quartermainefan

By the same token, Clinton's right-of-center economic philosophy would have been fought tooth and nail by the MSNBC/moveon.org wing of the modern Democratic Party (which dumped Hillary in favor of Obama--big time--back in 2008), if that wing had existed back then. In fact, I highly doubt that Clinton would have gotten the nomination in 1992 if the Democratic Party was as liberal then as it became in 2008.

This meme that NBC is somehow this ultra left network is a joke. This is the network that has David Gregory hosting their marquee talk show. The same David Gregory that never met a republican talking point he couldn't parrot and who only asks follow up questions of democrats. The same NBC that had Chris Matthews having an orgasm watching George Bush fly in in his little pilot costume in front of a Mission Accomplished sign, and the same network that invites right wing hacks night after night on their network to lie and bullshit their way through phony interviews.

I loved George McGovern... the amercian people certainly made one hell of a blunder re-electing tricky Dick, didn't they? And to top it all off, we had to deal with his freaking 55 MPH speed limit for 20 damn years!

McGovern was before my time. I honestly don't know much about him. The whole speed limit thing is annoying, but the government has used the commerce clause to do some good here and there. I think that is how we got seatbelt laws.

I think Max you can figure out why they picked Obama over Hillary. There are a lot of facts of life that are better off unsaid but are true anyway, and a less than one term senator with no legislative record of note to his name doesn't get elected President unless there are extenuating circumstances. I thought the party abandoned Hillary and she and Bill should have said "call us when you suffer buyer's remorse if we're still interested we'll get back to you" but that wasn't a realistic option for them.

all your post does is illustrate just how insanely right wing modern republicans are. You are right, Clinton's economics were right of center but to listen to the goddess of all things republican today, Michelle Bachmann, the Clinton tax rate is something Brezhnev concocted. And "mainstream" John Boehner grovels at the tea party throne and goes along with their insane worldview. Recently someone likened them to the taliban, with an equal zeal for purity. They want religious, the tea party wants religious and economic purity. And with their propaganda machine in full swing, they have managed to convince themselves that Obama's call for the return of the Clinton tax rate is to the left of a McGovern-Nadar love child.

If Big Government doesn't have to pay its bills and balance its checkbook, why should anyone else?

The people who could answer that rhetorical questions are each and every republican who voted for the Bush Tax Cuts ten years ago, insisted they be extended two years ago, and demanded there be no tax increases two weeks ago.

For all the BS (and that is truly what it is) about how republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility and the democrats are the party of big government, let no one forget that the Great Satan himself, Bill Clinton, balanced budgets and was the most financially responsible President of them all. Then Alfred E Newman ran in 2000 and said "the government is not in the business of making a profit" and all the sheep voted for what can only be described as someone totally unqualified for office. He and his sheep followers in congress promptly decimated the budget all in the name of the religion of tax cuts.

Predictably, every republican who didn't care about budget deficits (and who magically won't care about them once again when a republican is in office) suddenly sees deficit spending as kryptonite.

Obama sucks, but if anyone can name a single republican presidential candidate who doesn't kneel at the shrine of Reaganomics and tax cuts, lets hear their name. Of course the answer republicans always give (and have been giving since 1936) is social security must be decimated. They sugarcoat it with different slogans, but that is what it comes down to. No one will ever cut a dime from the military, that somehow is unamerican. It doesn't matter the soviet union died 20 years ago and warships and nukes are not efficient in the fight against islamic terrorism, republicans demand the military budget still be some untouchable portion of the government in case the mythical "they" one day come calling. Ask Gorbachev how the military budget worked out for the Soviets.

wow what a shock. Who would have ever imagined Obama would cut a deal where democrats get absolutely nothing and republicans get everything they ask for? Obama caving in is the biggest shock since Claude Rains learned there was gambling going in Casablanca.

Q-Fan, I was intrigued by your federal aid to states numbers and did a search... finding differing viewpoints on this. The fact of the matter is that blue vs. red gorging at the federal trough is roughly the same. I found these numbers that differ with your view from the Washington Post:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_responds_do_cons.html

And it is excerpted here:

First, I took the average amount of federal aid given to states won by Obama in 2008 versus those won by McCain. The Obama state average ($11,097,466,205.93) dwarfs that of the McCain states ($8,579,954,939.86), but that is to be expected, given that McCain's states tend to be smaller, and this measure does not take population into account. So I instead averaged the per capita aid given to each candidate's states.

While that may look dramatic, it is important to remember that a lot of federal aid to states -- Medicaid, welfare, education funds -- go disproportionately to poor cities, and Democratic states tend to be more urban than their Republican counterparts.

How you interpret the data depends on which side of the political fence you're on. All states suckle from the federal breast more than they should... it's because most of them have no clue how to govern. Of course, neither does Washington. We all get screwed.

The tax foundation site (which seems to have info on everything!) has a huge state by state file

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

and in your link Ezra Klein himself adds

Addendum: Some commenters suggested that joemomma1 actually meant to ask whether it's true that Republican states are more likely to get more in federal expenditures than they pay in taxes. This is, in fact, true; nationally Republican states West Virginia and Alaska and swing state New Mexico have the highest expenditure to tax burden ratio, while New Jersey and Connecticut have the lowest, with California and New York not far behind.

Hey, Q-Fan...

I'll be the first in line to contribute my fair share and certainly more if events call for it... Americans have always sacraficed for a greater good.

But that's not true at all. The 1990s were a boom time, and look what America did next: decided "why should I pay for them?" and cut taxes. Then the wars came and there was no draft and Bush bribed everyone with some dumb $600 check to go shopping, and people still didn't want to pitch in and wanted taxes even lower. Then the country went broke and instead of saying "we have to take care of everyone" conservatives want to cut the social safety net even as they refuse to raise taxes. So when it comes to modern conservative theory, where is this sacrificing for the greater good?

The joke of it all is that while conservatives bemoan welfare and government subsidies, a run down of the states that get more federal dollars than they send to Washington, is state after state the reddest of red states. The very people who hate liberals and NY and the north and see me and my state and city as socialist anti-american atheist abominations, are the very people who come around every year with their palm facing up demanding a hand out. For all the republican talk about everyone has to be self reliant, how is it that it is the republican dominated states that are charity cases, and it's broke NY and CA that send more money to Washington every year than it gets back? And then these same states that take all the liberal tax dollars turn right around and say we are not real americans and and are socialists. Well we have to be socialists, because if we didn't use the government as a way to funnel money to Podunk, Green Acres and every other hick town in some backwoods state that doesn't believe in education, they'd starve.

I have no problem with government loans to auto companies. What was the cost of the loan, $14 billion? And lets think about all the jobs and cars that money went and saved. Now think how long $14 billion lasts in Iraq and Afghanistan, a week? Maybe two? So it is priorities. Do you consider the auto industry less or more important than two weeks in Kabul? And then if you think they are both important, well, take that 14 billion and drop it in the bucket that is the money that would have been saved if the Bush tax cuts expired. I think with the auto industry Obama did good. They're still there making cars, and if we can spend a trillion to save wall street we can spend a few billion to save all those union jobs in Detroit.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/x6052dI9jRk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If you like Bette Midler, take a listen to this. It is from when The First Wives Club opened and was a big hit, and she had recently had a big success on TV in Gypsy

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/f5BGpvtha3g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And this is supposedly a great political leader.

It's frightening. The economy is in trouble, so lets pray. Well, there is a great policy sure to balance all budgets. I only wish I can vote twice for this guy because his economic policies and cures are things Wharton and MIT never thought of.

I'm jewish but I too will lift up my cry to Jesus! I want to make a sound that will be made in heaven. I wasn't planning on fasting but I could stand to drop a few pounds.

And this is who they think should run for president. It's mind boggling.

As always, reading this forum (when I do check in) with great interest. Unlike what I recall from a few years ago participating here, I now see a lot of thoughtful and well-composed thoughts on both sides and it's encouraging. I don't agree with all that I read, but at least everyone here is polite and some attempt is made to connect despite differing viewpoints. I'm not saying we could all do better if we were all in Washington, but I'll bet we all couldn't do any worse, that's for sure.

Anyway, I wanted to comment on the budget situation by making a simple point about how my family's budget is handled - granted, you can't compare the size of the government's budget (or lack thereof) with my household income. We do well, can afford what we want, etc. If either one of us lost our jobs, we could manage with belt-tightening and with money we have piled into the savings account because we have made good choices and have NOT lived beyond our means.

So, for most of us here... what do we do when times are lean? How many here immediately march to their employer and ask for more money? We cut back our household expenses, right? Instead of buying filet mignon, we purchase ground beef. Why does the government NEVER DO THAT?

All of us cut waste out of our budgets in a manner that is financially responsible. Why does the government NEVER DO THAT?

I'm not saying that some form of increased revenue for the government is likely possible... but why are WE always the answer when they overspend? Why can't they just stop pissing all the money away on crap?

Those are my thoughts... thanks for listening...

B

According to a site called thetaxfoundation

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

in 1916 a married couple earning $250,000 paid a tax rate of 10%

in 1917 when WWI hit, the same couple, if I read this chart correctly, paid 46% to help finance the war

by 1925 things settled and they paid 25%

when the depression hit and FDR was elected, they paid 58%

by the time of WWII they paid 88%

So there is a logic. Times and huge events come up, expenses get incurred, the government raises taxes to finance the needs of the day. So what happened in recent years? Modern conservative thought has adopted this new theory that when times are good you cut taxes (Bush tax cuts) and when times are bad you cut taxes (today). How does that economic theory make any sense? Someone had to pay for all the bombs and soldiers, but nobody wanted to raise taxes to pay for this adventurous US policy. Now Obama is president and the very same people who just two years ago were all for financing wars on Visa and Amex suddenly want balanced budget amendments. They don't need an amendment for that, they just need Bill Clinton to tell them what to do.

The tax rates today are historically on the low end of the spectrum of the last 100 years. Not coincidentally, more and more money is being consolidated by an ever narrowing top tier of society. These people don't even want to cut loopholes for the wealthy. I never heard of a politician saying "I am pro loophole. I am pro legalized tax evasion if you have a good accountant" but there you have the republican position as it stands currently. And then to turn right around and want to cut social security and medicare? When each bomb costs tens of millions of dollars? If that is not class warfare, then I don't know what is.

That panel was interesting in that Jason Mamoa is the only one who has any charisma or sense of celebrity or an ability to be entertaining. Without him it would have been more like a funeral, and I think that is why they kept coming back to him. I am shocked he wears eye shadow even in his normal life, but I guess when you are 6'4 and 300 lbs of muscle you can wear whatever the hell you want.

Synopsis of the GoT's Comic Con panel: http://www.aoltv.com/2011/07/22/comic-con-game-of-thrones/

To me this is the most interesting part:

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lpL6F2hKgV8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PsZ-acZYqco" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

One scene I remember which I loved when I saw it on aol was Nola was drunk at Elliot's bar I think, and was just giving this lament about how it sucks to get old and become a has been no man wants. And again, today you see Erica portrayed 20 years younger than she is, characters like Alexis on GH are ten years younger than the actress playing her, and characters like Kate Roberts on DOOL never get old, they just get ever more fascinating to the men in their world. Nola got old, and she knew it.

I was just watching some of that story on Youtube...back when all the Madisons were still around. The scenes of drunk, pathetic Nola are tough to watch.

How old was Brian Madison supposed to be? The actor looked about the same age as Owen Madison.

I loved the Nola story. How refreshing that your leading lady and biggest name is not insisting on a glamorous role reeking of empowerment and status? Try finding someone like that today on soaps.

Game Of Lego

more

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dufresne07/

I love Kalysee and Arya too. Out of the guys I love Tyrion.

I just finished watching the entire season, and Kalysee owned in that last scene. I can't believe I have to wait til spring 2012 to watch season 2. The actor that plays king Jeoffrey(sp.) seriously is a good actor, I love to hate him.

Joffrey is the best. I don't know where they found this kid or how old he is, but he is the best villain on TV no exception. I do hope we see more of his grandfather next year because he looks like a real piece of work himself.

<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="+id+" width="400" height="336" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/swflash.cab"><param name="movie" value="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjExNzktNDc5ODQ?color=C93033" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MjExNzktNDc5ODQ?color=C93033" quality="high" wmode="transparent" width="400" height="336" allowfullscreen="true" name="clembedMjExNzktNDc5ODQ" align="middle" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

I think it makes a STRONG case for the democrats to go against popular conmvention and run a legitimate candidate in the primaries.

That's a sure fire way of handing the white house to the fundie freepers known as republicans. Anyone who believes Adam and Eve should be taught in school as science is not qualified to be President, but perhaps they could be an imam somewhere in a fundamental country they would feel right at home in.

From my admittedly partisan viewpoint, it looks like Obama is more than happy to cave in

Hasn't that been the defining characteristic of his entire presidency?

He is a joke in this regard. He was going to raise taxes back to the Clinton levels--not even raise them, just let the Bush cuts expire--and he caved in and then said with a straight face "ok, but NEXT TIME I am going to let those cuts expire!" His medical bill is an incomprehensible joke, he reneged on his pledge to end Guantanamo, he doubled down in Afghanistan, and here he comes again and sure enough if the republicans hold firm he will cave again.

Like Nancy Pelosi or hate her, she was tough. David Brooks, a conservative, wrote today in the Times,

Staunch Republicans argue that taxes are central to determining economic growth. Tax cuts, they argue, have huge positive benefits and tax increases have disastrous negative effects.

In the middle of the current budget negotiations, these Republicans argue that the tax increases the Democrats are proposing — ending some deductions for the affluent, hitting oil and gas companies — would be terrible for the economy. These unacceptable increases would be worse than the threat of national default, worse than a decade of gigantic deficits.

Not many Americans have this expansive view on the power of tax policy. According to the Gallup Organization, only 20 percent of Americans believe the budget deal should consist of spending cuts only. Even among Republicans, a plurality believes there should be a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts.

Yet the G.O.P. is now oriented around this 20 percent. It is willing to alienate 80 percent of voters and commit political suicide because of its faith in the power of tax policy.

this month, David Stockman, architect of Reaganomics, what all Republicans pledge allegiance to said this

Stockman said the “Republican position of no tax increases is absurd” and said Democrats “are way off base” in protecting Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare from spending cuts. Both are essential — and the current weakness of the economy “can’t be an excuse” for cutting the deficit now, he said. Stockman also criticized President Barack Obama for not more aggressively cutting the defense budget to cope with a “post Cold War, post 9-11 defense posture.”

If Mr Reaganomics says you have to raise taxes and cut the military alongside cut to entitlements, what the hell are these new Republicans waiting for?

I love Tina

The best character OLTL ever came up with I think, and Andrea Evans was just perfect in the role. People say she is OTT and whatever, but she held her with everybody.

the art deisign for these old ads are great. I love the almost camp OTT quality to them all.

It's too bad advertising is less fun these days.

Media darling Michelle Bachmann is returning to her roots, and going even more extreme. Not only has she signed a pledge that says homosexuality is a choice, the pledge also says that blacks were better off during slavery than they are now.

And she speaks for the hivemind and tops polls. But no, they're not evil I'm told.

All I gotta say is that it ain't workin' now, friends... Obama is NOT performing well at all.

No he is not. He never should have been the democratic nominee. That said, the idea of a republican president coming in who believes that man sprung up out of the ground and woman popped out of his rib is frightening. The country is in decline and everything all goes back to the quality of education. If you want to teach kids to believe fairy tales, then where will the scientists come from? If you want to ratchet up the contempt of education with nonsense like "don't trust him, he speaks french!" and "these college northeast elites are not real americans" then what you wind up with is a bunch of buffoons and ministers running for office all racing to shout from the highest hills they don't believe in global warming or evolution, and say the word "science" with a sneer.

Qfan, your statemant that anybody who has ever voted for a Republican is sickening is way out of line. For argument's sake, even if everything in the Republican Party platform is pure evil, there are still thankfully people in this society who base their voting decisions on the quality of the particular candidates in any given race, as opposed to basing those decisions on whether said candidates simply have an "R" or a "D" next to their names.

I stand by my statement. If you support a party that takes a government surplus, hands out tax cuts for the rich that creates whoppers of deficits, and then turns right around and says "look ma, we have no money! We have to cut programs for the poor!" and then comes back further with "P.S. It is unfair that the rich pay as much as they do, screw the poor, we want blood from a stone on top of our record profits", then that is your business. I don't even know how else to describe the tax and budget policies of the last 12 years or so, and if you don't find Orrin Hatch sickening, then shame on you too.

And as for R vs D and the quality of the candidates, I will look at the quality of any republican who repudiates the tea party, creationism, and supply side economics. You know of any?