posted November 03, 2010 01:44 PM            

You heroes, Socialist demoscat House members just suffered the biggest loss of House seats in about 80 years.

That happened...as I said it would happen...because they followed O'Bomber and Nancy Pee-Lousy off the Marxist Socialist Progressive cliff.

Those lost House seats went to mostly conservatives...many of whom were supported by Tea Party groups AND...by Sarah Palin.

Hey Wink, how are you doing?

posted November 03, 2010 01:59 PM            

I'm more worried about this country becoming a Fascist state. Corporations already control "elected" officials and anyone "in a powerful position" in the government. By 2025 they will have the internet and ALL media under control (or heavily monitored) and will spoon-feed the sheeple only what they want them to know.

posted November 03, 2010 03:48 PM              

i have never intimated that the right - the PEOPLE of the right - are insincere or selfish. though i'm sure some are, i believe most of them believe what they are saying.

you, jwhop, on the other hand, should know better. if you actually BELIEVE the lies and smears you continually post here i have nothing but pity for you.

i am not so far out of the mainstream. neither am i lost in leftist land. i believe a certain amount of govt regulation is necessary to keep warring factions and corrupting bribes from taking over. after that i want them to leave us alone, just like you.

as for heroes, mine are personal and certainly don't include any GROUP of people, but individuals.

but i agree with zala. not only are social security and medicare WELL established, GOOD innovations on the original, even the tea partiers don't want their medicare tampered with, nor would they want SS touched if it weren't for the scaremongers saying its washed up. which it isn't.

posted November 04, 2010 01:45 PM            

I'm doing great thanks.

I agree with you 100% btw..

jwhop for Prez!!

posted November 05, 2010 10:53 AM            

None of you know what the hell you're talking about.

Your so called facts are screwed.

Corporations don't want to run the government. If CEOs wanted to be government geeks they'd run for elected office.

What corporations want..other businesses too is for the government to keep their long, bony busybody noses out of the private sector.

In 1994, republicans picked up 54 seats in the House of Representatives.

You couldn't possibly believe most of what you post here katatonic. If you did, I would doubt you capable of getting up in the morning and getting yourself dressed...without assistance.

This midterm election was an unmitigated disaster for Socialist Progressive demoscats and a repudiation of O'Bomber's Marxist Socialist agenda.

With election results...last time I looked it was 62 House seats going to republicans, 6 Senate seats and a host of Governorships which wiped out demoscat Socialist Progressives and their agenda of attacking America.

More blither, blather, bloviation and bullshiiit that republicans spent twice as much as demoscats.

First and foremost, NO ONE can know that until the quarterly contribution and expenditure reports are filed and digested.

Second, it's escaped some here that only 1/3rd of the Senate was up for reelection this election cycle.

A total disaster for demoscats and O'Bomber...which I've been predicting for more than a year....and wait until 2012 when far more demoscat Senators are up for reelection than republicans.

demoscats even lost O'Bomber's Illinois Senate seat!

What's happened is that those who blindly followed Pee-Lousy, Reid and O'Bomber who were reasonably demoscat moderates got their clocks cleaned...along with many certifiable far left kooks; leaving mostly screw loose, nutty putty leftists in states and districts whose voters mirror their intellectual deficiencies.

For those Americans who didn't get it this time around, these Loony-Tunes leftist demoscats are going to remind Americans every day by word and deed why they are unfit to hold any elective office in the United States.

Wink

If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.

posted November 05, 2010 11:00 AM              

secondly i would like to point out that your "fair tax" contains at least as much socialism as the income tax and will hurt business on the consumer end.

thirdly your lovely bush lost both the house AND the senate...because he was so wonderful?

and fourthly this If CEOs wanted to be government geeks they'd run for elected office is blatant hypocrisy, since that is exactly what they were doing in this election. but that was three days ago maybe you don't remember how whitman and fiorina tried to buy their way into office and many others DID.

i repeat this will be GOOD for obama and the dems in 2012 when they see the travesty that is coming in washington.

also that it was i, not you, who correctly predicted the outcome in 2008. your assertions of victory are more bravado than based in facts.

what kind of government do you think we are going to have when the leaders of the opposition have NO objective except to stay in power - oh and hopefully DESTROY those people who are?

do you really want to live in the western version of somalia, saudi arabia, and those other wonderful places where corporations pay no taxes and a small handful of people own ALL the goods? enjoy.

yes, corporations want the govt out of their business. why would they want LAWS to prevent them ripping us off? insisting they deal honestly with the sheeple? suffer the perils of competition? when they can just buy off all smaller fry and bilk the general public for wanting a better life?

sorry but we have SEEN what the republicans do to the economy. the 2009 budget, with its 1.4 trillion deficit, was made in 2008 BEFORE the election, by BUSH, not obama. obama's one and only budget ran a deficit smaller by billions.

and GM is about to finish repaying the LOAN to the government and RETURN A PROFIT ON THAT LOAN.

your bogus complaints are nothing but a smear campaign fed you by those you are trying to defend.

posted November 05, 2010 12:14 PM            

I think Kat covered most of the points.

A third of the Senate was up, Jwhop! A third! Why, for heavens sake, weren't Republicans able to capitalize on that? A tsunami you said. Hardly. A "mandate" Boner said. Hardly.

posted November 05, 2010 03:25 PM            

For that, Republicans can thank Pee-Lousy, Hairy Reid and O'Bomber.

We can also thank the 3 blind mice for focusing America's attention on some of the demoscats enablers and compromisers..read RINOS in the republican party and in the republican establishment. The 3 blind mice can be thanked for helping elect conservatives to Congress...and more will follow in 2012.

posted November 07, 2010 08:03 PM            

Palin to Bernanke: ‘Cease and Desist’
November 7, 2010 4:55 P.M.
By Robert Costa

As President Obama prepares for the G20 summit in South Korea this week, Sarah Palin is challenging the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, which will likely be a key issue at the talks. On Monday, in a keynote address at a trade-association convention in Phoenix, Palin will urge Fed chairman Ben Bernanke to “cease and desist” his “pump priming.” The United States, she says, “shouldn’t be playing around with inflation.”

Here are snippets from Palin’s prepared remarks obtained by National Review Online:

I’m deeply concerned about the Federal Reserve’s plans to buy up anywhere from $600 billion to as much as $1 trillion of government securities. The technical term for it is “quantitative easing.” It means our government is pumping money into the banking system by buying up treasury bonds. And where, you may ask, are we getting the money to pay for all this? We’re printing it out of thin air.

The Fed hopes doing this may buy us a little temporary economic growth by supplying banks with extra cash which they could then lend out to businesses. But it’s far from certain this will even work. After all, the problem isn’t that banks don’t have enough cash on hand – it’s that they don’t want to lend it out, because they don’t trust the current economic climate.

And if it doesn’t work, what do we do then? Print even more money? What’s the end game here? Where will all this money printing on an unprecedented scale take us? Do we have any guarantees that QE2 won’t be followed by QE3, 4, and 5, until eventually – inevitably – no one will want to buy our debt anymore? What happens if the Fed becomes not just the buyer of last resort, but the buyer of only resort?

All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it’s not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar – a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market – is pushing oil prices upwards. That’s like an extra tax on earnings. **Note: Savings too** And the worst part of it: because the Obama White House refuses to open up our offshore and onshore oil reserves for exploration, most of that money will go directly to foreign regimes who don’t have America’s best interests at heart.

We shouldn’t be playing around with inflation. It’s not for nothing Reagan called it “as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as deadly as a hit man.” The Fed’s pump priming addiction has got our small businesses running scared, and our allies worried. The German finance minister called the Fed’s proposals “clueless.” When Germany, a country that knows a thing or two about the dangers of inflation, warns us to think again, maybe it’s time for Chairman Bernanke to cease and desist. We don’t want temporary, artificial economic growth bought at the expense of permanently higher inflation which will erode the value of our incomes and our savings. We want a stable dollar combined with real economic reform. It’s the only way we can get our economy back on the right track.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/252715/palin-bernanke-cease-and-desist-robert-costa

posted November 07, 2010 09:41 PM              

but LOL, she seems to think she WON the 08 VP job. every time obama goes anywhere she logs on with another policy suggestion.

meanwhile it seems lost on her that reagan did not become president by being an actor, but a very long time after her stopped acting and got into politics at the union and state levels. that he was well known did not hurt his chances but his acting career was no "platform" like her current celebrity and media ubiquity.

posted November 10, 2010 06:26 PM            

quote:

---

More blither, blather, bloviation and bullshiiit that republicans spent twice as much as demoscats.

First and foremost, NO ONE can know that until the quarterly contribution and expenditure reports are filed and digested.

---

Reporting from Washington — Spending in this year's midterm election will approach $4 billion and "obliterate" the previous record, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics said Wednesday.

...

On advertisements and other election-related communications, conservative outside groups have spent more than $2 for every $1 spent by liberal outside groups, the center found. Leading the pack were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and three organizations formed by Republican strategists Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie and Norm Coleman, which spent more than $92 million combined.

posted November 10, 2010 08:07 PM            

Future tense WILL...not DID!

"On advertisements and other election-related communications, conservative outside groups have spent more than $2 for every $1 spent by liberal outside groups, the center found."

Read em and weep acoustic. Your theory is fatally flawed!

So acoustic, just 3 labor unions spent $171.5 million electing demoscats.

The US Chamber of Commerce and Rove's group only spent $140 million electing Republicans.

Let's see acoustic; is $171.5 million more than $140 million? Only using leftist math did Republican groups spend more than demoscat groups.

posted November 10, 2010 10:19 PM            

From the chart I posted:

"Sources:
AFSCME...the top spender

Center for Responsive Politics...which now appears to have an agenda

Wall Street Journal"

posted November 11, 2010 07:20 AM            

Caught again in an untenable position eh acoustic!

Hey, one of the sources for the spending chart I posted is your very own....Center for Responsive Politics.

Another source for the spending chart amounts is the AFSCME, a government employees labor union...which by the way says they spent almost as much by themselves... as you say all the demoscats spent combined. Uhhh, make that $87.5 million.

posted November 11, 2010 07:52 AM            

Sarah Palin knows why printing money out of thin air...by the Fed is a policy for economic disaster...for the government and for everyone who is paid in US dollars or has their savings in dollars or investments tied to the dollar. Sarah Palin knows there's no free lunch. Sooner or later, the bill must be paid.

O'Bomber embraces printing press money.

Obama’s Clever Way to Punt the Tough Calls: Driving the Dollar Down
by Sarah Palin on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 at 10:15am

In his press conference on Monday, President Obama responded to critics of the Federal Reserve’s decision to start a new round of quantitative easing – a fancy term for printing money out of thin air. He claimed this move would drive up U.S. growth rates. He also warned that “the worst thing that could happen to the world economy, not just ours but the entire world’s economy is if we end up being stuck with no growth or very limited growth.”

The latter is certainly true. It would be a global disaster if the U.S. economy remained permanently stuck in the mud. But the same cannot be said of his claim that the Fed’s experiment in pump priming would automatically lead to increased economic growth. By the time this experiment is over, QE will make us queasy.

Will driving the dollar down in this way do anything to boost U.S. exports? The short answer is not really. A weaker dollar will temporarily boost exports by making our goods cheaper to sell; but inevitably other countries will respond in kind, triggering the kind of currency wars economists are warning us about. It’s precisely to prevent this scenario that World Bank President Robert Zoellick recently came out in favor of some new type of gold standard or “international reference point.”

Will QE2 then at least boost domestic investment? No, again. As I explained in my speech in Phoenix, the reason banks aren’t lending and businesses aren’t investing isn’t because of insufficient access to credit. There’s plenty of money around, it’s just that no one’s willing to spend it. Big businesses especially have been hoarding cash. They’re not expanding or adding to their workforce because there’s just too much uncertainty created by a lot of big government experiments that aren’t working. It’s the President’s own policies that are creating this uncertainty.

The President is an educated man. I would hope that he knows these things as well as you and I do. So why then, if he knows it won’t really boost our exports or our domestic investments, would he still come out in defense of this dangerous experiment? I think the most plausible answer has to do with the debt. As liberal economist Paul Krugman has explained, a little inflation goes a long way towards driving down the value of the enormous national debt Obama has run up. And the higher the inflation, the greater the likelihood he won’t have to take any of the tough decisions needed to bring the deficit back down. In other words, pushing inflation upwards means you can have your cake and eat it too. You can spend all you like and then make the bill disappear by driving down the value of the dollar – buying with one hand the debt your reckless spending is issuing with the other. No need to cut spending, folks, just run the printing presses. It’s a win-win scenario.

Or maybe not. Because I fear there will be plenty of losers if this really happens, not least the millions of Americans who’ll see the value of their incomes and savings eroded. As the chair of the President’s own Debt Reduction Task Force, former CBO director Alice Rivlin explained, this sort of policy is no good. Sooner or later – probably sooner rather than later – it will come back to bite us in the behind. Rivlin warned: “As our debt mounts, the risk grows that our creditors, especially foreign creditors who own half our debt, will lose confidence in our ability to get our house in order and will demand dramatically higher interest rates.” Obviously, that’s even more likely to happen when they figure out that the Fed is deliberately driving down the value of the dollars they already hold. When they do lose confidence, Rivlin explained, that will spell disaster for our economy, “derailing the economic recovery and ballooning the cost of servicing the federal debt.”

If the President was serious about getting the economy moving again, he’d stop supporting the Fed’s dangerous experiments with our currency and focus instead on what actually works: reducing government spending and boosting business investment through good old fashioned supply side reforms (cutting taxes and reducing overly burdensome regulations). Simply running the printing presses in order to avoid paying off your debts is no way for a great nation to behave.

posted November 11, 2010 12:22 PM            

I tell you why the charts don't jive, and you ask me if I'm in an untenable position? That's not logical. That's completely insane.

quote:

---

Hey, one of the sources for the spending chart I posted is your very own....Center for Responsive Politics.

---

I know! Duh!

quote:

---

Obviously, your number of $95 million spent by demoscats was compiled using leftist math...or, simply a number picked out of the air.

---

Like I said in my previous post... The Center for Responsive Politics in their own chart is referring to advertising buys. Outside Republican groups spent money on advertising to an extent that is double what outside Democratic groups did.

posted November 11, 2010 04:22 PM            

Is this the most popular or longest running thread of all time in GU?

How many times does the Alaskan Albatross have to show she really is a ....

Blue Footed Booby

posted November 11, 2010 10:12 PM            

O'Biden always has both feet in his mouth and can't speak.

Who better to fill that slot than Sarah Palin who has her facts straight, has more intellect in the skin cells which slough off each day than O'Bomber has in his whole body and more common sense in the fingernail on her little finger than O'Bomber ever has had or will have.

Palin's treatise on sound money and monetary policy is dead on point and correct.

Sarah Palin understands that inflating the money supply...without a corresponding increase in production of goods and services devalues every other dollar in circulation AND monetizing the US debt has the same net effect. That's what causes inflation.

In effect, the government becomes a thief as the value of people's wages and savings are devalued and the same amount of money buys less goods and services in the market place.

Why do you think the Chinese are mad as hornets? They understand those US bonds they hold as debts of the United States will be paid off in devalued dollars. Once lenders get wise to the theft and China and Japan are big lenders to the United States through the purchase of US bonds; they either stop lending or demand a much higher interest rate on the bonds they purchase to compensate for the devaluation of the currency in which they're going to get repaid.

This is the perfect example of why O'Bomber is a know nothing empty suit and the contrast with the sterling intellect of Sarah Palin.

Palin's Dollar, Zoellick's Gold
An unlikely pair elevate the monetary policy debate
NOVEMBER 9, 2010

Sarah Palin

It would be hard to find two more unlikely intellectual comrades than Robert Zoellick, the World Bank technocrat, and Sarah Palin, the populist conservative politician. But in separate interventions yesterday, the pair roiled the global monetary debate in complementary and timely fashion.

The former Alaskan Governor showed sound political and economic instincts by inveighing forcefully against the Federal Reserve's latest round of quantitative easing. According to the prepared text of remarks that she released to National Review online, Mrs. Palin also exhibited a more sophisticated knowledge of monetary policy than any major Republican this side of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan.

Stressing the risks of Fed "pump priming," Mrs. Palin zeroed in on the connection between a "weak dollar—a direct result of the Fed's decision to dump more dollars onto the market"—and rising oil and food prices. She also noted the rising world alarm about the Fed's actions, which by now includes blunt comments by Germany, Brazil, China and most of Asia, among many others.

"We don't want temporary, artificial economic growth brought at the expense of permanently higher inflation which will erode the value of our incomes and our savings," the former GOP Vice Presidential nominee said. "We want a stable dollar combined with real economic reform. It's the only way we can get our economy back on the right track."

Mrs. Palin's remarks may have the beneficial effect of bringing the dollar back to the center of the American political debate, not to mention of the GOP economic platform. Republican economic reformers of the 1970s and 1980s—especially Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp—understood the importance of stable money to U.S. prosperity.

On the other hand, the Bush Administration was clueless. Its succession of Treasury Secretaries promoted dollar devaluation little different from that of the current Administration, while the White House ignored or applauded an over-easy Fed policy that created the credit boom and housing bubble that led to financial panic.

Editorial page editor Paul Gigot scores round one for the former Alaskan Governor.
Misguided monetary policy can ruin an Administration as thoroughly as higher taxes and destructive regulation, and the new GOP majority in the House and especially the next GOP President need to be alert to the dangers. Mrs. Palin is way ahead of her potential Presidential competitors on this policy point, and she shows a talent for putting a technical subject in language that average Americans can understand.

Which brings us to Mr. Zoellick, who exceeded even Mrs. Palin's daring yesterday by mentioning the word "gold" in the orthodox Keynesian company of the Financial Times. This is like mentioning the name "Palin" in the Princeton faculty lounge.

Mr. Zoellick, who worked at the Treasury under James Baker in the 1980s, laid out an agenda for a new global monetary regime to reduce currency turmoil and spur growth: "This new system is likely to need to involve the dollar, the euro, the yen, the pound and a renminbi that moves toward internalization and then an open capital account," he wrote, in an echo of what we've been saying for some time.

And here's Mr. Zoellick's sound-money kicker: "The system should also consider employing gold as an international reference point of market expectations about inflation, deflation and future currency values. Although textbooks may view gold as the old money, markets are using gold as an alternative monetary asset today." Mr. Zoellick's last observation will not be news to investors, who have traded gold up to $1,400 an ounce, its highest level in real terms since the 1970s, as a hedge against the risk of future inflation.

However, his point will shock many of the world's financial policy makers, who still think of gold as a barbarous relic rather than as an important price signal. Lest they faint in the halls of the International Monetary Fund, we don't think Mr. Zoellick is calling for a return to a full-fledged gold standard. His nonetheless useful point is that a system of global monetary cooperation needs a North Star to judge when it is running off course. The Bretton Woods accord used gold as such a reference until the U.S. failed to heed its discipline in the late 1960s and in 1971 revoked the pledge to sell other central banks gold at $35 an ounce.

One big problem in the world economy today is the frequent and sharp movement in exchange rates, especially between the euro and dollar. This distorts trade and investment flows and leads to a misallocation of capital and trade tensions. A second and related problem is the desire of the Obama Administration and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to devalue the dollar to boost exports as a way to compensate for the failed spending stimulus.

As recently as this week in India, Mr. Obama said that "We can't continue situations where some countries maintain massive [trade] surpluses, other countries have massive deficits and never is there an adjustment with respect to currency that would lead to a more balanced growth pattern."

If this isn't a plea for a weaker dollar in the name of balancing trade flows, what is it? The world knows the Fed can always win such a currency race to the bottom in the short run because it can print an unlimited supply of dollars. But the risks of currency war and economic instability are enormous.

posted November 12, 2010 11:20 AM              

the point jwhop, is not how great biden is, but that sarah palin has no respect for the voters, acting instead as if she were elected when she blatantly WAS NOT. this is called USURPATION in textbooks.

now maybe she is right and plastering herself all over the media makes her important. to me, it is no better than brad pitt or sean penn acting as if THEY know what the government should do. celebrities taking for granted that being famous makes them authorities on any subject they choose to opine on.

posted November 12, 2010 11:51 AM            

What matters is floating the question and creating doubt. If you say it often enough it becomes truth.. Yeah that seems to work too.