Make or Break Time for the Middle Class says Obama

[TulsaRufnex]

Your obsession with me is a little creepy as well as completely making up a belief system for me.  You also left out the salient points that I'm a LIAR! and a partisan hack, that's disappointing.  Those are always two of my favorites.  You also left out the points that you supported Obama ever since you used to ride the subways in Chicago.  I'm worried about you in your advancing age you might be losing your edge.

Merry Christmas anyway 

Whatever, dude.

When it comes to presidential politics, you're still a partisan hack who might as well be a lobbyist for the oil industry, an industry that wasn't always part and parcel of the GOP.... http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2012&ind=301  .... your worst partisan hack moments involve your stereotypes of windy city politics you know little/nothing about and implication that Obama is part of the Chicago "machine".... your cutsy joking that I LOVE Obama sooooo much that I blew him on the "el"..... your stereotypes that because I didn't and don't support flat tax dogma and agree with Obama stated policy in moving the top taxation rate back to what it was under Bill Clinton, that I somehow hate rich people... some of these discussions with you and Gas and Gweedo got so stupid, I realized I didn't have any need to waste my time with you folks....  once again, chattering class hyper-partisan claptrap....

Merry Christmas from Ruf and the Obama family.  

[Red Arrow]

... your cutsy joking that I LOVE Obama sooooo much that I blew him on the "el".....

When was that?

[TulsaRufnex]

Page 4 of another useless thread, called "How to Protect Yourself Against Obamacare"  --  Actually, the word used was "groped."  My bad.   

[AquaMan]

Ruf, when I first started paying any attention to TN, I had lunch with you, RM and Conan downtown at an Italian restaurant (now closed). I was much impressed with each of you and surprised at how well such differing personalities were able to converse with each other. RM gave us each tree seedlings which I duly planted. The trees are now 10ft tall and healthy. I was recovering from a failed business that I took way too personal and it was just good to be around non-judgemental people.

Since that time I have seen each of us become more polarized and hardened in our political views, yet even when I sometimes feel offended by remarks on here, I remember that lunch and the purpose it served in my life at that time and I shuffle off any ill will. All the posts, extreme or well reasoned, snippy or vulgar, are pretty interesting. I now view most of TN and its posters through a different prism. Its entertainment, its enlightenment, its educational, its ego, its preview, its digital comeraderie, its a chance to pontificate and bloviate without someone throwing their drink on you. This place is my chance to step out of my world and see how others exist and why. Your perspective is often shared and always valued.

Merry Christmas from a pointy headed, soft hearted, liberal type.

[we vs us]

OK, I'll spell it out for you.  You are spouting the typical left side drivel.  It's kind of like Heiron when he says typical Murdochian RWRE ..... except it's the other side.

Well, you know, between the widely supported Ryan budget, which would reduce the deficit by hollowing out public service programs for the poor, the elderly, and the unemployed; and his Medicare/Medicaid plan, which would reduce service levels drastically; and the GOP's general hostility to further help for the unemployed; and the anti-immigrant sentiment (enshrined now in several GOP controlled states); and the die-hard support for the Bush tax cuts, which have been the singlemost important driver of our deficit growth during the last decade, and which gives disproportionate tax cuts to the very top of the wealth pyramid; and the general silence on 1) campaign finance reform, 2) Citizens United and 3) regulatory capture by corporate interests, we can pretty much figure out where things would be after a couple years of a Gingrich or Romney admin.  I'm not sure how that's drivel or conspiracy theory.  Most of the folks up for election have supported these things publicly, and in most cases their effects have been estimated and measured by the CBO, which remains our best yardstick for judging policy. 

[Red Arrow]

Well, you know, between the widely supported Ryan budget, which would reduce the deficit by hollowing out public service programs for the poor, the elderly, and the unemployed; and his Medicare/Medicaid plan, which would reduce service levels drastically; and the GOP's general hostility to further help for the unemployed; and the anti-immigrant sentiment (enshrined now in several GOP controlled states); and the die-hard support for the Bush tax cuts, which have been the singlemost important driver of our deficit growth during the last decade, and which gives disproportionate tax cuts to the very top of the wealth pyramid; and the general silence on 1) campaign finance reform, 2) Citizens United and 3) regulatory capture by corporate interests, we can pretty much figure out where things would be after a couple years of a Gingrich or Romney admin.  I'm not sure how that's drivel or conspiracy theory.  Most of the folks up for election have supported these things publicly, and in most cases their effects have been estimated and measured by the CBO, which remains our best yardstick for judging policy. 

I'm not sure how that's drivel or conspiracy theory.

No surprise.  You buy into the left's premise that every Republican want to starve Granny and return to the late 19th century. 

I recently saw a list of the "Bush tax cuts".  There was stuff in there that benefits people in the middle and lower economic groups.  Cherry picking the items helping the rich and claiming to be ending the Bush tax cuts is deceiving rhetoric.  Eliminating only the cuts for the rich is symbolic in that it would barely make a dent in the deficit.  Of course it would help some, just like some of the other small cuts that are decried as useless in magnitude in curing the deficit problem but happen to benefit chosen programs. Ethanol for fuel subsidies comes to mind as does Solyndra (which appears to not develop new technology which I could support). There has been a lot of spending growth (in addition to the wars) that has contributed to the deficit.  Some of it is mandated.  We need to determine what can be justified.  I'm sure you and I will depart company on individual items that should be cut. There is not enough money in the upper 1% to pay for our present spending.  Pretending there is, is just left side talking points to get votes without fixing the problem.  I chose to use the word drivel.

I can see how you would vehemently object to anything "Citizens United".  I won't claim to support everything they want or do but I don't see them as any worse than someone like Michael Moore.

No one I know believes there should be no regulation by the government.  Finding the cost/benefit ($ not being the only cost) line will always be a point of contention.  Painting the right as being completely anti-regulation is idiotic and childish. (See drivel.)  It's nothing more than trying to get votes by whipping up emotions.

[nathanm]

Painting the right as being completely anti-regulation is idiotic and childish. (See drivel.)  It's nothing more than trying to get votes by whipping up emotions.

Remind me, how many of the House freshmen in 2010 signed Grover Norquist's tax pledge? That is the number that is completely anti-regulation. I would agree that until the Party was taken over by the Randians, there was viable public policy there. (there still is, but it's been sidelined..see Bruce Bartlett and David Frum for examples of reality-based conservatism) But these days, fantasy is apparently reasonable public policy on that side of the aisle, and lying about Obama's record is apparently a viable election strategy.

[Red Arrow]

Remind me, how many of the House freshmen in 2010 signed Grover Norquist's tax pledge? That is the number that is completely anti-regulation. I would agree that until the Party was taken over by the Randians, there was viable public policy there. (there still is, but it's been sidelined..see Bruce Bartlett and David Frum for examples of reality-based conservatism) But these days, fantasy is apparently reasonable public policy on that side of the aisle, and lying about Obama's record is apparently a viable election strategy.

Never succumb to peer pressure?  I'm sure most of the newbies believe in the tax pledge. That's what got them elected. 

I have not seen anyone say to go to a completely unregulated capitalist society.  Anti-regulation is about where to draw the line and what the regulation is about. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

OK, I'll spell it out for you.  You are spouting the typical left side drivel.  It's kind of like Heiron when he says typical Murdochian RWRE ..... except it's the other side.

I don't spout left wing drivel.  When I say "typical you-know-what", it is just a statement of fact from the extreme moderate position.  Just because the "you-know-who" has been riding high for a few decades, doesn't mean that the LWRE gets off any easier.  As evidenced by my entry into the discussion of the Bill of Rights.  That will continue and will escalate.  Because we are seeing the latest horrendous results of this whole 'gun walking' process - started by Baby Bush and continued under Blowbama.  This activity in not just a terrible tragedy for the families of the agents killed by Blowbama's BS, but is a good old fashioned, down home, honest to God, Biblical Abomination!  And yes, with a capital A!!  No matter which side does it!

Reference that George Carlin clip I presented the link to in another thread.

[Red Arrow]

When I say "typical you-know-what", it is just a statement of fact from the extreme moderate position. 

I think you are a bit too generous in your application of "typical you-know-what".  There are times when it does apply but no where near as often as you proclaim it.

[we vs us]

No surprise.  You buy into the left's premise that every Republican want to starve Granny and return to the late 19th century. 

Have you read much about the Ryan plan?  In fact, it does starve Granny.  And it starves the poor, and the unemployed, etc.  He takes a hatchet to every social program we have in order to eliminate the deficit, and does it without touching the tax brackets of the top 1%.  It would be one thing if this were just one of many suggestions by the GOP caucus for dealing with our federal debt, but this is and has been the ONLY thing the current GOP has suggested, time and time again.  Not only has the GOP put it up for several votes but they've tried to shoehorn individual pieces of the Ryan plan into other budget negotiations.  Likewise, all of the GOP presidential candidates have come out in favor of it.  While Conan may prefer not to hold any of the candidates to their promises or pledges, supporting something publicly really does have significance.  So, whether you personally agree or not, your party has very specifically come out in support of deep deep cuts in social programs while leaving some of the richest folks (and industries, and rightie governmental interest groups, like defense) alone.  You think that's lefty spin but I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to see it. 

And the Citizen's United I'm referring to is the court case decided by the Supreme court a year or so ago -- not the organization itself -- that for all intents and purposes gave organizations (and corporations, and unions) a mostly unlimited right to free speech in the political arena, which means that organizations now can donate a much larger sum of money to campaigns. 

[Red Arrow]

Have you read much about the Ryan plan? 

I just spent some time reading it as presented by the source, not as interpreted by a hostile news outlet.  It appears to have protections for granny.  I didn't read every detail so if you can quote something from the actual plan, I'll give it a closer look.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

[Gaspar]

I just spent some time reading it as presented by the source, not as interpreted by a hostile news outlet.  It appears to have protections for granny.  I didn't read every detail so if you can quote something from the actual plan, I'll give it a closer look.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

You do understand that your interpretation is not important, right?

[Red Arrow]

You do understand that your interpretation is not important, right?

I know that but I still have to try.

[Gaspar]

I know that but I still have to try.