text:
Republican Candidates Demonstrate Their Level of Intelligence and Sanity
How bad is it getting in the Republican Party these days? You'll have to see some of these stories to believe them. Hell, you might not even believe some of them afterwards they're so absurd.
The headline for the first one almost says it all:
Brilliant Carl Paladino Sends Out 200,000 Stink-Bomb Mailers
From TPM's AP Quote:
A garbage-scented mailing by nominee Carl Paladino features the photos of seven Democrats, six of whom have been investigated and two who have resigned in scandal in the past four years.
"Something STINKS in Albany," the mailer says. Paladino spokesman Michael Caputo told The Associated Press on Thursday that the mailer is scented with a "landfill" odor.
He says the smell will get worse the longer it is exposed, just like Albany.
Yes, you read that right. They're going to be putting obnoxious-smelling mailers out that only get worse over time. I hear Paladino's next bright political move is to deposit a bag of flaming dog crap on your doorstep and ring the doorbell.
Speaking of jokes, how about Christine O'Donnell? By now we all know that she thinks that if a young man masturbates, she's out of the picture. Does she have any idea how the basic thinking process here works? She says that's a youthful indiscretion, though.
Okay, Granted. Just like your accusation that the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered.
But then there's this accusation she made that Joe Biden had her phones tapped.
It doesn't get better when you read the article that the TPM Story was based upon:
Moore, who first decided to volunteer for O'Donnell after hearing about her at a meeting of college Republicans, said that at one point, O'Donnell talked to him about winning a lucrative television contract with CNN or Fox News Channel.
"I informed her that most media organizations prohibit their employees from running for office. She didn't seem to understand and was more interested in getting a contract," he recalled. "She was more concerned about getting a TV deal than winning office."
As the campaign entered the summer season, staff was instructed to compile a 10-page document examining how the distribution of tens of thousands of two-ounce suntan lotion packets could shake up the race, according to several members of O'Donnell's 2008 team.
O'Donnell's idea: To affix a clever slogan to packets that read: "Don't Get Burned By Higher Taxes. Vote Christine O'Donnell 2008" and distribute them at local parades.
"She wanted 100,000 of them," said Moore, who describes himself as "a strong conservative."
When aides told O'Donnell it was a bad idea and that the cash-poor campaign should conserve its resources for more practical items like signs and bumper stickers, Moore recalled, "She didn't take too kindly to that."
"It was an irresponsible idea," said David Keegan, who served as O'Donnell's financial officer. "And half the people in the street thought she was throwing condoms out of the truck."
And then there's this bit about mice with fully functional human brains.
Well maybe those mice could challenge the Republicans in the primaries later on, because it doesn't seem the regular people among the Republicans in Washington have fully functioning brains. They talk about Democrats being reckless in fiscal matters, and criticize the eight hundred billion dollar stimulus. Then they turn around and unveil a plan bound to add 4 trillion additional dollars in deficits to our fiscal picture over the next four years.
They would just about double the deficts with their proposals. They say, oh we should do spending cuts to offset this big tax cut! But do they have any solid concrete plan for what to cut that would pass? No.
Besides, Moody's Analytics would tell you, that instead of spending this money they were given, rich folks saved it, which reduced its stimulative value. Republicans talk about ineffective stimulus, but their favorite stimulus measures return less than a third of a dollar for every dollar taxpayers will have to spend.
So, whatever boasting they make, Republicans in Washington are mortgaging this country twice as far out as any Democrat is. They'll say that tax cuts aren't the same as spending increases, but that's BS when you're running a deficit because you'll have to spend to pay the money back either way. Only when you are cutting out of a surplus (as the plan was when the Republicans originally did it) do you get the money free and clear. Otherwise, it's a loan from the Chinese that you will have to spend to pay back.
And who pays back loans taken out by the treasury? You do, not to put too fine a point on it. In fact, its a big part of what we pay for every year as taxpayers, and its what makes what the Republicans do with deficit spending such a con job.
Candidate Joe Miller up in Alaska claims to be against big government an all that, but why don't we ask him about the thousands of dollars in farm subsidies this anti-big government crusader
opposed accepted?
Maybe it's the fact that he's Kansas born and bred, or maybe it was just the sweet smell of the great outdoors, barley, and a little extra folding money - whatever it was, senate candidate Joe Miller apparently decided after he came to Alaska, he'd try his hand at farming.
Farmer Joe bought himself a thousand acres in Alaska's Fairbanks North Star Borough. And what did he have a yen to grow on his arable land in the sleepy hollow of Delta Junction? Barley, it would appear.
But life as a farmer/ivy league attorney is tough. Sometimes a feller could use a helping hand. Maybe something like a nice check from… the Federal government! Joe's misguided intellectual and philosophical purity about how we shouldn't rely on the federal government for anything did not keep him from making a little extra cash on the side thanks to you the taxpayer. That's right, Mr. 'Who Needs the Feds?' collected more than $14,000 in federal farm subsidies between 1995 and 2003, including barley and conservation subsidies.
Sounds like another candidate I once wrote about.
The Republican may win this November, but with this kind of intellectual and policy firepower, I have no worries about permanent Republican majorities. I just worry America will have to suffer through another decade like the last one we just went through. Republican voters are going to have to realize that this stupidity and insanity from their candidates is not a bug in an otherwise great system, it's becoming a feature of the party. You can't count on the anxieties of the economy to make people ignore or overlook this stuff forever. It's time to pull the candidates off the table and get the lampshades off their heads.Posted by Stephen Daugherty at September 17, 2010 9:30 AM
Is this the best you can do Stephen, You can't comment on the merits of the Democrats running so you resort to smear. I guess that's why most Democrats up for reelection are running from Obama and his policies. If you want to talk smarts I have a 3 yr. old granddaughter that has more common sence and smarts then 90% of those who are in congress now. Most of what people are saying now is We want the establishment out get rid of the old career politicians and it dosen't matter if the are Republican or Democrat.Posted by: MAG at September 17, 2010 12:07 PM
I guess your essay boils down to the concluding thoughts: "The Republican may win this November, but with this kind of intellectual and policy firepower, I have no worries about permanent Republican majorities. I just worry America will have to suffer through another decade like the last one we just went through."
1. You are conceding Republican victory in November.
2. If it weren't for the democrat "intellectual and policy firepower"; the republicans wouldn't be looking at such a lopsided victory.
Posted by: Beretta9 at September 17, 2010 12:16 PM
3. Are you including the last 4 years, of democrat control, as part of the past decade?
My people have healthcare reform, extension of unemployment benefits in the face of Republican opposition, a very successful stimulus plan, tax cuts for the middle class, and other successes to their merit. In this economic crisis, worst since the Great Depression (by objective measurement of GDP lost), we've kept the unemployment rate below what it got to under Reagan, who didn't have half the problems Obama had.
You talk about replacing the establishment, but the candidates you're talking about will just take Republican policies to an even more heedless extreme, and I think its an excellent use of my time to point out just how out there the Republicans are by comparison. I mean, if you're saying the Republicans and Democrats are equally bad, send me the links and the quotes to demonstrate that there are Democrats running that are equally this bad.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 17, 2010 12:18 PM
Why are Democrats not running on those merits then Stephen? Lets see Stephen, Reid, Pelosi, Rangle, Waters. I'll tell you why Democrats won't campaign on the merits you mentioned is because a majority of people didn't support those measures. Try again Stephen. What candidates did I mention Stephen your reading things that aren't there again.Posted by: MAG at September 17, 2010 12:37 PM
There's no concession in my words, just wishful thinking in your reading of them.
Democrats have disappointed Americans, and have paid a political price for that. Republicans, though, have helped that disappointment come to pass by filibustering the Democratic Majority at record rates throughout its tenure. That includes most of the four years you're talking about.
It's interesting that you can approve of and cheer on that obstructionism, yet not feel that the Republicans don't deserve to be held responsible for the effects of that in policy terms.
We Democrats are hard at work trying to make it clear to our folks in Washington that what we want is greater competence, greater affinity with the middle and working class Americans and their priority, and less adherence to the tired tenets of Reaganism.
The Tea party, on the other hand, is basically an amplification of all the terrible tendencies on the right, including their pathological position on taxes, their tolerance for craziness and stupidity in the ranks, and their reflexive closing of ranks around any Republican who gets criticized.
The Tea Party will not fix what is wrong with the GOP, that is, it's pathological policies. The Democrat's Netroots movement will go a long way to putting steel in the party's backbone and rallying it to stronger showings, in this election or the next one. I'll take my party's eventual direction over your party's inevitable failure.
Reid's done some things to rehabilitate his image, helping to arrange some Democratic successes on Healthcare and on unemployment payments. That Sharron Angle is a complete basketcase only helps that rehabilitation. Pelosi? Well, Pelosi has done a very good job of herding the cats on Capitol Hill, and has helped lead the Democrats to some spectacular legislative victories.
Pelosi gets tarred and feathered by the Right because she's majority leader. It's a convenient handle onto which they latch their one-size-fits-all sliming of the Democrat's leadership.
Rangel and Waters are not being protected or coddled by either the Democrats or their base. Most Democrats would just as soon see them gone.
Where is the Republican's drive to toss the idiots I described above overboard? They'll cheer on anybody who says the right words, and circle wagons around their morons.
So you tell me: How are the Democrats equalling the depths to which the Republicans have sunk?Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 17, 2010 12:59 PM
They have a hard time explaining how all their desires being met will benefit America or Americans. What they don't have a problem with is bragging about how they are on the 'winning' side. But, Even when they 'win' they lose…er…maybe, whenever they 'win' they lose…er…perhaps when they 'win' we all lose?
O'Donnell 'wins' the primary in Delaware, but they lose because they're stuck with her in November.
If O'Donnell 'wins' in November, they lose because they are stuck with her in the Senate.
Assuming she introduces some of the crap she's been spewing, they are stuck with having to defend her actions.
In a long shot and some of that crap actually becomes law, they lose because the future has to live with it.
They believe this is just the beginning, and that they will continue to 'win' into the future, so we can amplify O'Donnell by a factor they make up…perhaps a hundred? So, their losses will increase exponentially.
There is no problem with that, except we as a nation will have to regress to Victorian morality and robber baron economies, slavery, indentured servitude, sweatshops. See? Even if they 'win' they lose, and take us down with them.Posted by: Marysdude at September 17, 2010 2:18 PM
It is not that they are evil people, it is that they cannot seem to understand that there are consequences attached to 'winning'.Posted by: Marysdude at September 17, 2010 2:24 PM
We know that your people have healthcare, reform, extension of unemployment benefits, stimulus plan…that's why they are losing.
In fact, as much as I want the government to start lessoning its role in my daily life (and in my check book), I might be willing to PAY your people to take all of those back…Posted by: Adam at September 17, 2010 2:25 PM
Mr. Daugherty wrote; "we've kept the unemployment rate below what it got to under Reagan, who didn't have half the problems Obama had."
I don't have the time or inclination to counter all the BS contained in Mr. Daugherty's comments so I will just write a few words on the comment above.
Did Reagan spend nearly a trillion dollars (1,000,000 million) to buy jobs? Did Reagan increase the number of government employees by hundreds of thousands? The answer to both questions is NO. Any idiot, including obama can spend money to buy jobs. Real jobs, those that add to the GDP are created by private business, not by government fiat and increased taxes.
And that is the fundamental difference between conservatives and libersocialists. And, that is why this crazy bunch only represents less than 15% of the electorate.Posted by: Royal Flush at September 17, 2010 2:52 PM
"The fact is, as the Tea Party has surged, so has the G.O.P. When this primary season began in early February, voters wanted Democrats to retain control of Congress by 49 percent to 37 percent, according to an Associated Press-Gfk poll. In the ensuing months, Tea Party candidates won shocking victories in states from Florida to Alaska. The most recent A.P./Gfk poll now suggests that Americans want Republicans to take over Congress by 46 percent to 43 percent."
NY TimesPosted by: Royal Flush at September 17, 2010 3:25 PM
Well Stephen you have circled around the morons in congress for the last 4yrs and look what it got us 9.6% unemployment, trillions of dollars more in debt and a President who don't know his butt hole from a hole in the ground. People are sending a message that you don't seem to get. It's incumbents no matter what party they want out. We don't want politics as usual, and especially your liberal policies.Posted by: MAG at September 17, 2010 3:36 PM
This is YOUR statement: "The Republican may win this November". Now you're telling me you did not say this. Now did you say the Republicans may win in November or not?
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH; the same old talk, its Republicans fault, they obstructed, they filibustered, they did this, and they did that. Don't you guys on the left ever get tired of blaming someone else? Obama can't open his mouth without blaming someone else. So I guess it's reasonable to expect his little puppets to say the same thing.
"We Democrats are hard at work trying to make it clear to our folks in Washington that what we want is greater competence, greater affinity with the middle and working class Americans and their priority, and less adherence to the tired tenets of Reaganism."
And we conservatives in the TP are working hard to make it clear to Washington, we are sick and tired of taxes and the out of control spending, and want more adherence to the tenets of Reaganism.
If the beliefs of the TP are so bad, why are they becoming so popular?
I have to agree with Royal Flush; Mr. Daugherty is nothing more than a partisan liberal democrat and lacks the ability to understand what is going on with the American voters.Posted by: Beretta9 at September 17, 2010 3:56 PM
Royal Flush - can you find one job that has been lost due to Obama tax increases? So who is stopping the private sector from this magical boom?
Why do you only see jobs under Reagan? What about Clinton? Selective vision?
And lastly - I agree about cutting spending. Let's start by axing medicare altogether.Posted by: Schwamp at September 17, 2010 4:00 PM
Schwamp asks; "Royal Flush - can you find one job that has been lost due to Obama tax increases? So who is stopping the private sector from this magical boom."
Sorry you missed my point. I wrote that most of the obama jobs were done with government spending, not private business as in the Reagan era. I didn't mention Clinton because it was not in Mr. Daughertys remarks which is what I was responding to.Posted by: Royal Flush at September 17, 2010 4:20 PM
Schwamp…here is an example of the jobs obama and his libersocialists are creating. Tell me what you think. I can offer more examples if you like.
"The Los Angeles City Controller said on Thursday the city's use of its share of the $800 billion federal stimulus fund has been disappointing.
The city received $111 million in stimulus under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) approved by the Congress more than year ago.
"I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million," says Wendy Greuel, the city's controller, while releasing an audit report. ($2.02 million per job)
"With our local unemployment rate over 12% we need to do a better job cutting red tape and putting Angelenos back to work," she added.
According to the report, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works generated only 45.46 jobs (the fraction of a job created or retained correlates to the number of actual hours works) after receiving $70.65 million, while the target was 238 jobs.
Similarly, the city's department of transportation, armed with a $40.8 million fund, created only 9 jobs in place of an expected 26 jobs"
Just imagine, the expection was 26 jobs with $40.8 million. Hmmm, that works out to $1.569 million per job and they actually could only "create" 9 jobs.
Is it any wonder Schwamp that the TEA party is winning primaries with this kind of wasteful spending and ignorant public policy?
Schwamp, if you pay taxes doesn't this rile you up…just a little?
Here are a few reasons why the RINO Castle was defeated Mr. Daugherty. Electing Castle as the next senator would only benefit the libersocialists. I'll take O'Donnell any day.
"Castle earned the ire of conservatives for votes in favor of the bailouts, the stimulus, and energy legislation that would impose a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions; critics say such a system would drive up the cost of energy. He voted against the health-care overhaul but would not support repealing it."
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20100916_Reading_the_tea_leaves_on_O_Donnell_vs__Coons_in_Delaware.htmlPosted by: Royal Flush at September 17, 2010 5:34 PM
"Did Reagan increase the number of government employees by hundreds of thousands?"
Yes. He increased the number of civilian government employees by 200,000 to 250,000 depending on the source. If you take into account military personnel, the number of government employees increased significantly under Reagan. He is one of only two presidents since 1962 to increase the ratio of executive branch government employees to the general population. The other was the JFK/LBJ presidency. The champion reducer of government employees was Bill Clinton. Those are the facts.Posted by: Rich at September 17, 2010 6:05 PM
"Real jobs, those that add to the GDP are created by private business, not by government fiat and increased taxes."
Unfortunately, Royal Flush, the private sector is not producing jobs. That is a fact. It is not a new phenomena. During the last recession, despite historic tax cuts by the Bush administration, job creation was anemic during the recovery phase. It was a jobless recovery. This economic downturn was much more severe with wealth loss approximating 13 trillion dollars in 2009. The private sector is underwater. The limit of consumer demand driven by debt and supported by asset bubbles has been reached. Ranting against the government won't fix the private sector. What are your suggestions?
What exactly are you suffering personally, due to all those policy?
Is it just making you feel bad?
Royal Flush-
Republican thinking on taxes is so full of **** I want to scream. Just thinking about it gets me furious because it's the worst kind of con game.
Republicans want to act like it's free money. Go check the budget under the Treasury Department. Hundreds of billions goes to service debt. Got that? Well what does that mean?
The American government promise a return on investment for those who buy treasury bonds. And unless we want to go into sovereign default, we pay the buyers back.
Any deficit dollar, whether it's a deficit caused by greater spending, or one caused by not taxing people enough to pay for spending, is a dollar that must be paid back, and a future budget item for spending in a future budget.
In short, any money you "give back" to the American people in that manner will have to come back out of their pocket out at a future date.
That is the bull**** Reagan sold this country on. Debt has skyrocketed in this country every since, under every subsequent Republican President. And that is the policy that is set to cost us an additional 4 trillion dollars in deficit spending over the next ten years according to YOUR PARTY'S PLAN!
So why am I getting the fiscal lecture? Why are Democrats being saddled with the image of being irresponsible? You would double our eventual debt, just to give money back to people who don't need it, and will likely just save it rather than spending it to stimulate the economy. We will lose more than sixty seven cent on every dollar worth of stimulus the GOP tries with that. What is the frigging point of your policy?
As for GDP, do you know what the expenditure method for determining GDP is?
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
In other words, Government spending is literally part of the equation for economic growth. It shouldn't be all of it, of course. But it's not segregated economically the way you seem to imply it is. Even if the job is paid for by government spending, what do you think actually happens to the money after it's spent by those who got the jobs? It doesn't vanish into thin air, it circulates, and helps private businesses pay the bills.
Since fewer companies went under, since whole industries, like the car companies, didn't go out of business, they are now free to employ and pay people who otherwise would have been out of the job, on assistance, and not contributing what they could to the economy.
Republicans have been surpressing liberal policy the whole way, for two years with Bush's veto, for four years with their record breaking filibustering.
Has it even occured to you that people might want more, rather than less liberal policy, that people may simply be desperate to find somebody who can do something?
And why is it that people want incumbents out?
Record breaking deficits. Whose spending, whose tax cuts brought that on?
An economy in the crapper. Whose policies brought that on?
A failure to deliver needed assistance. Whose party, even now, gets in the way of that?
When people bash how Washington works, has it occured to you that they're bashing the gridlock as much as anything else?
Who's responsible for that gridlock? Conservatives desperately trying to hang onto power.
But the laughable thing here is, because of the way the Tea Party is set up, if Republicans do anything but worse, they'll lose their next elections. They can't raise taxes, even if they need to. They can't spend money on stimulus that they spent Obama's entire administration bashing.
They can't cooperate with Democrats without shooting their election chances in the foot. They can't do much in the way of reform without running afoul of their libertarian constituency, or their corporate sponsors.
Can you tell me what the hell good the Right can do for this country? There's a reason these folks sell themselves on opposition to Obama. They can't do anything else! Given the successes of the stimulus, the question is, where would unemployment be if Democrats could really do what they wanted to do?
I don't get tired of holding people responsible for what they've done, especially when they keep on doing it.
As for the Tenets of Reaganism? Reagan increased spending, increased deficits, increased the size of government.
The tenets of Reaganism is doing everything the Democrats do, but not paying for it and then lying to the American people about what you're actually doing.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 17, 2010 7:27 PM
Mr. Daugherty wows us with his comment about GDP (taken word for word from Wikipedia) by writing; "As for GDP, do you know what the expenditure method for determining GDP is?
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)"
He doesn't bother to clairfy from Wikipedia what government spending is counted nor does he bother to inform the readers of the two other methods of calculating GDP.
From Wikipedia…"G (government spending) is the sum of government expenditures on final goods and services. It includes salaries of public servants, purchase of weapons for the military, and any investment expenditure by a government. It does not include any transfer payments, such as social security or unemployment benefits"
Mr. Daugherty in his comments touts his "fact-finding" ability. Hmmm…how about all the facts Mr. D?Posted by: Royal Flush at September 17, 2010 7:55 PM
Stephen, You and Obama have a lot in common, both of you like to blame the other guy. Stephen your comment to me makes no sence since all I am saying is that people want to vote out incumbents of both parties. As far as answering your questions 1.People are tired of politics as usual. 2. Bush's tax cuts and Obama and companies spending 3. Bush and Obama 4. What needed assistance if you are talking about unemployment Republicans just want to know how it was going to be funded without adding to the already ridiculous deficit. 5 & 6 Democrats because of the decension in your own party. Conservatives trying top hang on to power????? What power? Democrats can't cooperate with democrats so what's your point. What good is the left doing for this country except putting this country farther and farther in debt? If the Democrats could do what they really want with the unemployment situation I expect the figure to be at least twice what it is now.Posted by: MAG at September 17, 2010 8:01 PM
A writer above wrote; "Given the successes of the stimulus, the question is, where would unemployment be if Democrats could really do what they wanted to do."
Well of course, we would have full employment as government would have hired hundreds of thousands of more workers. We would have government employed sheep and goat herders, clowns, magicians, barrel makers, harriers, jesters, milkmaids, fence sitters, manual street sweepers, official light bulb changers, face painters and such. What a wonderful world it would be if only obama and the libersocialists could get their way.Posted by: Royal Flush at September 17, 2010 8:23 PM
Does it ever occur to conservative posters that it was the private sector that went into the tank in 2007-2009. It was private sector debt which reached 350% of GDP in 2008 that blew up. Does it ever occur to conservatives that without increased federal spending to make up the gap resulting from the drop in aggregate demand and output that the recession and unemployment would be much worse. Does it ever occur to conservatives that without the Fed acting as lender of last resort and the TARP bailout that the banking and credit system would have collapsed.
Characterizing the increased deficit spending over the past two years as some liberal fantasy is to ignore the elephant in the room, a struggling private sector economy. The deficit spending of the past two years can almost entirely be attributed to the collapse of the financial sector and its impact on the general economy. This is not some liberal analysis. It is the opinion of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, a long time conservative and Friedman disciple. Bernanke has repeatedly stated that both fiscal (deficit spending) and monetary stimulus continues to be needed to support the private sector and to avoid deflation and a double dip.
What is terribly discouraging in these debates is the tendency of conservatives, particularly of the Tea Party variety, to absolutely ignore the reality of our economic circumstances. No bailouts. No stimulus. No Fed loans to the banks. Just let everything go bankrupt. Just as long as you cut my taxes and cut spending. There seems to be no recognition of the consequences.Posted by: Rich at September 17, 2010 9:15 PM
Royal Flush,
You want the private sector to produce jobs. OK, so does everyone. But why has the private sector not produced jobs? It didn't under the Bush tax cuts and deregulation. What is your analysis of this problem? What is your solution?Posted by: Rich at September 17, 2010 9:18 PM
Stephen, You and Obama have a lot in common, both of you like to blame the other guy.
Oh, I'm just a blaming blamer. You know, you're not answer the question that really should determine what credibility people lend to me: Am I right, or wrong, and why?
Instead, you attack us as being irresponsible individuals who try to shift blame onto others. Has it occured to you that the whole point of the argument, ironically enough, is to help shift blame for Republican policies onto Obama?
People are tired of politics as usual.This kind of rationalizing of stupidity, this kind of scapegoating for all the problems of the country, that's been the politics as usual, as liberals like myself have experienced it. Republicans blamed us and liberal policies for everything they got wrong.
So if you accept their BS, their arguments, their vilification of Democrats, then in my eyes, you're not standing for a change from the politics as usual.
The politics I wanted was a politics where the Republicans realized they were out of balance with the rest of the country, and quit dividing everybody against each other, where they would start compromising as we did so often, and let this country heal from nastiness of the politics.
Instead, what do I see? Things get even worse!
So understand this: if the Tea Party tactics succeeds, that's the intensification of Washington's political sickness, not its cure. They will simply create more gridlock, more deficit spending, more of everything most people don't want to see anything more of. And it won't be necessarily because they're out to destroy the country, it will be because they are so blindly, uncompromisingly dedicated to proving themselves right that they won't telling from anybody that they've failed.
2. Bush's tax cuts and Obama and companies spending
Bush's tax cuts were elective, unnecessary. They only served to make a deficit bloated by unrestrained spending worse. Obama, on the other hand was faced with an economic crisis of such great proportions that people were starting to talk about capitalism in the past tense.
What point is there to trying to fix the fiscal situation, if you don't have the money in the economy to pay for your austerity? There's a good reason Clinton could kill the deficits the way he could: he had genuine boom times on his watch, and the economic growth helped swallow the deficits, helped close them up.
Conservatives are trying to squeeze blood from a stone, because they are looking at this situation from the wrong end of the telescope. They are behaving like inflation is the threat, when we haven't been further from that kind of inflation in over seventy years. You can't tell them anything about that though. They insist on seein the economy in terms of the Post-Vietnam era. Everything's a replay of when inflation and interest rates were double digits, even then the first now is weak as hell, and the second is set at zero.
How do I convey the uniqueness of our situation here, the necessity for emergency spending? Can I convey that? Can Conservative and Republicans exercise the kind of open-mindedness necessary to see things in terms of things other than inflation busting?
What needed assistance if you are talking about unemployment Republicans just want to know how it was going to be funded without adding to the already ridiculous deficit.
That's right. So they would let millions of people lose their benefits just to make that point. What cost should people be willing to pay to let Republicans operate their politics as usual? What do we do, cut stimulus package funds that would get more people jobs, to extend unemployment? Or maybe we cut some other program, bleed people somewhere else so we can extend those benefits?
The truth is, our economy is in terrible shape, and letting people slip out of the ranks of paying consumers will only make it worse. Republicans and folks on the right say they are concerned about deficits, but then unveil a plan that adds four trillion dollars to the deficit.
So you tell me, what am I to make of this? Squeeze the poor and unemployed, lavish tax cuts on the rich? How the hell does this work? We can break the bank to help those who don't need it, who won't spend the money like they're supposed to, who don't create jobs… But we have to be careful and stingy with those in need? What kind of ****ed up system is this? And how is this not a continuation of the same crap Bush did?
You can talk about my party putting this country further and further into debt, but it wasn't my party who were the architects of this plan. And right now, it's not my party that's ignoring the plight of the unemployed. We're helping provide money to the small businesses who need it to grow and hire more people.
Republicans? They're inventing every reason in the book to say no. We're not, as Royal Flush talks about, just doing make-work policy. We're aiming things where they'll work the best.
Royal Flush-
Libersocialists. Convenient that you use a made-up word to cap a made up story, about a made-up version of my party.
Have you ever bothered to ask a liberal what they actually think rather than just telling them yourself? You can convince yourself of a lot of silly things about people, if you're unwilling to listen to them when they tell you what they really believe.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 17, 2010 10:25 PM
Stephen, All I am saying is that people want incumbents of both parties voted out and you go off on your usual bash Republican rant. I blame both parties for the shape this country is in, Bush and his tax cuts and growing government and Obama and his spending. If you haven't figured it out yet Government can't create jobs, unless they are Government jobs but everyone can't work in government. Private sector is the job creators, but when government sticks their noses to far into the private sector the private sector tells government to go to hell and they sit on their funds as they are doing now. Corporations are moving out because of excessive regulations, and taxes. Government has to give insentives to the private corporations to get them to hire more Taxing them more isn't going to get them to hire. As far as the unemployed there is just so much the government can hand out,it can't keep extending benefits inefinitly. There is a point where government has to say this isn't working and time to try something else to get things turned around spending more isn't the answer.Posted by: MAG at September 17, 2010 11:12 PM
I can't make heads nor tails of your argument. You blame both parties, fine, a lot of a parties do the same.
But then you repeat every talking point the Republicans have been putting out. Government spending, you say, doesn't create jobs. Private sector chickens out of making money and creating jobs because it doesn't like regulatory burdens. Too much taxes, too much regulation, etc.
What's the point of calling yourself an independent, then? You're buying into most of the justifications for what happened in the last ten years. These are the excuses I've heard from the Republicans for pushing the tax cuts, for pushing the deregulation, and for avoiding making the reforms that would have prevented the consequences we're leaving with now.
If you don't think differently, if you simply let your brain get drawn to the same conclusions over and over again, your actions and your votes will follow, and you might as well have claimed yourself a Republican for all the things you would say and do.
You can split yourselves up into a million factions, but if on election day you do the same things, there's absolutely no point to it.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 17, 2010 11:55 PM
Stephen, I am a conservative and I follow conservative ideology as you follow liberal democratic ideology. I do not like what congress is pushing and I think it is time for a change. Your liberal policies are not working. If my points are more to the Republican side then I guess that's the side that is more to my conservative liking but that dosen't mean that if a Democrat is on the conservative side that I won't vote for him or her.Posted by: MAG at September 18, 2010 12:13 AM
In comment #308680 you listed successes, gotta tell ya those are failures.
In comment #308684 obstructionism was a word used, but improperly applied. You really don't know anything about the Tea Party. MSNBC's staff has fed you a line.
Waters and Rangel you don't care about. How about Reid. Putting an amnesty bill into the military appropriations bill is shameful. How lo can he go.
Comment #308709 questions why jobs are being created. If Obama gets his tax increase it will heavily damage small business and no jobs will be created.
Sounds like SD has hit the panic button on the election. He just can't bring himself to see how the voters in the country see it. "Republican Candidates Demonstrate Their Level of Intelligence and Sanity". The elitist is crawling out of ya SD face the facts. Liberal nonsense never worked and it is not working now.
What a shameful way to celebrate Constitution Day, by spewing all that phaf.Posted by: tom humes at September 18, 2010 1:57 AM
"Comment #308709 questions why jobs are [not] being created. If Obama gets his tax increase it will heavily damage small business and no jobs will be created."
First of all, it is the Republican tax increase. Did you forget that? Obama is simply proposing that the scheduled Republican tax increases for the middle class be rescinded.
I will ask again, why has the private sector not been creating jobs?Posted by: Rich at September 18, 2010 6:28 AM
Democrats have barely had 2 years to clean up the 8 years of Bush. This is the problem with Americans we want things done now-immediate results. It took years to get us where we are today-there is nothing that can get us out of it over night. Republicans can't do it and neither can democrats. We have no way of knowing what kind of shape we would be in if McCain had won-better or worse? My guess is we would be much worse off. To whine right now about the 9+% unemployment doesn't lower unemployment-tell us far right visitors exactly what needs to be done to get unemployment at 2 or 3% oh and do it overnight please. I would like to wake up in the morning with as many people working as possible and if you say tax cuts-tell me how that will help.
As far as the nuts that the republicans are supporting right now, I hope that they do not win as it will be a sad day for our country. NOTHING will get done and you think the unemployment numbers are high now!!! If the republicans should take back control of congress, it would be fun to watch McConnell and Boehner trying to control the nuts that got elected as I think they(the nuts) will refuse to support anything that McConnell and Boehner are trying to pass. The inability of the nuts to follow procedure should make for a lot of good material for Jon Stewart. But please note I said "would be fun not WILL be fun" because sadly the outcome for the American people would be devastating.
The reason that dems are having difficulty right now is that corporate America thanks to the supreme court can now control every election. They have the money to spend and will do their best to insure that dems don't win because we all know that in the great country of ours-its the rich that matter, its that dollar that counts, its that millionaire and what he/she wants that drives the republicans to eat their own to please the master. Oh and before ending let me at least lump into that group the blue dogs who are as bad as the republicans.Posted by: Carolina at September 18, 2010 8:29 AM
My liberal policies ARE working, but they are constantly being held back by a Republican Party who considers the last election a clerical mistake.
Tell me something: Why are you not a Republican if you're still a conservative? You don't have to vote straight Republican to be a Republican.
If you're truly independent, you can step back for a moment and say, "is this assumption on the Republican's part true, or is their position false?" The best reason I could think of to become an independent is to get of the Party's treadmill of self-interested propaganda, to be a conservative, but a conservative who deals with things as they really are, rather than merely as the party says they are.
tom humes-
You say they are failures. Why should I believe you? Failure leaves evidence, produce that evidence. I'll produce evidence of success.
About the tea party MSNBC feeds me nothing, I listen to what people say, and I compare it to what I remember Republicans saying. Sad to say they're not that different. They favor the same tax policies while they turn around and decry Bush's deficits. If I am wrong, again, prove me wrong.
On Reid, I don't mind the DREAM act being put into that bill, because it basically allows those who came into this country through no fault of their own to earn the right to be officially what by virtue of their growing up here they are unofficially: Americans.
I just love how you folks always take solutions off the table, but don't present an alternative. All you have is fear and hate here. Why not a conditional amnesty? Why not clear the decks of the wreckage of the conservative's policies?
What else do you have to support this position other than contempt for me, and others who disagree? How do you expect to deal with the immigration problem? Don't tell me you have a magic wand, which when waved, would deport all those illegal aliens instantly. You can talk tough, but just what the hell can you and those with your attitudes do?
Next, I can address your point on Small Business: less than two percent of businesses actually make enough to be effected. How is this tax supposed to crush them, if it barely applies to small businesses at all? Besides, if I'm not mistaken, even those top two percent effected aren't going to see more than just the margin of their profits taxed. What kind of monstrous tax are you imagining that would have this effect? The math doesn't support your claim of small business armageddon.
Also, if you go back through my links, you'll see a Report that says raising taxes encouraged the rich to spend their money, rather than save it. Seems like when people make less money, they strive to make more, they actually do things rather than sitting around counting their money.
Far more harmful has been the lack of capital investment and backing of small business. But that's the private sector's fault. They so locked up their balance sheets with all those derivatives that they don't know what they're able to lend.
As for me being an elitist? See, you call me that while you support tax policies that benefit the top two percent mainly. Isn't that charming?
I don't think it's elitist to despise stupidity and not take the nutsos seriously. An egalitarian society is not about turning a blind eye to foolishness and madness. An Egalitarian society is based on the believe that the average person has every bit as much intelligence, as much wit and wisdom, and as much level-headness as some rich and/or powerful person.
And to make it really work in my opinion, we don't simply channel the views of the elite down from above. We figure out things for ourselves. Now when some woman decides that a priority of her campaign will be tossing out packets of sunscreen, and that doing this will be some kind of game changer in the election, I feel I have the right as an intelligent American, equal to her and anybody else to think that this is collosally stupid!
I don't have to accept that its somehow fine to send out a mailer that's going to deliberately fill people's mailboxes with a landfill odor! I don't have to accept it on authority from above that somehow four trillion dollars of additional debt, a doubling of our eventual debtload, is somehow a good thing. I don't!
I think of myself as the equal of anybody here, and I won't let anybody try to put me in my place.
Especially on the Constitution. Why don't you guys recognize that not everybody has the same opinion about what it means, and that's why we have our judicial branch, to decide such disputes? The Right's gotten so authoritarian and overbearing about it, and I think its arrogant the way they dump on the rest of us for not agreeing with their radical interpretation. I am an American. I am not a second class human being, much less a second class American for disagreeing with them on what the constitution means. I will not take the right's BS on things sitting down!Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2010 11:10 AM
"On Reid, I don't mind the DREAM act being put into that bill, because it basically allows those who came into this country through no fault of their own to earn the right to be officially what by virtue of their growing up here they are unofficially: Americans."
Through no fault of their own they enter the US. What???
Terrorists deserve the right to be Americans too?????
You refuse to listen to the solutions of others and you certainly aren't going to listen to me even tho I have given those solutions.
"… you support tax policies that benefit the top two percent mainly." Where have I done that? Put your rabbit and hat away, dude.
"I don't think it's elitist to despise stupidity and not take the nutsos seriously. An egalitarian society is not about turning a blind eye to foolishness and madness. An Egalitarian society is based on the believe that the average person has every bit as much intelligence, as much wit and wisdom, and as much level-headness as some rich and/or powerful person."
Unless they are a Republican or that you think they are a Republican.
"Especially on the Constitution. Why don't you guys recognize that not everybody has the same opinion about what it means, and that's why we have our judicial branch, to decide such disputes? The Right's gotten so authoritarian and overbearing about it, and I think its arrogant the way they dump on the rest of us for not agreeing with their radical interpretation. I am an American. I am not a second class human being, much less a second class American for disagreeing with them on what the constitution means. I will not take the right's BS on things sitting down!"
Who said anything about class? You have injected that crap. "Radical interpretation"? Anything you disagree with appears to be radical.
All right if you don't want to take it sitting down then stand up and take it, only your surprise is that honey and BS are different. Liberals are all inclusive so I wanted to make sure of understanding the difference of honey and BS.Posted by: tom humes at September 18, 2010 11:55 AM
Right Stephen your liberal policies are working, 111 million dollars to create 55 jobs in L.A. and the list goes on.Posted by: MAG at September 18, 2010 12:16 PM
Constitution Day? How weird is that? Are we living out a scene from Joseph Heller's "Catch 22"? Will we find a way to take loyalty oaths 365 days a year, dozens of times a day?
And if not, why not? What's wrong with you guys? Aren't you loyal? If sufficiently loyal and patriotic, you should have no reason not to take an oath again and again and again. Get cracking-
-unless, of course, you are disloyal.Posted by: phx8 at September 18, 2010 12:26 PM
tom humes-
Through no fault of their own they enter the US. What???
Oh, you know, their parents take them over when they're small kids. You know, when they're helpless, can't fend for themselves on their own. I know you're required by Conservative doctrine to be shocked, but it's really not that complicated.
Terrorists deserve the right to be Americans too?????
[Scratches head.] Pardon? Who the hell said anything about terrorists? I mean, besides you in your attempt to make this into somethign scary.
You refuse to listen to the solutions of others and you certainly aren't going to listen to me even tho I have given those solutions.
So, you're going to let my resistance to your ideas intimidate you into silence? I wouldn't let that happen to myself. Is it just that you can't defend your opinion so well, so you're keeping it out of the debate so you don't have to admit it's a loser of a proposition?
If you're going to offer an opinion in the real world, be prepared to defend it. I'm not going to mollycoddle my fellow Americans who don't have the confidence to offer their views.
Where have I done that? Put your rabbit and hat away, dude.
If you support the Bush tax cuts being renewed for everybody, if you support the proposal in Congress for additional renewals, that's exactly what you're supporting. Sorry you didn't get told the truth by the pundits on the right, but that's where most of the trillions of dollars will be going to.
"I don't think it's elitist to despise stupidity and not take the nutsos seriously. An egalitarian society is not about turning a blind eye to foolishness and madness. An Egalitarian society is based on the believe that the average person has every bit as much intelligence, as much wit and wisdom, and as much level-headness as some rich and/or powerful person."
Unless they are a Republican or that you think they are a Republican.
Mister, I will compete to get the upperhand against the Republicans. But I believe in, and hold true to a system that will allow them to talk back and fight back to regain what they lost. I believe in the market place of ideas, that people should have equal opportunity to convince others, but not expect equal success in their persuasion.
It's only in your mind that I make such an exception to my expressed principles I heap heavy amounts of criticism on the Republicans, and I consider their politics and policies inferior. But, that, I acknowledge is my opinion, and I've met enough conservatives to know that they are not all like the folks I'm ripping up, up in my article.
If anything, my article above is about the proposition that Republicans should get better people than this in candidacy and in office if they're want any kind of sustainable success in politics. If you coddle the stupid and the crazy in your politics, you will pay the price. Coddling and forcing support for Bush, I think is a huge part of why people like this are coming out of the woodworks in the Republican Party. Republicans so had to lower their standards to make Bush an acceptable, re-electable leader, to suppress the damage that his incompetence did to them politically, that they had to define deviancy down. If somebody like Bush could be a major candidate, so could somebody like Palin or O'Donnell.
I yearn for the days when Republicans took government seriously, when even if they didn't want to expand it, they at least admitted there was a need for it. Where their response to crises was not to bury their heads like ostriches, and vote to continue the status quo through heedless obstruction.
I want moderates back in charge of that party. To that end, I will support counterbalancing Democrats with greater fervor, and I will satirize bad, stupid, or insane candidates and policies with a clear conscience.
As for Radical? I will admit that radical is a subjective term. But I think I can get other people to agree with me on what constitutes radicalism.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2010 12:34 PM
But why has the private sector not produced jobs? It didn't under the Bush tax cuts and deregulation. What is your analysis of this problem? What is your solution?
Posted by: Rich at September 17, 2010
Answered and posted numerous times. In a word…incentive. I don't know about Rich, but most everyone I know that works does so because they have an incentive to earn money. Why would business be any different?
"Have you ever bothered to ask a liberal what they actually think rather than just telling them yourself? You can convince yourself of a lot of silly things about people, if you're unwilling to listen to them when they tell you what they really believe."
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 17, 2010
I don't ask on this blog as there is no need to, they volunteer their mentally disordered libersocialism every day. In fact, SD writes books on the subject.
SD also wrote; "Failure leaves evidence, produce that evidence. I'll produce evidence of success."
Well SD, that blows your past comments about "facts" right out of the water. Silly, Silly, but glad the real you has emerged.
Another gem from SD…"How do you expect to deal with the immigration problem? Don't tell me you have a magic wand, which when waved, would deport all those illegal aliens instantly."
As this recession and lack of jobs has proved beyond doubt, it is jobs (and free government benefits at taxpayer expense) that lure most illegals. Many illegals have left the country for want of jobs and even AliBama has told America that. Get tough on employers hiring illegals and they will leave on their own. close the border to keep new ones out. Eliminate the government freebies. Problem solved.Posted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2010 1:00 PM
SD wrote; "I believe in the market place of ideas, that people should have equal opportunity to convince others, but not expect equal success in their persuasion."
Finally, a comment with which I can agree. It is so sad that SD doesn't apply the same logic to other areas of his comments. The libersocialist in most every area of American life insists that equal opportunity must be accompanied by equal success. They call it "social justice" which is just another bullshit term for taking from those who work and giving to those to lazy to work.
I have observed that some of the liberalsocialists writing here in the past few weeks have become hysterical in their rantings. Deep depression seems to be settling in and I am concerned about their mental health. As soon as the new HC legislation kicks in (if not rescinded or unfunded before that) I suggest they seek out professional help.Posted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2010 1:12 PM
I'm a little confused again…wow…I stay that way a lot.
RF says those of us on the left are not liberal nor progressive. He says that we are 'liberalsocialists'…hmmm…oh, well, everyone to his or her own.
He says that many on the left here are off their collective rockers, and that they need some medical assistance just to survive, and should be glad President Obama has our back with health care.
He says that certain posters and bloggers here on the left write too much…don't think good…have only 'liberalsocialist' things to say.
What is it about Watchblog posters on the left that keeps him coming back…day after day…after day…after day…after day…etc., etc., etc?Posted by: Marysdude at September 18, 2010 1:32 PM
Great question Marysdude…thanks for asking why I visit Watchblog whenever I can.
1) It is great entertainment and is virtually free.
2) To defeat one's political enemy one must know how they think and reason. I learn much from my political opponents on this site and am grateful to Watchblog and Mr. David Remer for all their hard work and expense keeping it going.
3) While I don't ever recall a conservative going over the the "dark side" I have noticed that a few libs are beginning to understand why conservatism has been, is now, and will be, the only enduring political philosophy that the majority of American's can live by and with.
4) Believe it or not, I have learned much from my political opponents that is of value to me. They tend to bring up subjects and viewpoints that I had not thought about or considered, and for that, I thank them. You may not have realized it Marysdude, but on occassion I have agreed with and complimented my liberal and democrat friends.
5) Reading and writing on Watchblog keeps one's political mind sharp and focused. And, I do enjoy a good friendly scrap. No blood, no gore, just a few blisters now and then.
I have to agree with you Royal Flush. The "liberalsocialists" are coming unglued. The closer to November we come, the more hysterical they become. I have had to back off WB a little; the left are so insane, they attack typos, grammar, and spelling. I am an upbeat type of person, but I become depressed listening to them. They are so negative about everything and some are worse than others. Stephen is probably one of the most negative and depressing on here. I fear they will need real phsycologial help after the election. The percentage of really left leaning liberals are such a small part of the countries voter block, but we must have most of them on WB. Aren't you glad America does not listen to them. You've got DRR who endorses VOID, and thinks all incumbents should be voted out, unless hey are the most liberal socialist politicians, then it's ok to leave them in office. Somehow the logic don't make sense.Posted by: Beretta9 at September 18, 2010 1:46 PM
Marysdude, I forgot to mention this. I have explained my use of the word "libersocialists" in past comments. It does not apply to all liberals or all democrats. I am liberal on some issues and have in the past voted democrat and probably will again in the future.Posted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2010 1:47 PM
Off subject but an excellent example of a situation in which I may, when more details are known, agree with President Obama.
Obama Is Said to Be Preparing to Seek Approval on Saudi Arms Sale
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/world/18arms.html?_r=1&th&emc=thPosted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2010 1:51 PM
How about this shocking news…
"It is a measure of the dread among Democrats and their labor allies that several unions are no longer threatening to withhold endorsements from some conservative or moderate Democrats, like Representative Zack Space of Ohio, because they had bucked labor on health care legislation or other issues. Now, unions are generally backing those Democrats, feeling labor cannot afford such a strategy when the Democrats' prospects seem so troubled."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/us/18labor.html?th&emc=thPosted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2010 1:55 PM
Dude, I see the red koolaid is running fast and deep today!
Reading flushe(d)' comments created such a bout of hysterical laughter, I could barely breathe.
1) It is great entertainment and is virtually free.Not virtually,…..literally.
3) While I don't ever recall a conservative going over the the "dark side" I have noticed that a few libs are beginning to understand why conservatism has been, is now, and will be, the only enduring political philosophy that the majority of American's can live by and with.It has been a while since I laughed that hard!!!
5) Reading and writing on Watchblog keeps one's political mind sharp and focused.I'm sorry that you're so deluded, but this one simply falls way short of applying to you. Posted by: jane doe at September 18, 2010 3:01 PM
I actually disagree with Obama if he goes through with such an arms sale to Saudi Arabia. The government in Saudi Arabia is 180 degrees from US ideals, the only reason we haven't opposed them already is that we need their oil. Wahabism is dominant in Saudi Arabia and most of the 9/11 hijackers came from there. We shouldn't be actively strengthening the monarchy there, even if it is to counter Iran.
Although Iran has recently experimented with Theodemocratic government (actually in light of last year's election it's probably just a theocratic government), Iranian society has a strong history of being tolerant and cooperative with its neighbors. After all, Persian culture predates Islam by many Millennia and many different religions have lived in the area for centuries including Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians. Because the theocracy in Iran runs counter to Iranian cultural norms, it will not last long as we almost saw last June.
Saudi Arabia will only be friendly with us as long as we spend massive amounts of money buying their oil. When that's over, what will happen? Will Saudi Arabia keep our weapons, but not abuse them? Or will the Wahhabi faction gain more influence over the monarchy and perhaps use the weapons against Israel?Posted by: Warped Reality at September 18, 2010 3:12 PM
WR, it's not up to AliBama alone. He will require congressional approval and there will be much discussion. I will decide when I know all the facts.Posted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2010 3:22 PM
Jane, my computer doesn't run on farts or hot air so there is a cost. YOU?Posted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2010 3:25 PM
Flushed, I would have thought that would be exactly what yours ran on…..especially the hot air!Posted by: jane doe at September 18, 2010 4:03 PM
Come on Jane…get original…don't become a parrot.Posted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2010 4:24 PM
Royal Flush-
I hear those on the right speaking about this failure of capital movement in only the most generalized terms, as if everybody's decided that Democrat's reforms were bad.
That's a nice fantasy. Here we are, two years after a 3.9% drop in GDP, the worst recession since the Great Depression, and you're saying it's regulation people are worried about.
Is the economy itself, the condition of the banks, and the tightening of credit due to the collapse not enough to explain our troubles? This is how the right sells anti-government, anti-regulation ideology right after one of the worst failures of the free market in modern history.
Failure leaves evidence. I've presented the evidence of this failure to the readers of this blog. You? You simply make a claim you don't back up with evidence.
I don't ask on this blog as there is no need to, they volunteer their mentally disordered libersocialism every day. In fact, SD writes books on the subject.
What's mentally disordered is that Republicans are willing to more than double the eventual national debt over the next ten years, to the tune of four trillion dollars, but they get bent out of shape over a few tens of billions paid here and there to help stimulate the economy and help those in trouble.
It doesn't get better if you recall two other facts that I referenced in my article: that the Rich saved most of the money they got, and did not spend it (stimulus money works best when spent, not saved) and that Bush's job performance was anemic.
And no, it doesn't get better if you tell me that Bush had all kinds of troubles when he got into offices that made his job creation performance anemic, because that argument would invalidate most Republican criticisms of Obama, who came into office during a much, much more severe recession, and had two wars already ongoing when he got there as well.
Republicans see things one way when they are in power, running up deficits, and then when Democrats get in charge, guess who they call the spendthrifts?
By the way: Obama already has gotten tough on illegal aliens, deporting them in droves. He's already going after employers more.
Finally, a comment with which I can agree. It is so sad that SD doesn't apply the same logic to other areas of his comments. The libersocialist in most every area of American life insists that equal opportunity must be accompanied by equal success. They call it "social justice" which is just another bullshit term for taking from those who work and giving to those to lazy to work.
You know, it's funny. You make snide comments about me writting books about what I think, yet you feel the need to add on to what I say, to clarify it. I thought I made my points comprehensively clear! I don't need your clarifications or explanations about what I really believe, since I already spell it out in great detail!
Why do you need to do that? Because I don't say the crazy crap you want me to say, so you have to say it for me, to convince other people I actually believe radical things.
I'm boring, really, in that respect. I sometimes call for strong action, but usually most of the country's calling for it with me.
You can talk about our mental health, but again, you have to say such things because Democrats don't make any such problems apparent.
We don't insist on spreading around a bunch of sunblock packets as a game-changer, despite what our staffers say. We don't allege that Joe Biden is tapping our phone. We don't do crazy things, so you have to insist that we're crazy to get anybody to think it at all.
Seek professional help: attend a logic and rhetoric class at your local college and start coming up with some arguments where you're not simply making strawman arguments about what you think liberals believe.
Somehow, yes, your logic doesn't make sense. Me, I sometimes find what you folks write depressing, with all the hatred, all the resentment, all the animosity you refuse to let go of. But me? I'm an optimist. Even if I don't win this time, I can win next time. Worse yet, for all you're concerned, I'm a stubborn optimist. I'm like one of those Shonen Anime heroes who will get beaten down into the dirt but keep on picking himself back up, even if his arm is broken and his ears are bleeding. You guys can get enraged enough and enthused enough to win perhaps one election. Let's see you keep that amphetamine psychosis level of fear and paranoia over the next six years. Let's see you continue to oppose moderate liberalism like its the second coming of Stalin and Khrushchev.
At some point, you folks will burn yourself out. Your tea-party candidates, already, can't be trusted to speak their own minds. You nominate disasters, and then hide them until election day, hoping they don't alienate so many people that you lose the election. What does it say that in three of the major tea-party senate races, the advantage tipped back towards the Democrats when your people got out there?
It's Republicans who can accept what losers their candidates are, whether they win or not. If they lose, it will be apparent at least to everybody else. If they win? Well, if they win, it will be be sort of like that line from Apocalypse now.
"I wanted to try the Republican party again, and for my sins, they gave me a tea party candidate. And after that one, I'd never want another one again."Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2010 4:43 PM
Hey SD, let us know when you're not available to write your comments. We all have it memorized and can fill in to help you out.Posted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2010 4:57 PM
Royal Flush-
Let me fill in yours for you:
It's a "fact" that you and all your other libersocialist friends are demented freaks of nature. But we can pretty much define this "fact" anyway we want to, because libersocialist dem commies are all mentally unbalanced, and the lamestream media is biased so I don't have to acknowledge any "facts" they offer, and I can just claim any damn thing I want if it helps the Right Wing.
The "fact" that he supports Barry Soetoro Alibama just proves that. I can also prove that I can attach any name to Barack Obama because I don't have to operate from any position of respect. I can just trash anybody I like and claim that everything he's done is a failure. Why? Well just because! I don't have to cite GDP to indicate economic growth, or research labor statistics to prove that St. Reagan of the Supply Side passed down the holy writ from above on fiscal matters. Never mind how much he grew the national debt, he and those who follow him are the real fiscal conservatives!
To actually write my posts for me, though, you would have to visit both mainstream media sites and liberal blogospheric sites, and read through the stories. You'd have to keep up with policy on more than a glancing basis, and you'd have to accept consensus scientific evidence as reliable.
So, go ahead, try and fill in for me.
Here are some starters: The latest media moment to come back to haunt dear Mrs. O'Donnell, for one thing.
Or try Glen Urquhart's stunning attempt to get Godwin's law invoked, claiming that the phrase Separation of Church and State has Nazi origins.
Thomas Jefferson would be surprised to hear that:
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Well, maybe our third President was just 117 years ahead of his time.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2010 5:22 PM
Yawn…Posted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2010 5:26 PM
I find it rather ironic that Mrs. O'Donnell is so against masturbation when so many of the tea baggers are a bunch of J.O'sPosted by: Jeff at September 18, 2010 5:44 PM
You came over to the 'dark side', and I did too. I expect that if Flush ever gets his head out of the toilet, he'll be over here before long himself. See how he yawns when you write something succinct? That's a sign of darkness right there.Posted by: Marysdude at September 18, 2010 5:54 PM
Let's see…J.O. means Justifiably Outraged?Posted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2010 5:56 PM
Ahhh…luv to hear the desperation dude. Those with no message attack the messenger.Posted by: Royal Flush at September 18, 2010 5:59 PM
Royal Flush-
Hmm. Let's see. Attacking the messenger.
I have observed that some of the liberalsocialists writing here in the past few weeks have become hysterical in their rantings. Deep depression seems to be settling in and I am concerned about their mental health. As soon as the new HC legislation kicks in (if not rescinded or unfunded before that) I suggest they seek out professional help.
So, tell me, do you have a message, according to your own logic? I can cite other examples, if you still feel that you haven't shot your own message in the foot with your previous post.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2010 6:06 PM
Flush, MAG & others. I have tried to find hysteria in SD's posts…….sorry to say, all I have seen is him handing you your asses. Wake up, smell the coffee!!!Posted by: steve miller at September 18, 2010 6:08 PM
RF you really need some new material. Try Bill Maher.Posted by: Jeff at September 18, 2010 6:13 PM
Jeff Miller
SD left me out and never did hand me mine. Just a refresher, God handed me mine once and for all.
Liberals just love that "separation of church and state" that Jefferson mentions but is not included in the Constitution. They forget rather easily that Congress shall make no law against me practicing my faith openly and without recrimination. Judges mis-intrepret the first amendment far too many times. After all it is a pretty simple statement and nothing much to intrepret unless you speak liberalese or other like language.Posted by: tom humes at September 18, 2010 6:29 PM
TH "separation of church and state" means that some nut ball professing to doing gods work getting the gay off off people and then going off on some gay adventure can't shove his so called values on me. I have found that the more religious people are the more of a hypocrite they are.Posted by: Jeff at September 18, 2010 6:39 PM
Royal Flush states: "Answered and posted numerous times. In a word…incentive. I don't know about Rich, but most everyone I know that works does so because they have an incentive to earn money. Why would business be any different?"
No, you begged the question. I will restate it. Why have US corporations lacked the incentive to invest in US jobs over the past decade or more? The Bush tax cuts and relaxed regulatory environment failed to produce the jobs that the Bush administration predicted. Why not? Foxconn is a clue.Posted by: Rich at September 18, 2010 7:25 PM
Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.
Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
I love the endless chorus from the Democrats and their leftist minions about the obstructionist Republicans. They just can't get anything done to help the American people because of the Republicans standing in their way. The Democrats held the House, the Senate, and the White House but it's all those nasty Republicans who won't be bi-partisan and cooperate.
A. The only time the Democrats give a rat's tail about bipartisanship is when they are either out of power and are being obstructionist themselves or:
B. They are in power and are looking for cover from the voters for bad legislation.
That is why they wanted so badly with every fiber of their being to have Republican votes on the Health Care Bill so they could share the blame and say "Look, they voted for it too. Don't blame us."
I am confident that when the Democrats are swept out of power, they will begin a new era of bipartisanship and compromise and cooperate with the Republicans in whatever they try to do.LOL
And Stephen, you want to point out stupidity. Your Speaker, Nancy Pelosi has to be one of the most ignorant politicians I have witnessed in my 55 years of living. We have to pass it to see what is in it, and unemployment insurance is now a stimulus to the economy. Why don't we all quit working, draw unemployment, and our economy will go through the roof.Posted by: skeptical Boomer at September 18, 2010 7:50 PM
Thats just silly.Posted by: Jeff at September 18, 2010 7:57 PM
Which part, Democrats blaming everything on Republicans even though they have owned Congress since 2006, or the Democrats cooperating after they get slaughtered in November?Posted by: Skeptical Boomer at September 18, 2010 9:01 PM
steve miller LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL You are joking aren't you.Posted by: MAG at September 18, 2010 9:02 PM
My sons call me sarcastic.Posted by: Skeptical Boomer at September 18, 2010 9:05 PM
Politics is the art of compromise. When the republicans had people like Danforth, Dole, and Rockafeller etc. the country moved forward things got done. But then you elected Bush and the country went to hell. So your answer now is to go so far to the right that it crosses the line of absurd. You may gain seats you might even gain control of the house. But you have sold your soul to the crazies. And any gains will be erased in the next election.Posted by: Jeff at September 18, 2010 9:27 PM
tom humes-
I do love it. It meant I could be an atheist when I didn't believe in God, an Agnostic as I began to see the divine in the world, and a Christian when I came to know Jesus Christ, and all of that, without some bureaucrat being able to second guess me. Well, second-guess me and put me in a position where I had to give a crap.
My development as adult in the faith was not stunted by somebody's interference. I didn't have to pray in school. I didn't have to be bombarded by somebody's doctrine in the Public school system. I was free to make my own damn mind up without somebody from the government trying to make it up for me.
Jefferson was a founding father. He was also a critic of the constitution, and only threw his support behind it when he believed the bill of rights would be added there. What he believes it meant is important. Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights, did so on account of Jefferson's persuasion.
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
Or, in case that wasn't clear enough:
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).
But did he really think that?
The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2010 10:07 PM
flushed, does your mouth and brain ever work at the same time?Posted by: jane doe at September 18, 2010 10:11 PM
skeptical boomer-
Leftist minions. Hmmm. I would like some of those. Get them to mow the lawn.
Look, the Democrats at their worst filibustered the Republicans 58 times over a two year Congressional term. Republicans filibustered a 112 times between 2006 and 2008. It's gotten so bad that it's now common practice and common assumption that it takes sixty votes to pass something.
If that isn't systematic obstructionism, I don't know what is.
The irony of it is that Republicans were set to inflict the nuclear option on Democrats because of this. And what were they saying? For the sake of getting five judges out of hundreds Democrats passed along, out of Democratic Filibusters, the Republicans called the Filibuster anti-democratic, a corruption of our republic.
Then they lost the majority, and it became their best friend. Republicans simply don't care about bipartisanship period, whether they are in charge, or when they are out of power. Democrats were willing to compromise with you, but you are not willing to compromise with us.
Methinks you won't find so many compromising Democrats if you take any part of Congress back. But for Republicans it seems gridlocked and ineffective government is priority number one. We can't have it seem that Government can solve people's problems.
That is why they wanted so badly with every fiber of their being to have Republican votes on the Health Care Bill so they could share the blame and say "Look, they voted for it too. Don't blame us.
Look, those people could have all voted against it for all I care. What I wanted, with every fiber of my being, was the opportunity to see the bill voted on by a simple majority vote. Why? Because it would have been a better bill. We had to get every last Democrat to vote for cloture to get that bill to the point where it could be voted on by the Senate. That meant even including the sons of bitches who decided to cut out popular parts of the bill, water down its provisions and other such BS.
Since the Republicans were the necesary element in that farce, I damn well do blame them. They deserve blame. Without their lockstep legislative conformity on filibustering, we would have gotten better laws out of this Congress.
As for Nancy Pelosi and unemployment stimulus? You're not demonstrating her stupidity. In my 30 years of life, I know what it looks like when people have to live on unemployment. I also know what it's like when things like that run out, when people are forced to spend themselves down to their last dime to survive.
Unemployment stimulus is not the preferred kind. We'd rather get people working, which is why we advocated the policies we did. But let me tell you this: if you think its fun trying to get an economy growing with the burden of paying for those benefits, try and get it going when all those people are flat damn broke. People without jobs, without money don't contribute that much to the economy!
If you want to peddle that stupid GOP **** about Democrats wanting everybody to be mooches, then you are free to show people how mired in partisan propaganda your picture of us are. We've been fighting to create jobs here, and your party has been fighting for jobs, too.
The ones in Congress, that is. That's all your people seem to care about. You'll tell the unemployed, the folks being denied coverage over pre-existing conditions, the Seniors on Medicare, drawing Social Security, the investors who don't want to get screwed on Wall Street all to take a hike. Then you will literally invite all the lobbyists in to write the laws they want to write, just like you folks did before.
Republicans view the Bush years as some Golden Age cut short. Problem is, and you should have realized this by now, most people view that administration as a nightmare they couldn't wake up from soon enough. Republicans will undoubtedly convince people that their rule was a nightmare, the first chance they get.
I'd cheer on this stupidity, if it weren't for the fact that I had enough of it early in the first Term of the last President. America deserves better.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 18, 2010 10:28 PM
Conservatives can't seem to think.
They can outshout you.
They can call you crass names.
But thinking new thoughts or proposing new ideas has escaped them.
Nixon was a crook and charlatan, but he was the last conservative who could actually think three steps ahead. For the President of the United States, seven steps is almost required. That is why Clinton's tenure was superior to Reagan, Bush or Cheney/Bush, and why, after the dust settles President Obama will show heels to them all.Posted by: Marysdude at September 18, 2010 11:07 PM
You're joking about Obama right? And Clinton? He did not wise up and move to the center until he had his behind handed to him 1n 94 and he was faced with The Contract with America. I will admit that at least Clinton was business friendly and understood how important the private sector is to our economy. Obama and the Democrats will lose but will maintain his hard left ideology. If Obama is so brilliant and wonderful, why are there no Democrats running their campaigns touting the Obama agenda?Posted by: Skeptical Boomer at September 19, 2010 6:14 PM
I only said Clinton was better than Reagan and Bush. He did, after all, bring the deficit under control). While I admired him on many levels, he signed both NAFTA and GLB. One finished the job Teflon Ron started in killing our middle class, and the other was the major reason for our financial meltdown. Maddow said recently that Clinton was the best Republican President ever, and I agree somewhat with that.
As far as why few Democrats running consider him an asset. To them he is not. Political initiatives need momentum, and currently President Obama cannot provide that. Still, he has accomplished a lot more in 19 months than any President I can remember (from FDR's last partial term), so he has time to turn his bad rep around. He has controlled the deficit better than anyone in thirty years other than Clinton, and as people begin to see the benefits of his health care program they will begin to wonder about all the lies currently being spread around. As folks find out that he is not a terrorist like y'all insinuate, they will remember who shouted those lies. If the media gets off its fat lazy butt and tells the people the difference between a commie, a socialist and a Democrat, they will wonder why y'all spouted those gross exaggerations…why am I bothering with this? You, who can't see that 'winning' has consequences, will never pay any attention to it anyway.
Skeptical Boomer-
Given the performance of the GOP post-Clinton, I think arguing they're the main reasons deficits went down is problematic. They just are too quick to give out tax cuts that gut the revenues.
As for being business friendly? Government should neither be hostile nor friendly to business. It should be a third party that helps them when they're on the right side of the law, and reins them in when they're not. Otherwise, what you have could fairly be called corruption. Clinton was a good President, but unfortunately letting banks deal in an unregulated derivatives market and letting them consolidate and bring multiple kinds of financial institutions into one company was an experiment that went wrong, and those who voted for that need to be considered responsible for what followed.
That includes the Republicans who even now fail to see what's so wrong about the system, after it's near-ruin.
As for Obama? I think time will tell on the wisdom of his policies, but I think the Democrats running away from him now are idiots. There is a such thing as irrational panic, and far too many Democrats buy what Republicans like you say.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 20, 2010 9:09 AM
Apparently, Christine O'Donnell has served as her own campaign treasurer, and has spent donor's money on personal expenses beyond the campaign.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 20, 2010 10:42 AM
Ha ha! Christine the teenage goth-witch became Christine the adult holier-than-thou-Christianist and professional political thief.
She's turning out to be quite a Palin off the old block, isn't she?
Joe let-them-eat-cake Miller in Alaska sounds a lot like Palin, too. He's claiming that Unemployment Benefits Are Unconstitutional, and thinks Medicare and Social Security should be killed off.!Posted by: Adrienne at September 20, 2010 12:46 PM
Watchdog:'Christine O'Donnell is clearly a criminal'
Quote from the link:
Christine O'Donnell has had her share of problems since winning the nomination for Republican Senate candidate from Delaware last week. Things got even worse Monday when a government watchdog called for O'Donnell to be prosecuted.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a complaint alleging O'Donnell had used $20,000 in campaign funds for personal expenses.
CBS news reported:
"Christine O'Donnell is clearly a criminal, and like any crook she should be prosecuted," CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan said in a release. "Ms. O'Donnell has spent years embezzling money from her campaign to cover her personal expenses. Republicans and Democrats don't agree on much these days, but both sides should agree on one point: thieves belong in jail not the United States Senate."
CREW is requesting that the U.S. Attorney's office in Delaware open a criminal investigation and asking the Federal Election Commission to audit O'Donnell's campaign expenses.Posted by: Adrienne at September 20, 2010 3:06 PM
More O'Donnell crazytalk:
'An Identity Disorder'
O'Donnell vs. Franken (video)
"He did not wise up and move to the center until he had his behind handed to him 1n 94 and he was faced with The Contract with America."
Did you forget about the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 which was proposed by Clinton and passed by a Democratic Congress? It was a five year plan that cut federal expenditures and raised taxes to bring the deficit under control. It was not popular with either party, particularly with Republicans who voted unamimously against it. But it achieved its goals.
The claim that Clinton's centrist fiscal responsibility was the result of the Republican's Contract with America is misstating history. You only have to look at what the Republicans actually did when they gained complete power under GW Bush to disprove that claim.
Posted by: Rich at September 20, 2010 7:57 PM
More lunacy:
House hopeful Jim Russell praised racist practices, advocated eugenics in 2001 essay
Not sure the tea-drinkers will really care one way or another about this…Posted by: Adrienne at September 20, 2010 9:37 PM
The Tea Baggies were only really interested in one thing…the fifteen minutes Warhol allowed. The two old multi-billionaire sponsors of their 'party' are the ones that kept it going longer than the allotted fifteen.Posted by: Marysdude at September 20, 2010 11:51 PM
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to email@example.com.


text:
We all know that travelling can be super expensive. It's not easy to maintain a lifestyle where we can travel all the time as all the costs add up, flights, taxis, accommodation, food, and that's before you have even done any of the sightseeing things that you want to do in each place! Within my friendship group, I am known as the one who somehow manages to get super cheap holidays and so today, I'm going to share my top tips on how I get cheap holidays with you!
Be Open Minded
This is my first tip as it one of the first things we think about when booking a holiday is of course, where we want to go. One of my favourite ways to pick somewhere I want to go if I am not set on a certain destination is to go into Skyscanner and pick my nearest airport and search from Manchester for example, to everywhere and see where the cheapest places to fly to are. This was how I ended up in Bucharest last Christmas and how I picked Sardinia for the summer as I picked the cheapest places to fly to that I hadn't visited yet.
Hotels vs AirBnBs vs Hostels
This does completely come down to personal preference and what type of holiday you are going on and how many people you are going with. Persoanlly, I very rarely go with a hotel because they are more expensive and I can get the same value really out of an AirBnB. I usually choose between AirBnB and hostels based on a few factors. If I am going for a short city break then I am more likely to use hostels as it is cheaper and easier and I only have to share the room for a short period of time. If I am going on a longer beach style holiday then I am more likely to pick an AirBnB as it gives us more freedom. This also applies if there are more people as the AirBnB cost is split between more people. However I always look at the best options of both for both quality and price and choose between them. I don't always use hostels for cities as when my flatmate and I went to Cologne for 3 nights, we stayed in an AirBnB then as it was cheaper than the hostels.
Overseas Jobs
If you are looking at travelling more full time then always consider getting jobs overseas in the areas that you are going to. I hold a TEFL qualification so I am starting to use online TEFL services to teach and get paid. This eventually means that I might be able to travel and teach full time if I choose to when I graduate from uni. There are loads of options for jobs like this whether it be digital nomad work like teaching or graphic design etc, working as an au pair for a family or working in hospitality jobs in destinations at hostels, bars etc. There are loads of awesome blogs that share their experiences online so have a look around and I'm sure there is a perfect job for you to do abroad!
I hope this has been helpful!
Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )

subset: commoncrawl


text:
When you have accepted go into the wholesale fashion clothing business, you most probably understand the profits arrive with buying clothes in wholesale. However, there is are still some issues about buying at wholesale and selling at retail rates that you may well not know, and this article helps you out. Firstly, it is about use must have from assets. The federal department offers a tax identification, and technique is nicely explained in the IRS website. You might need to visit this website and start from also there.
Having acquired the identification, you may create a free account using the business brand name. With this kind of account, it is so in order to separate business and individual earnings. Another license, owner license, is also crucial as you cannot transact business with wholesale owners without it. Most wholesales would want to prove your ownership of a retail shop; the vendor license is enough proof.
When it comes to searching for a reliable provider of wholesale clothing, the job might be tricky. However, some tips about how to land probably the most suitable clothing supplier support. First, it is in regards type of clothes you are going to sell. How available are the products in the market? Most importantly, haine cu ridicata look at the trends in your area, and order for such clothing. To know more information on trends, eBay Seller Tools may help.
Starting with your locality, there could be a huge providers. For a larger pool of wholesale clothing, the online platform comes in handy. Despite the high chances of lack of legitimacy of wholesale clothing online, this method has gained a lot of popularity over the days. Retail business owners choose procedure for several reasons including ability to choose wider range of mediators. If you are able growing a lasting relationship with a specific wholesale clothing merchant, you can buy goods in bulk, and make good profit, from the comfort of your living spot.
Even as you search for wholesale clothing online, your preferred retail stores also want to determine the kind of supplier you want. There are drop shippers, manufacturers, importers, and liquidators. For a net business, a drop shipper kind of supplier may be the most preferable, because you won't have to worry about warehousing or manufacturing fees.


text:
Better Wi-Fi, from setup to streaming.
Routers can be a pain in the butt to set up specially if you're not a techie, unless it's a Starry Station Wireless Router. This innovative device makes everything a breeze, while looking smart as heck. It uses a touchscreen that lets you understand and control your Wi-Fi, using taps and swipes as opposed to fiddling with wires and buttons. No need to understand various blinking lights and complicated IP configurations, just get this router out of its box and you'll be online in minutes.
Buy on www.amazon.com


text:
Kari & Stephane's engagement session was at Watson's Mill in Manotick. They braved the crazy heat of this weekend for their session and were troopers the whole time! I had fun playing with a small pipe to create this shot. Thanks Sam Hurd!
© Joey Rudd Photography www.joeyrudd.ca Ottawa Wedding Photographer


text:
03/03/2019 - 03/05/2019 @ All Day
Foundant's National Summit User Conference is the best way to tackle challenges, find new and better ways to do things, and create lasting relationships that will make your philanthropic work easier and more rewarding. Summit 2019 gives you access to Foundant's team of experts as well as a community of peers to share stories and advice on becoming more efficient and effective.
If you are a client and would like to learn more or register, please visit Base Camp.


text:
The local signer was one of a few musicians to be honoured at the Kootenay Music Awards.
10 musicians were presented with awards in Nelson Friday night.
Rutledge, a 20-year-old folk and bluegrass singer, took home "Artist of the Year".
"That was really amazing and really humbling. It was a huge surprise and I'm just so thankful for everyone's support. It was a shock and definitely something I'm going to be proud of for a long time."
This was his second year in a row winning at the Kootenay Music Awards, claiming both "Breakthrough Artist of the Year" and "Folk Group" last year.
Rutledge was recently part of the CBC Searchlight competition, where he made it to the Top 100 and was featured in an article about 12 of the standout performers.
He was ultimately eliminated, but believes these kinds of exposure and a recent tour through the US west coast have been tremendous opportunities.
"2018 has been treating me very well as far as furthering my career. It's been an exciting year."
Going forward, he hopes to record more music and add more touring dates.
Also at the KMA's, The Burn Ins from Elkford won "Best Blues Song" for their track Let Me Be, while Creston's Emma Kade took home "Best Pop Song" for Until My Heart Quits.
More details on all the winning performers are available here.
- David Opinko
Audio: Dawson Rutledge