Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-04-22/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
The U. S. receives a warning about its credit rating. President Obama takes his deficit plan on the road. And more bad news for air traffic controllers after a near mishap with the First Lady’s plane. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Clarence Page
syndicated columnist for the Chicago Tribune.
Susan Davis
congressional correspondent, National Journal.
Byron York
chief political correspondent, Washington Examiner.
News Roundup Video
A caller who works as an air traffic controller explains his opinion that President Ronald Reagan's policies contributed to the recent problems with air traffic controllers falling asleep:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
"The admission that you can’t do math "
-I guess you “overlooked” what I ACTUALLY said which was, "I may be no mathemetician". God, I LOVE throwing your words back in your face!
"Oh, and remember the key word is “sacrifice”. "
Why should I have to sacrifice ANYTHING for Congress's willingness to squander the peoples money? Now that Obama has spent 1.5T of money we don't have, the Democrats are suddenly calling for "shared sacrifice"?!
"And “bull crap” certainly defines the GOP’s ideology. "
Nah, no ad hominem from you, right?
"People who get the majority of their income from investments (inherited perhaps?) pay nothing!"
If you pay nothing, (via payroll deductions) you get nothing. Next time you get a SS statement take a look at it. It shows your earnings via payroll deductions. If you don't pay in, you don't receive. Hate to confuse you with some actual facts.
"Remember what Mr. York pointed out at the end of the show, something I’ve been pointing out for weeks: that Social Security funds (the FICA payroll tax) were put in the general revenue, that is used for other purposes "
This is perhaps my favorite from you of all time. What would you think of this idea? In order to keep the Congress from spending that money, what if your contributions instead, were put in private accounts? What if they represented money that the government COULD NOT TOUCH. They would grow throughout your working years and be there for you when you retire. What would you think of that Mr. Shrdlu?
"But how about giving examples of exactly what you mean by “smaller, less intrusive government at every level”? "
Don't have much problem with anything you list ... except the first one. -does that mean you favor a woman’s right to chose abortion (and if so, to what extent)? - because I have never found an answer to the following question: When a woman is pregnant and in a doctor's care, the doctor looks out after his interests (with respect to suits, etc.), the woman looks out after her interests, but who speaks for the unborn dead?
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 2:45 pm wrote: “ ‘Was there a ‘spontaneous uprising’ going on? No, there wasn’t - a key difference you ignore.’ Really? Hey, why don't we ask the Shi'a and Kurds?”
Funny, while the article you cite mentions the fact Saddam was a murderous tyrant (something no one denies), I don’t see any mention of a spontaneous uprising going on! Maybe I overlooked that part (the way you always overlook the parts of what I have to say, or any facts, that destroy your arguments and ideology). So, how about quoting the exact place where John Burns claims there was already an active uprising taking place, and that it was the reason we should invade Iraq at that time?
By the way, allow me to offer a defense of Bush II. While I’ve certainly thought he had cynical reasons to invade Iraq (but not that he did it for oil), I also thought he had a few idealistic ones. Chief among them: to make up for the shameful behavior of his father, who ordered his helicopters to stand by and do nothing when the Shi’a actually did engage in a spontaneous uprising in the south of Iraq (just after we “kicked Saddam’s butt” in the Gulf War).
Note the consistency, sir. I support what we’re doing in Libya because there is a spontaneous uprising to support. I condemn Bush the First for failing to support a spontaneous uprising in Iraq when he had the chance. But I will not pretend (as you apparently do) that there was a spontaneous uprising in Iraq when Bush the Second chose to intervene.
You may disagree with the distinction I am making, but don’t ignore it, and don’t call it hypocrisy!
"No “class warfare” is when the government adopts policies that benefit one part of society at the expense of the other ...."
EXACTLY!!! and the government, since the 30's has been adopting policies that benefit the bottom half of society with "programs" at the expense of the top half who gets to pay for it!
... and hainc's comment remains both "pithy" and "succinct".
The dictionary defines "class warfare" as "conflict between social or economic classes (especially between the capitalist and proletariat classes)"
In its redistributionist policies the Federal Government, liberals in general, and Obama in particular, has fomented that. It's all about OPM, Shrdlu, it's all about OPM.
"Mindlessly ideological"
Nah, no ad-hominem from you ... what was I THINKING???!!!
Roosevelt on April 22, 2011 @ 12:12 pm wrote: “I only got to hear about 15 or 20 minutes this morning, but in that short time heard York talk about the "savings" generated from our draw-down in Iraq without adequate correction (only a muffled scoff from you).
I haven’t got the time to address the rest of what you wrote, but two points about this:
1) If you didn’t hear the whole show, shouldn’t you have waited before passing judgment? (You can download the podcast, hear it on streaming audio, or wait for the transcript). Then you can judge the remark in context.
2) In context, I found York’s remark to be nothing to scoff. Obviously as we “draw-down” in Iraq, and lower our other military expenditures, the spending will go down and that will help balance the budget. (After all, aren’t there plenty of people commenting here by proposing just that?)
"spontaneous uprising"
Bush I stopped where he did because the UN resolution had been fulfilled. And the left criticizes him for it.
Bush II went in and deposed a murderous dictator (with permission from UN resolution 1441 and Congress) and the left continues to criticize him for it.
As for the Kurds and Shi'a? Perhaps Saddam was just killing them for sport?
And as for the hypocrisy? I suppose then, you favor intervention in Bahrain, Tunisia, and Yemen?
Have to go for today.
Byron York perpetuating WSJ hoax (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870373010457626091198687005... )
about 100% tax not even being able to payoff debt.
Well without even going further, he's saying the current TAXABLE income...
13,215,000 Americans earn more than $100k a year...
Seems they are ASSUMING THAT ALL OF THEM ONLY MAKE $100k, and no more.
6% of the US pop makes more than $100k. The top 1% of income earners alone accounts for almost 50% of all income. All income in the US is on the order of $14 trillion. So without going any further, 100% of the income (NOT WEALTH which is WAY WAY higher) of the top 1% (who earn MUCH MORE THAN $100k) would amount to roughly $7 TRILLION DOLLARS.
(and WSJ is alleging that the top 6% don't make even $1.4 Trillion)
If you want to be on the safe side and eliminate capital gains from the discussion (which pretty damn conservative given that a HUGE proportion of the top income earners income comes from capital gains), then you can work with the top 10% of income earners, who earn 45% of all income...
(see fig 1 tab in Excel spreadsheet linked to below)
which gives you about $6 Trillion.
Since $100k income earners are top 5%, you can very safely say that (ignoring capital gains, which account for more than half of actual income earned by top dudes) they earn $3 Trillion a year.
Sources:
Saez, E. & Piketty, T. (2003). Income inequality in the United States: 1913-1998. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 1-39.
data at: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2005prel.xls
Census data:
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/hhinc/new06_000.htm
cicero on April 22, 2011 @ 2:49 pm wrote: “That is the sort of monnbat liberalism that forced the resignations of NPR CEO Vivian Schiller and executive Ellen Weiss. Apparently, the three liberals to one conservative advantage on the DR Show is not sufficiently tilted for your tastes.”
“monnbat liberalism”? What’s that supposed to mean? (Or is it just a typo and you meant “moonbat”?)
I believe Schiller and Weiss resigned because NPR panicked and responded to yet another of O’Keefe’s deceitfully edited videos. (Not that I regret their departure. I didn’t like the firing of Juan Williams either.)
“Three liberals to one conservative” - Oh, are we back to playing “count the guests” again? How many times do I have to point out that there have been plenty of shows where the conservatives outnumbered the liberals? (Plus, Mr. York doesn’t seem to mind as he appears here fairly regularly, and if I remember correctly he’s defended this show against precisely the attack you’re making.)
P.S. - Don’t assume I agree with Roosevelt either. As I just demonstrated, I don’t. (But I figure “you guys” will go after him on the other parts, so excuse me if I don’t respond to everything he said.)
"Editorial: Off-budget accounting for Iraq
By refusing to estimate the costs for the war in Iraq, Bush makes his budget deficits look much smaller than they actually are.
With two full years of experience waging war in Iraq, President George W. Bush should have some idea of how much it will cost to continue the fight next year.
But when he submitted his 2006 budget to Congress in February, it didn't contain one penny for combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sunny optimist that he is, Bush wasn't operating on the assumption that the mission would actually be accomplished by then.
Instead, Bush insisted it would be impossible to know how much would be needed, so instead of including anything in the regular budget, he plans to continue the tradition of coming to Congress for emergency supplemental appropriations when war funds get low.
Coincidentally, that approach has the side effect of making the federal budget deficit appear smaller than it actually is. Far smaller, considering that spending in Iraq has averaged more than $5 billion a month."
Shame on you Clarence, you are smart enough and well enough informed to kick the buttocks of the slimy right-wing, four-flushing dog crap if you weren't so accommodating.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
“monnbat liberalism”? What’s that supposed to mean? (Or is it just a typo and you meant “moonbat”?)
“Three liberals to one conservative” - Oh, are we back to playing “count the guests” again? How many times do I have to point out that there have been plenty of shows where the conservatives outnumbered the liberals?"
It appears you are all too familiar with the term moonbat liberalism that the typo didn't confuse you at all.
You keep claiming there are DR Shows , or indeed any shows on NPR, where the conservatives outnumber the liberals. After several months, you are still unable to come up with any evidence of this. Please refrain from further references to your claim without ponying up some evidence
.
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 2:55 pm wrote: “How about Revenue (taxes) = $150, Spending (social programs): $150, Economic Growth = ZERO!”
Still singing the song of voodoo economics, eh? Let’s try that another way:
Revenue (taxes) = $150
Spending (military programs): $150
Economic Growth = ZERO!
Does that one “work for you” too, or for the GOP? Probably not, since to use your own argument the only way to increase economic growth would be by cutting military spending. Just because you don’t like social programs doesn’t mean cutting them is the only way to balance the budget. That, sir, is using the deficit as an excuse to pursue your ideology (which is what the GOP is doing).
The problem is: I’ve never claimed we can raise taxes enough to cover the deficit - Period.
The fact that you keep raising “straw man arguments” to knock down, and make false claims about what I’ve said, demonstrate that you are incapable of having a serious debate about important issues. All you can do is repeat your ideology, and distort or ignore anything that contradicts it.
My position is simple (so simple you can’t understand it). We cannot tax our way out of the deficit, and we cannot cut our way out either. A combination of increased taxes and spending cuts is the only way!
Or to use a metaphor conservatives seem to understand (because they invoke it so often): since the price of gas is rising our household expenses are going up. Especially if other prices increase, we’ll have to make cuts in our spending. But, apparently, the one thing we can’t do is ask for a raise in salary! How long do you think anyone can keep that up?
P.S. - Oh, and nice try "moving the goalpost", but as I said at the start we're debating how to cut the deficit, not the non-existent virtues of "voodoo economics".
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 2:58 pm wrote: “I advocate a society where people are rewarded for their labor and the government does not confiscate it to give to someone else. It worked for the first 150 years in this country.”
I suggest you review history. We’ve had social programs in this country from the beginning. And kindly spare us the mindless rhetoric of “confiscate” and “give it to someone else”. Unless you’re going to call all taxes a confiscation, and all government spending a case of “giving it to someone else”.
You know, you almost sound like Rousseau with his “property is theft” nonsense.
Oh, and by the way, the Founders clearly had no problem with taxes and spending. They specifically gave the Federal government the power to do just that. (The States already possessed that power.)
If you want a serious debate about what the government should tax, and how that money should be spent I’d welcome it. But you’ll have to abandon your reliance on ideology and rhetoric!
cicero on April 22, 2011 @ 3:15 pm wrote: “Diane and another misinformed caller blame POTUS Reagan for air traffic controllers falling asleep today? The mind boggles.”
I believe I covered this already, but let me repeat. How do you know Diane was speaking rhetorically just to get a discussion going?
Of course, we can’t say the same about the callers. But then, why don’t you respond to their arguments (and claimed facts) instead of indulging in playing the “blame game” yourself?
Again, I think Byron York got it just right (no pun intended). It seems a stretch to blame Reagan for this, but who knows? One of the callers made some interesting arguments in support of that view, but since I don’t know the facts I can’t judge (and neither did York).
To sum up: I think it’s a stretch to blame Reagan, but if strong evidence exists I’m willing to hear it. However, I’d much rather fix the problem than assign blame.
P.S. - I hate the term “POTUS”. Couldn’t you have just said “President Reagan”?
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 3:17 pm wrote: “God, I LOVE throwing your words back in your face!”
Which you do in a childish fashion, taking the words out-of-context, and ignoring the point. I keep wondering when your “cheap shots” will degenerate to the level of “I’m rubber, you’re glue . . . .”
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 3:17 pm wrote: “Why should I have to sacrifice ANYTHING for Congress's willingness to squander the peoples money?”
Wrong question, but a revealing way to put it. Why not try some classics instead?
“Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?”
“If they be like to die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Part of the reason we have a huge debt is because of the Republi-Con mania for tax cutting. (Since you feel free to be insulting, accuse me of hypocrisy, etc., I’m through avoiding that term. When you decide to be more grown up, I’ll cease using it.) So, yes, I do expect those who benefited the most from those cuts to make a sacrifice by paying more taxes, especially when they’re so eager to cut programs other people need to survive! Funny how you equate paying a few dollars more in taxes with matters of life of death.
“Now that Obama has spent 1.5T of money we don't have, the Democrats are suddenly calling for ‘shared sacrifice’?!”
- I believe I’m the one using that term, but I’d be happy if the Democrats employed it. Meanwhile, better check your figures. Not all of that 1.5 trillion came from Obama.
Plus you’re ignoring the question why that money was spent: to try to prevent the “Great Recession” from turning into a second “Great Depression”. Did it work? I don’t know, and neither do you. But I’m very afraid Republi-Con policies will help cause another Great Depression - just as they did the first time!
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 3:17 pm wrote: “Nah, no ad hominem from you, right?”
Better look up the meaning of the term: Ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. Examples:
* "You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
* "Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
Gee, now which of us keeps trying to challenge the validity of an idea by casting aspersions on the character of the speaker (instead of on the ideas themselves)? You know, like implying that people who favor social programs do so because they can’t bother to work?
It’s escaped your notice that it was the ideology I called “bull crap”, not the people uttering it. That’s not an ad hominem argument. (Just as you ignore the fact that I was simply echoing your use of that term against me. Turnabout is fair play you know.)
ecghbert wrote:
""No “class warfare” is when the government adopts policies that benefit one part of society at the expense of the other ...."
EXACTLY!!! and the government, since the 30's has been adopting policies that benefit the bottom half of society with "programs" at the expense of the top half who gets to pay for it!"
--
I'll question the definitions of "benefit" and "pay" here. Wealth disparity has done nothing but grow at an alarming rate during that time. Median income has not kept up with the GDP. Health care and college tuition are getting out of hand.
What's so sorely ignored is a sense of the social power of capital in a capitalism - where the more money you make, the less you have to work (eventually not at all). Join wealth machines, influence policy, get subsidies, pay someone to find loopholes, break unions, move business overseas, ad nauseum. I'd like to see "programs" (how lush they seem to be) incentivized where possible, like Welfare to Work. But the poor and middle class are getting poorer despite record productivity. The New Deal was only a step in the right direction and a bandage for the real ills.
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 3:17 pm wrote: “If you pay nothing, (via payroll deductions) you get nothing.”
Well, you’ve found a slight mistake on my part and, as usual, focus on it and ignore everything else. I admit that my original paragraph was badly phrased. Instead of saying:
“Remember that FICA, and I believe the Medicare/Medicaid taxes too, are payroll taxes, meaning they only tax earned income? People who get the majority of their income from investments (inherited perhaps?) pay nothing!”
The last sentence should have ended “pay nothing on those taxes from such income”.
Of course, you ignore the fact that I spoke of the majority of their income, meaning they do pay something (perhaps, even up to the payroll cap - which you also ignore).
In addition, you ignore the fact that Medicare and Medicaid don’t work that way (they’re not based on the amount paid in).
And you also ignore the significance of the fact that the Reagan tax cuts (on general income tax, not the payroll tax) were paid for both by increasing the payroll taxes, and by raiding Social Security. (Which continued after Reagan as well. I don't blame this entirely on Republicans.)
Finally, of course, you completely ignore the fact that postponing or reducing social programs for the wealthy hardly qualifies as a sacrifice.
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 3:17 pm wrote: “What would you think of this idea? In order to keep the Congress from spending that money, what if your contributions instead, were put in private accounts? What if they represented money that the government COULD NOT TOUCH. They would grow throughout your working years and be there for you when you retire.”
You mean, like putting them in some sort of “lockbox”? Gee, now where did I hear that idea before? And who ridiculed it? And which candidate won that election (with a little help from 5 Republican members of the Supreme Court)?
Answer: Yes, Gore, Bush, and Bush.
There’s a big difference in preventing Congress from “raiding the trust fund”, and turning Social Security into a great Wall Street “sweetheart contract” - complete with all those costs and fees brokers love to charge. And just think how well off everyone would have been if Bush’s privatization program had been adopted in 2005 or 2006 just before Wall Street collapsed!
I believe the expression goes: “Those who cannot learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.” Kindly just don’t do it with my retirement, please!
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 3:22 pm wrote: “Don't have much problem with anything you list ... except the first one.”
PART ONE
Glad to hear it, though (of course) “the devil is in the details”, which I didn’t ask you to provide (and I’m not now). Your question about abortion is a good example of the need to discuss details, though.
If you’re asking how do we balance the mother’s rights against those of the potential child - well, that’s the issue isn’t it? In order to avoid posting the longest series of Comments in my history, let me just give you a general overview.
I reject the extreme view on both sides: “human life” (or personhood, or any other semantical term you prefer) does not begin at the moment of conception, but neither is a fetus “just a bunch of cells” until birth. That’s why I used the expression “potential child”. The problem is figuring out when, and under what circumstances, that potential human life outweighs the actual human life (the mother).
It’s not merely a question of the stage of the pregnancy, though that is an important factor (the closer we are to birth, the greater the potential and the greater the argument against abortion). We also have to consider the condition of both mother and “child”.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Let me offer an example. Anencephaly is a condition in which the upper part of the brain fails to develop. The Merck’s Manual calls this condition “incompatible with life” - the “child” cannot survive. Often, though not always, the condition may include failure of the skull to fully develop, meaning that it hasn’t closed, and the bones can scrape along the woman’s body during birth. Just imagine the hideous pain and damage that can cause (including bleeding to death).
Now, should a woman suffer all that just to give birth to a “thing” that can’t survive anyway? I say the only legal and moral answer is NO! Even if the only safe procedure is the so-called “partial birth” abortion. The extreme “pro-life” side would say “yes”, ban it even then and let heaven decide who lives and who dies. To me that is evil!
Again, this is just one example, there are plenty of others. But I’ve already exceeded the word limit - hence the two parts. I hope this is enough to get the general concept across.
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 3:34 pm wrote: “EXACTLY!!! and the government, since the 30's has been adopting policies that benefit the bottom half of society with "programs" at the expense of the top half who gets to pay for it!”
Funny, and here I thought you were objecting that cutting those programs hurt the top half as much as the bottom!
Besides, as I already demonstrated, there are plenty of government actions and programs that have only benefited the top. We can keep playing the “class warfare” game (a term you’ll note I haven’t used except to respond when others use it), or we can try to seriously deal with the national debt. Proposals like Ryan’s (gut social programs, tax cuts for the wealthiest) won’t wash and won’t work. It’s sort of like trying to fight a war by drafting only people on welfare!
(And before you take a “cheap shot” with that last word: remember welfare is only one social program, and not the biggest. Actually, most social programs are of benefit to everyone, just more so for some than for others because they need the benefit more.)
“The dictionary defines ‘class warfare’ as ‘conflict between social or economic classes (especially between the capitalist and proletariat classes)’ "
- Ah, back are we to the great Republi-Con slander: everyone to the left of Ayn Rand is a commie! As I pointed out, I don’t use the “class warfare” rhetoric. (And by the way, I wrote a paper in college detailing why I thought Marxism was “all wet”.)
Much as you want to personalize this, it is not “all about OPM” (Obama?). By that “logic”, I could reject your arguments because the (soon to be late and unlamented) Senator Ensign spouts the same rhetoric and supports the same policies as you do.
By the way, that would be an example of an ad hominem argument. But I repeat myself.
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 3:42 pm wrote: “Bush I stopped where he did because the UN resolution had been fulfilled. And the left criticizes him for it.”
Hiding behind the UN are we? Funny how conservatives have nothing but scorn for that organization, except when it suits their purposes.
Of course, you once again side-step the critical issue: was there an active spontaneous uprising in Iraq that needed our support to succeed when Bush the Second invaded? The answer, of course, is no. Too bad you aren’t honest enough to just admit it!
“I suppose then, you favor intervention in Bahrain, Tunisia, and Yemen?”
- Depends on the circumstances. Do they need our help? Are their rulers using the military in a homicidal attempt to stop the uprisings? Sorry little details like that escape your notice (like so much else).
Let’s use a better example: Burma (or Myanmar). It’s government is just as brutal as Libya. It has murderously suppressed uprisings in the past. Why don’t we intervene there? Some people (not me) say it’s because there’s no oil. I say it’s because the circumstances are far different.
In short, sir, I weigh the facts before making a judgment. I don’t just spew partisan or ideological bromides. (And by the way, I’m not saying our intervention in Libya is necessarily a good thing. I’m giving it the benefit of the doubt.)
Oh, and don’t forget, I supported and support the invasion of Afghanistan. Again, different facts produce a different result.
Sorry you're leaving. Come back soon.
"monte wrote:
Two good hours of informative conversation. Diane can do a great job when she keeps her emotions out of it, I suppose that is why I come back day after day. She is the grandmother none of us would mind having. Politically way too nanny state for my tastes but a fine lady.
April 22, 2011 - 11:48 am"
Yeah, well yesterday, she was Evil incarnate!!
"monte wrote:
Another liberal lovefest for Obama from Diane. She is as predictable and biased as Rush Limbaugh.
April 21, 2011 - 12:09 pm"
You people are pathetic, desperately scratching around for stuff to distract us from your bungling, greed and carefully nurtured corruption.
Please choose another name, you surely don't want folks to confuse your, banal shoot from the lip, commentary with mine.
The One and Only Original Monte
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Howard Covitz on April 22, 2011 @ 3:43 pm wrote: “Byron York perpetuating WSJ hoax about 100% tax not even being able to payoff debt.(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870373010457626091198687005... )
I’ve already pointed out what’s wrong with York’s argument (that no one is proposing such a thing anyway), but the article you cite contains a few interesting discrepancies with that argument as well (which is why I included your link).
The piece starts by claiming Obama was “tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion.”
At the end it reports that: “An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that the total taxable income of Americans earning over $100,000 in 2008 was $1.582 trillion. The correct figure is $3.4 trillion.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if we were to impose a 100% tax on that $3.4 trillion, wouldn’t that wipe out the $1.65 trillion deficit and leave $1.75 trillion to apply to the budget itself (leaving only $1.98 trillion for the rest of us to make up, including by spending cuts)? Gee, suddenly York’s idea doesn’t sound quite so ridiculous (by a minuscule amount that is).
“"September 20, 2009 6:56 p.m.
thin_lizzie writes:
Years from now, when all U.S. citizens have access to affordable medical care, I hope those who are doing everything in their power to obstruct.... feel the shame they should be feeling now.
Shame on you."
I wouldn't count on it lizzie.
I was a Teaching Assistant at an elite University just down the road from the Bush Family's Yale and my Students, with whom I sometimes fraternized, were exactly George W.'s (The Runt) Age.
Two, in particular, didn't seem to get very excited about much until the subject of Social Security came up and Boy, they went berserk! I knew Social Security had been strongly resisted by some at the time it was enacted, but I assumed that they would have gotten over it by then.
When I tried to explain how hard it had been for my Father to save for his Retirement and how hard his life had been, my Rich Boy Students, who had never worked a Day in their lives, nor wanted for anything, came perilously close to disrespecting my beloved Dad and pissing me off.
In what was one big learning experience for me, I realized that Republicans never forget and never cease to resent the Peoples institutions and never give up their goal of destroying them and never feel shame for their meanness and never stop feigning ignorance of the most basic notions of the Social Contract.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com”
cicero on April 22, 2011 @ 4:11 pm wrote: “You keep claiming there are DR Shows , or indeed any shows on NPR, where the conservatives outnumber the liberals. After several months, you are still unable to come up with any evidence of this. Please refrain from further references to your claim without ponying up some evidence”
Actually, I believe I first made that claim in a post to a Diane Rhem show where the conservatives outnumbered the liberals. But, since my point is that the whole exercise is a silly one, and I don’t have the time to go look for it right now, I’ll decline your invitation to repeat myself.
P.S. - Thanks for confirming what the “typo” actually meant. You had to be snide about it? I wasn’t. Thanks for again demonstrating my point that for people like you (and hainc, and ecgberht, etc.) everything is partisan, ideological, and political - so a question can never be just a question to you!
mchaun, writing on April 22, 2011 @ 6:17 pm:
Thanks for demonstrating why playing the “is NPR biased” game is spectacularly silly. (Which is another reason I’m not answering Cicero’s “prove it” challenge now.)
Good job.
Let me also compliment you about that “off budget” business. I was waiting for someone to point out that there’s a big difference between having an item appear in the budget after the money has been spent (such as in the CBO’s annual reports), and having it appear in a supplemental appropriation passed after passage of the official budget (thus keeping it “off-budget”). That’s what the phrase refers to, that’s what York was deliberately confusing and (yes) I wish Page had pointed that out.
However, I wish you had given a link, or just a source, for the editorial you quoted.
Still - good job!
And now for the word everyone's been waiting for (including me):
Ciao!
"Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
Let me also compliment you about that “off budget” business.
However, I wish you had given a link, or just a source, for the editorial you quoted.
April 22, 2011 - 6:46 pm"
It was easy to find, Google "Off Budget" "Bush" which generated oodles of hits. It was fairly widely reported at the time.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com