Why when americans protest government health care...

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Well, I would very much support 'union violence' if it ever occurred, but alas, historically, it is always the bosses who slaughtered the working men.

Seriously?  You should probably get a fire extinguisher, your pants are clearly on fire.

There is nothing wrong in Opebo's facts, DM (though there certainly is in the rhetoric).

Anyway yet again proof... In soviet Internet, stupid finds you.

[politicaladdict]

Fox New is anti high-taxes and so are people, so what!

You are aware that Obama passed the largest middle-class tax cut in history, right?

Fox New is anti high-taxes and so are people, so what!

You are aware that Obama passed the largest middle-class tax cut in history, right?

WHAT THE HECK!

The stimulus, which cost trillions, is NOT a tax-cut for middle-class, and it's funny that the government can determine class. Besides, he kept changing the kind of income people he'll tax.

YYAAAAAYYYY.. we're out of the recession because Obama gave huge a tax-cuts.
forget the rising unemployment, more people losing there jobs and Obama giving what socialibs like to calls a tax-cut.

If it's anything, Obama is for ECONOMIC-CUTS.

And about Crap-for-Clunkers that was going out of busniess(government-controlled) just means government can't run a corporations.

[Democratic Hawk]

Plus, didn't Obama, when getting elected, promise he'd cut taxes for most americans(which is a conservative thing) and didn't he say unemployment wouldn't go past 8% when they passed the phony stimulus and his number ARE deteriating and this ain't what people asked for.

FTR, the vast majority of Americans have already received a tax cut as part of the stimulus. FACT!

Yes, unemployment has exceeded 8% but in case you hadn't noticed, George W Bush bequeathed him the 'Great Recession' which has been haemorrhaging jobs at a rate not seen since the recession of 1981-82 (aye, that of your sainted Reagan)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are totally divorced from reality when it comes to this president and his policies. And you  can get over your Obama Derangement Syndrome as well

The stimulus, which cost trillions

$787bn actually. $288bn of which were tax cuts. Thicko

If it's anything, Obama is for ECONOMIC-CUTS.

Aye, like that would stand him in good stead for re-election

Would it please you to know that in the post-Depression era, it has been Democratic presidents, rather than Republicans, who have presided over more 1) robust economic growth and 2) job creation; as well with a more equitable rise in prosperity across all income groups

And about Crap-for-Clunkers that was going out of busniess(government-controlled) just means government can't run a corporations.

No, far from going out of business, Cash-for-Clunkers proved to be a successful initiative, so much so that it required supplemental appropriations to finance it

Analysts predict billions in benefits from 'Cash for Clunkers'

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/07/cash.for.clunkers/index.html

Story Highlights

-Analysts: $3 billion for program may provide $18 billion boost for economy
-Critics: Program just shifts consumer spending from one area to another
-Consumers save in gas, maintenance; auto industry sells twice as many cars

Indeed, 77 House Republicans voted in favor of it. It's reassuring to know that some Republicans actually do give a dam about American jobs and livelihoods dependent on the auto industry

[Vepres]

Fox New is anti high-taxes and so are people, so what!

You are aware that Obama passed the largest middle-class tax cut in history, right?

Yeah, it's like 7 bucks a week or something. Big picture it is large, but for individuals it's pretty much meaningless.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Fox New is anti high-taxes and so are people, so what!

You are aware that Obama passed the largest middle-class tax cut in history, right?

Yeah, it's like 7 bucks a week or something. Big picture it is large, but for individuals it's pretty much meaningless.

Which is why cutting taxes is ridiculous.

[jokerman]

Oh the right-wing protesters are very real, but it amusing to consider who constitutes this group.

Essentially it is a mass of either (a) bourgeois, who are quite comfortable with their employer-provided healthcare (b) seniors, who are quite comfortable with their medicare (which they assininely assert they do not want taken over by the government).  Both systems are products already of the federal government, whether by tax cuts in the former or direct payments in the latter.

So while they might self-righteously shroud their motives in small-government, individualistic rhetoric, they are still essentially government dependents fighting to preserve their entitlements.

One can see this pattern all across the conservative movement.  One wonders how long these pretenses remain before politics finally becomes a battle of pensioners.

I'm not trying to say the Democrats can "escape" this dynamic (as if that were preferable or possible), but at least the Democrats are frank about the necessity of big government to manage the complexities of the 21st century.  The Republican Party offers an alternative of massive delusion, a diseased nostalgia; I can only hope Americans will not swallow this opiate to their destruction.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Yeah, it's like 7 bucks a week or something. Big picture it is large, but for individuals it's pretty much meaningless.

And I was unemployed, so it didn't help me much...

[politicaladdict]

Plus, didn't Obama, when getting elected, promise he'd cut taxes for most americans(which is a conservative thing) and didn't he say unemployment wouldn't go past 8% when they passed the phony stimulus and his number ARE deteriating and this ain't what people asked for.

FTR, the vast majority of Americans have already received a tax cut as part of the stimulus. FACT!

Yes, unemployment has exceeded 8% but in case you hadn't noticed, George W Bush bequeathed him the 'Great Recession' which has been haemorrhaging jobs at a rate not seen since the recession of 1981-82 (aye, that of your sainted Reagan)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are totally divorced from reality when it comes to this president and his policies. And you  can get over your Obama Derangement Syndrome as well

The stimulus, which cost trillions

$787bn actually. $288bn of which were tax cuts. Thicko

If it's anything, Obama is for ECONOMIC-CUTS.

Aye, like that would stand him in good stead for re-election

Would it please you to know that in the post-Depression era, it has been Democratic presidents, rather than Republicans, who have presided over more 1) robust economic growth and 2) job creation; as well with a more equitable rise in prosperity across all income groups

And about Crap-for-Clunkers that was going out of busniess(government-controlled) just means government can't run a corporations.

No, far from going out of business, Cash-for-Clunkers proved to be a successful initiative, so much so that it required supplemental appropriations to finance it

Analysts predict billions in benefits from 'Cash for Clunkers'

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/07/cash.for.clunkers/index.html

Story Highlights

-Analysts: $3 billion for program may provide $18 billion boost for economy
-Critics: Program just shifts consumer spending from one area to another
-Consumers save in gas, maintenance; auto industry sells twice as many cars

Indeed, 77 House Republicans voted in favor of it. It's reassuring to know that some Republicans actually do give a dam about American jobs and livelihoods dependent on the auto industry

OH, I GET IT... IT'S BUSH'S FAULT THAT OBAMA LIED ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT NOT GOING FROM 8% AFTER HE PASSED THE STIMULUS!

Stop playing the blaim Bush game because this is Obama's economy now and he ain't done nothing to stimulate the economy with a BIG, FAT HUMONGOUS STIMULUS. Just the government.

[dead0man]

Well, I would very much support 'union violence' if it ever occurred, but alas, historically, it is always the bosses who slaughtered the working men.

Seriously?  You should probably get a fire extinguisher, your pants are clearly on fire.

There is nothing wrong in Opebo's facts, DM (though there certainly is in the rhetoric).

A brief list from wiki:
2004 AFL-CIO push their way into a Republican field office in Orlando FL, breaking the wrist of one staffer. AFL-CIO member Van Church is unrepentant: "If his wrist was fractured, it's a result of his own actions in jerking the door the way he did."
1999 - During protests by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1547 against a non-unionized workforce getting a contract, picketers threatened and assaulted workers, spat at them, sabotaged equipment, and shot guns near workers. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the union had engaged in "ongoing acts of intimidation, violence, destruction of property".
1999 - During protests by Laborers' International Union of North America Local 310, picketers punched a worker, and threw coffee cups at workers.
1999 - Members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 120 were convicted of striking a worker, and imprisoning another one in a truck trailer.
1998 - Teamsters Orestes Espinosa, Angel Mielgo, Werner Haechler, Benigno Rojas, and Adrian Paez beat, kicked, and stabbed a UPS worker (Rod Carter) who refused to strike, after Carter received a threatening phone call from the home of Anthony Cannestro, Sr., president of Teamsters Local 769.
1998 - During the Communications Workers of America U.S. West strike a worker was threatened with a gun, and a manager was hit in the head with a rock.
1990 - on the first day of The New York Daily News strike, trucks were attacked with stones and sticks. One union member was immediately arrested for transporting Molotov cocktails. Strikers followed replacement laborers and threatened them with baseball bats. Strikers then started threatening newsstands with arson, or stole all copies of the Daily News and burned them in front of the newsstands. Independent sources estimated over a thousand reports of threats. The newspaper recorded over two thousand legal violations. The Police Department, recorded more than 500 incidents. 50 strikers were arrested. Bombings of delivery trucks became common, with 11 strikers arrested on one day in October.
1984 - Taxi driver David Wilkie was killed by NUM strikers while driving a non-striking worker during the UK mining strike
1983 - Eddie York was murdered for crossing a United Mine Workers (UMW) picket line.


I know you guys know these things happen.  Either you guys are willfully obtuse or we are defining several words differently.

[Sewer]

Well, I would very much support 'union violence' if it ever occurred, but alas, historically, it is always the bosses who slaughtered the working men.

Seriously?  You should probably get a fire extinguisher, your pants are clearly on fire.

There is nothing wrong in Opebo's facts, DM (though there certainly is in the rhetoric).

A brief list from wiki:
2004 AFL-CIO push their way into a Republican field office in Orlando FL, breaking the wrist of one staffer. AFL-CIO member Van Church is unrepentant: "If his wrist was fractured, it's a result of his own actions in jerking the door the way he did."
1999 - During protests by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1547 against a non-unionized workforce getting a contract, picketers threatened and assaulted workers, spat at them, sabotaged equipment, and shot guns near workers. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the union had engaged in "ongoing acts of intimidation, violence, destruction of property".
1999 - During protests by Laborers' International Union of North America Local 310, picketers punched a worker, and threw coffee cups at workers.
1999 - Members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 120 were convicted of striking a worker, and imprisoning another one in a truck trailer.
1998 - Teamsters Orestes Espinosa, Angel Mielgo, Werner Haechler, Benigno Rojas, and Adrian Paez beat, kicked, and stabbed a UPS worker (Rod Carter) who refused to strike, after Carter received a threatening phone call from the home of Anthony Cannestro, Sr., president of Teamsters Local 769.
1998 - During the Communications Workers of America U.S. West strike a worker was threatened with a gun, and a manager was hit in the head with a rock.
1990 - on the first day of The New York Daily News strike, trucks were attacked with stones and sticks. One union member was immediately arrested for transporting Molotov cocktails. Strikers followed replacement laborers and threatened them with baseball bats. Strikers then started threatening newsstands with arson, or stole all copies of the Daily News and burned them in front of the newsstands. Independent sources estimated over a thousand reports of threats. The newspaper recorded over two thousand legal violations. The Police Department, recorded more than 500 incidents. 50 strikers were arrested. Bombings of delivery trucks became common, with 11 strikers arrested on one day in October.
1984 - Taxi driver David Wilkie was killed by NUM strikers while driving a non-striking worker during the UK mining strike
1983 - Eddie York was murdered for crossing a United Mine Workers (UMW) picket line.


I know you guys know these things happen.  Either you guys are willfully obtuse or we are defining several words differently.

Thank you for the poof.

[Badger]

Don't feed the Troll, people. Utter waste of time and bandwidth.

[politicaladdict]

Paragraph from wikipedia about a republican up  falsly claimed to be beat up because of political reasons.

"In October 2008, Ashley Todd, a volunteer for the U.S. presidential campaign of Republican John McCain, falsely claimed to have been the victim of robbery and politically motivated physical assault by a supporter of McCain's Democratic opponent Barack Obama. The story broke less than two weeks before the 2008 United States presidential election on November 4. Todd later confessed to inventing the story after surveillance photos and a polygraph test were presented. She was charged with filing a false police report and sentenced to two years in jail."

Wow.. I remember seeing this story on CNN in a restaurant when I was eating. I happen to see this on Fox News, aswell, like The O'Reilly Factor.

But when it's real leftist unions, beating up a conservative black guy... YES, black guy, then I only hear  this on Fox News.

It's just more crap from the donkey-left network who likes to crap-out when IT makes the republicans look bad.

[Democratic Hawk]

OH, I GET IT... IT'S BUSH'S FAULT THAT OBAMA LIED ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT NOT GOING FROM 8% AFTER HE PASSED THE STIMULUS!

That wasn't a lie. That was what I call too optimistic a projection

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama hasn't been in office long for his policies to have had much effect one way or the other - and the simple truth of the matter is that Obama was bequeathed an economy that was haemorrhaging jobs at a rate not seen since the recession of 1981-82. Remember the one you right wing dogmatoids forever blamed on Carter. Yet using your reasoning, that recession can only have been Reagan's.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama hasn't been in office long for his policies to have had much effect one way or the other - and the simple truth of the matter is that Obama was bequeathed an economy that was haemorrhaging jobs at a rate not seen since the recession of 1981-82. Remember the one you right wing dogmatoids forever blamed on Carter. Yet using your reasoning, that recession can only have been Reagan's.

More like not since the Great Depression.

[politicaladdict]

OH, I GET IT... IT'S BUSH'S FAULT THAT OBAMA LIED ABOUT UNEMPLOYMENT NOT GOING FROM 8% AFTER HE PASSED THE STIMULUS!

That wasn't a lie. That was what I call too optimistic a projection

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama hasn't been in office long for his policies to have had much effect one way or the other - and the simple truth of the matter is that Obama was bequeathed an economy that was haemorrhaging jobs at a rate not seen since the recession of 1981-82. Remember the one you right wing dogmatoids forever blamed on Carter. Yet using your reasoning, that recession can only have been Reagan's (and it was)

But if Bush would have called it an optimistic a projection, than that's a lie, right?

Obama has been in Office long enough and there's already massive protests against governmen-controlled health caere, already, NOT SET-UP!
He's done so much such as nationalized GM and Chrysler and had a stupid program Cash-for-Clunkers that was close to go out of business but founded by more tax-payer money and also used a big fat stimulus  and yet to see any improvement and unemployment is goin up more still.

So, Obama done so much to the economy WITHOUT getting hardly anyone out.

Bush's rating were higher than Obama in th same amount of time in office.

[Democratic Hawk]

Bush's rating were higher than Obama in th same amount of time in office.

All that tells me is that Obama is being held to a higher standard

[politicaladdict]

Bush's rating were higher than Obama in th same amount of time in office.

All that tells me is that Obama is being held to a higher standard

What that tells me and alot americans is that Obama owns more of the economy than Bush.

[Mechaman]

Bush's rating were higher than Obama in th same amount of time in office.

All that tells me is that Obama is being held to a higher standard

What that tells me and alot americans is that Obama owns more of the economy than Bush.

May I remind everybody that Obama still has three years to improve his poll numbers? Golly guys, just because he isn't liked 7 months into office doesn't mean he will bomb the next election.

[Democratic Hawk]

Bush's rating were higher than Obama in th same amount of time in office.

All that tells me is that Obama is being held to a higher standard

What that tells me and alot americans is that Obama owns more of the economy than Bush.

Well, if he were to be held to the same standard as Reagan on the economy (and right-wing dogmatoids have been blaming Obama since before he took office just like they were blaming Carter well after Reagan took office), he'll own the economy around the end of Q1, 2010 - for better or worse

[Democratic Hawk]

Oh the right-wing protesters are very real, but it amusing to consider who constitutes this group.

Essentially it is a mass of either (a) bourgeois, who are quite comfortable with their employer-provided healthcare (b) seniors, who are quite comfortable with their medicare (which they assininely assert they do not want taken over by the government).  Both systems are products already of the federal government, whether by tax cuts in the former or direct payments in the latter.

So while they might self-righteously shroud their motives in small-government, individualistic rhetoric, they are still essentially government dependents fighting to preserve their entitlements.

One can see this pattern all across the conservative movement.  One wonders how long these pretenses remain before politics finally becomes a battle of pensioners.

I'm not trying to say the Democrats can "escape" this dynamic (as if that were preferable or possible), but at least the Democrats are frank about the necessity of big government to manage the complexities of the 21st century.  The Republican Party offers an alternative of massive delusion, a diseased nostalgia; I can only hope Americans will not swallow this opiate to their destruction.

Very true

The Republican Party has a disease - you could call it dogmatoid arthritis - given that their 'panacea' appears to be $3 trillion in new tax cuts (skewed in favor of those to whom they are dogmatically beholden - the richest (aka as the elite), in addition to extending the fiscally wreckless Bush tax cuts in their entirety complete with a spending freeze (save defense and veterans) - and at a time of acute economic crisis (mostly, of their making)

The House GOP alternative CBR even proposed means-testing Social Security (watch out seniors!); replacing Medicare with vouchers (watch out again seniors, who seem very happy with it as it stands), along with block grants for Medicaid. Not to mention rolling back the tax cuts for workers in the stimulus. It proved too much to stomach for 'moderate' Republicans. By comparison, the alternative substitute amendmends from the "left" of the Democratic Party couldn't even gather the support of a majority of Democrats

All attention is on Obama and the Democrats, right now, but for any one who wants "radicalism" they will find plenty of that coming from the dogmatoid arthritic wing of the Republican Party. Who would have thought that liberals, and populists (I don't mean them right-wing pseudos), would be the pragmatists and conservatives, the radicals? Is it supposed to be that way? Alas, Edmund Burke ain't around to tell us

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Oh the right-wing protesters are very real, but it amusing to consider who constitutes this group.

Essentially it is a mass of either (a) bourgeois, who are quite comfortable with their employer-provided healthcare (b) seniors, who are quite comfortable with their medicare (which they assininely assert they do not want taken over by the government).  Both systems are products already of the federal government, whether by tax cuts in the former or direct payments in the latter.

So while they might self-righteously shroud their motives in small-government, individualistic rhetoric, they are still essentially government dependents fighting to preserve their entitlements.

One can see this pattern all across the conservative movement.  One wonders how long these pretenses remain before politics finally becomes a battle of pensioners.

I'm not trying to say the Democrats can "escape" this dynamic (as if that were preferable or possible), but at least the Democrats are frank about the necessity of big government to manage the complexities of the 21st century.  The Republican Party offers an alternative of massive delusion, a diseased nostalgia; I can only hope Americans will not swallow this opiate to their destruction.

Very true

The Republican Party has a disease - you could call it dogmatoid arthritis - given that their 'panacea' appears to be $3 trillion in new tax cuts (skewed in favor of those to whom they are dogmatically beholden - the richest (aka as the elite), in addition to extending the fiscally wreckless Bush tax cuts in their entirety complete with a spending freeze (save defense and veterans) - and at a time of acute economic crisis (mostly, of their making)

The House GOP alternative CBR even proposed means-testing Social Security (watch out seniors!); replacing Medicare with vouchers (watch out again seniors, who seem very happy with it as it stands), along with block grants for Medicaid. Not to mention rolling back the tax cuts for workers in the stimulus. It proved too much to stomach for 'moderate' Republicans. By comparison, the alternative substitute amendmends from the "left" of the Democratic Party couldn't even gather the support of a majority of Democrats

All attention is on Obama and the Democrats, right now, but for any one who wants "radicalism" they will find plenty of that coming from the dogmatoid arthritic wing of the Republican Party. Who would have thought that liberals, and populists (I don't mean them right-wing pseudos), would be the pragmatists and conservatives, the radicals? Is it supposed to be that way? Alas, Edmund Burke ain't around to tell us

Last time I checked both parties got caught with there hands in the cookie jar on this one. A Republican Congress passed Gramm-Leach-Bliley but it was signed by a Democratic President. When a Republican President by the name of George W. Bush and a Senator named John S. McCain wanted to restrain the irresponsible practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which has been started by Clinton and the Community Reinvestment Act, A bipartisan group of Senators led by Chris Dodd blocked it in the Senate. Neither party could control the actions of the Fed. A combination of no regulations on some things, most of which where never regulated to begin with(According to none other then Keynesian economist Paul Krugman), strict regulations on bank accounting rules, and the movement of Bank assets onto the open market where they fluctuated with the market caused the collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman, etc. A lack of oversight and regulation of the ratings industry and the de-regulation of Derivitives industry(The only case where actuall de-regulation caused a problem) led to the parceling out of the sub-prime garbage and the purchase and packaging of them into investment options which the Investment banks bought and were insured by AIG. De-Regulation may have played a hand in taking this problem and putting it into the banks but not the creation of the problem, irresponsible lending, and the subsequent aftermath. It also doesn't have anything to do with irresponsible Fed rates that allowed this problem to get out of hand in the first place.

As for underlying economic problems such as the stagnation of wages in the bottom half of the work force, thats a trend that started to appear years ago. The reliance on credit by consumers is a direct result of our trade deficit. And you Democrats have a just wonderful record of opening up foreign markets in countries that currently have higher tariffs on us then we have on them, countries like Colombia. Gee didn't we have trade deal that you Democrats killed because of your dogmatic opposition to Free Trade.

Dems and Repubs were equally complicit in doing nothing about the runup in oil prices of 50% in six months from $100 a barrel to $150. This help drive down the economy and prep us for a crash. If Dems would have allowed the opening of the OCS to drilling of Oil and Nat Gas, as well as allow the creation of Revenue sharing with the states, Republicans would have incorporated the renewables and research into the compromise. The Dems only plan to reduce oil prices was an unconstitutional ban of oil speculation that would have subjected American commodities traders to foriegn laws.