bear on economics"
Reply
Yep. Too bad Obama didn't have that insight before he approved the "bailout."
Trickling trillions. Quite a concept. And with the same result - the rich get richer, the working class is screwed more than ever.-
100%
NoWayMan6 months, 1 week ago
-
-
100%
NoWayMan6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
okay, I'll make it even more clear.
Reply
most of that money was actually handed over by Bush (chrysler got 17 billion from Bush, 4 billion from Obama)
and it ain't like Obama can just tear up a contract that Bush made. that's simply not how it works. has nothing to do with "bush said so." we're talking about working within legal frameworks here. (hey, I don't like it either, but Obama would be breaking laws if he did what you want him to do)
that said, he made changes where he could, and had the carmakers plenty p.o.'d with his new provisions since those provisions favored us (the terms of the bailout re-payment schedule is a good example).-
Neutral
Natureboy6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Repeat it as often as you like - it will never make the transition from falsehood to truth.
Reply
Bush proposed a bailout. Obama made it a thing of unthinkably huge proportions, and took it from proposal to reality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/business/economy...-
Neutral
NoWayMan6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
maybe you should read your own story more carefully.
Reply
it says in it that the Obama plan will cost taxpayers $350 billion in bailout funds, with the rest being put up by prviate investors and the fed.
that's much less than Bush used in taxpayer bailout money.
and the terms bush put on that money were horrible for us in comparison to the terms obama put on the money he used (again, see things like the re-payment schedules). and these are things that aren't counted but should be, like return on investment (read: infrastructure) which makes the bush plan even worse when compared to Obama's plan.-
Neutral
Natureboy6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe you should pull you head out.
Reply
You think money coming from the feds doesn't come out of our pockets? It's just free money from nowhere? Are you that naive, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
FTA
"Another centerpiece of the plan would stretch the last $350 billion that the Treasury has for the bailout by relying on the Federal Reserve’s ability to create money, in effect, out of thin air."
That is, "in effect," the same tactic that has caused runaway hyperinflation wherever and when ever it is used, from post WWI Germany to modern Zimbabwe.
Also FTA
"While traveling in Fort Myers, Fla., President Obama welcomed the news that the Senate voted 61-37 to approve its $838 billion economic stimulus bill Tuesday, but dismissed the market reaction to his bank rescue plan."
That 838 Billion is Obama's baby, 100 percent. It comes in top of Bush's 700 bilion dollar "TARP," but that does not take away from the fact that Obama was playing Robin-Hood-in-reverse, taking from the working class to give to the rich.-
Neutral
NoWayMan6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
um, yeah. nothing you said or cut and pasted changes the fact that at the end of the day, Bush spent more.
Reply
even with that $838 billion total attributed to Obama, you do realize that Bush still spent more, right?
and again, Bush's plan had no return on investment compared to Obama's. so in the end the net will come out better for Obama's plan. and you still obvioulsy don't care about that REAL statistic since you keep ignoring that very glaring fact.
maybe you need to do some more research and find out what that initial $700 billion from bush really meant, cause you obviously don't get it.
that 700 billion wasn't the real number, just the amount that can be outstanding at any one time, which is the deal Bush and Paulson made, and it means the real number is much higher.
Obama didn't make theat same deal and didn't fix the wording so it would be actually much higher in the same regard that Bush did. so the number you see (838 billion) is the number you get.
you can google it if you want. but you're obvioulsy not getting the bigger picture on the two deals and have no idea what all the numbers mean.
keep trying. but the facts won't change.-
Neutral
Natureboy6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you can google it if you want. but you're obvioulsy not getting the bigger picture on the two deals and have no idea what all the numbers mean.
Reply
No, what you don't get is the fact that your argument isnt that Obama didn't participate in trickle-down economics, but that Bush was worse.
It is the argument of a five-year-old in a schoolyard - "he did it first!"-
0%
NoWayMan6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that ain't what I'm saying and you know it, unless you're simply dumber than I thought you were.
Reply
you can try to say all the crap you want about me being a fifth grader, but the fact is you simply don't understand what's going on, how the deals were set up, etc.
you don't know anything about the payment schedules, outstanding amounts caps under Bush's initial $700 billion plan, nothing.
so you've obviously turned to another feeble point of attack.
what a puny plan.
remedial economics class is over.
...dismissed.-
Neutral
Natureboy6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No such luck-
Reply
You can't polish a turd, and you can't paint the bailout - Bush's or Obama's, as anything but a gigantic cash giveaway to the rich. It's purely trickledown economics, and you know it.
You just can't bear to admit that Obama has taken the side of the rich and has punked the working man hard. That's not my problem.-
Neutral
NoWayMan6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
blahj blah blah. you stil haven't show that you know what I'm talking about. until you understand something slightly about economics and whats really happening, its like trying to speak to a child.
Reply
there's a lot you're choosing to ignore and haven't dealt with in this exchange, which is proof you don't know what you're talking about.
for instance, you don't want to deal with the fact that $60 BILLION OF OBAMA'S BAILOUT MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BACK. did you know that? bet you didn't.
you also don't have a clue about things like Bush's open-ended provisions concerning the first $700 billion he gave away, which was actually a lot more than $700 billion.
sure, the numbers are huge, but the two plans are VERY different. and you obvioulsy don't have a clue about that. think New Deal vs. Robbing the till.
and you also don't know what trickle down economics means, cause a tax break for the middle class isn't part of that and neither is infrastucture investment.
see? you don't know what you're talking about.
so you can continue to try and say they're both the same, but that would be simplistic nonsense from someone who obviously doesn't know what's going on.
hell, you sound like endo or klarissa at this point.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14%
BB646 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is the same thing they said about the DNC during the term of Bill Clinton. The DNC is dead... blah, blah, blah. As far as the neoconservative title, that was never one of our titles, it was bestowed upon some of us by the left trying to imply Neo to Nazi. Very much like the Fascist terms were supposed to match the GOP standard. The way Premier Obama is running things, his reign is more reminiscent of Mussolini's style of leadership than of anything Bush did. Today, you mustn't question Dear Leader nor the actions of his Gran Consiglio del Fascismo (Grand Council of Fascism). Isn't that what we should call his newest level of government? Instead of just having cabinet appointees, he's installed ministers or "czars". A new level of bureaucrat, responsible to him. Just like Mussolini did....
Reply -
9%
Icantwait6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My Fellow Conservative Americans: I see all the little Liberal children are out there on the Obama playground throwing rocks and their feces at the normal well educated members of the human race. Listen to them taunt, listen to them cry, listen to them rant and rave after hearing the truth about their father idol. Yes, the little rat packs are scouring the Propeller neighborhood trying to continue their rash of lies and Anti Americanism.
Reply
Do we pay attention to all these little brats? Do we care that they are clinging to a group of false hopes placed in their little brains by there Despotic Leader? Do we see their eventual Demise? Yes, the little rag a muffins are lost, lost in a passing generation, lost in a world that will eventually spit them out. They can not survive. The stronger, richer, more stable and more humane moral majority will quickly replace those little rug rats.
The Conservative intellectuals are again on the rise. The Liberal Messiah is running out of lies, even the blind can see through his idea of Transparency. The Blacks, The Yellows, The Whites are joining forces because all are suffering with his Radical prophesies. Yes, all races, colors, creeds, religions, and cultures are under the strain of a future communistic regime. They are not going to let it happen. God won't let it. The Real American-
100%
orndorffter6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You better watch what you say, God does not like that he well take care of you, we got another nut case. what is happening to all of you have the Devil got ahold of you that bad? you well pay for everything you said, if you read the Bible then you know you well pay for it . revenge is his,and you talked about his little children, no way man, I have nothing else to say to this person I know alot of you dont believe but I do this person is evil and I wash my hands of you.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
dxxy4u6 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
southernxcross1block5 hours, 19 minutes ago
Reply
i pray for the day that blood runs reds in the streets in this country when we finally realize that damn liberals are the very evil we have warned about for decades. i pray god strikes each of them down with a terrifying blow. i pray god destroys the son of satan the evil and vile obama born of a white trash ***** and atheist baby daddy. god is punishing america for allowing abortiona nd gay rights and this evil vile man is the anti-christ born of sin this man-child of satan will destroy this country unless drastic measures are taken to redeem us all.>>>>>>>>>>>&g... I Pray that God will forgive you of your Prejudice hatred, and give you a seat by Him in Heaven. -
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
-
0%
galletta61216 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group. Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.
Reply
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Si... -
0%
galletta61216 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Liberalism is a watered-down version of the failed ideologies of Soviet Russia, and therefore it is bound to collapse under it’s own weight. At some point, the weight of the failed policies of the left will become too much for American society to bear, and the ideology will be ultimately discredited. Big Government has never been able to sustain itself, and the fiscal and monetary polices of the current administration will lead the U.S. to financial ruin.
Reply-
TcarosComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
Grumpy63528Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
BaratheonComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
Sane4kaComment removed: Hard Banned
loading ...
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.