And, as Glenn noted, perhaps it is time to ask Kerry for his secret plan to end the war.
All Talk
by John Cole| 13 Comments
This post is in: Democratic Stupidity
All Talk
Reader Interactions
13Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!
Technically true, but collectively nonsense
Happy indictment week to all who celebrate!
Peak wingnut was a lie.
Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.
Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.
But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.
Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.
if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.
Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.
“woke” is the new caravan.
They are lying in pursuit of an agenda.
Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?
A lot of Dems talk about what the media tells them to talk about. Not helpful.
Good lord, these people are nuts.
Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.
We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.
This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.
Take your GOP plan out of the witness protection program.
This blog will pay for itself.
Schmidt just says fuck it, opens a tea shop.
When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.
You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.
The GOP is a fucking disgrace.
You are here: Home / All Talk
M. Scott Eiland
As I’ve suggested before when I’ve seen that “insane eyes” picture of Krugman, his “plan” should be to reach for the Thorazine and take a long siesta at the Howard Dean Memorial Clinic for the Treatment of Bush Derangement Syndrome–he can have a cot next to Eric Alterman.
CadillaqJaq
Pass Bill Clinton’s phone number along to Krugman: he was once a proponent for “privatization.”
Speaking of Aaron Brown, this was taken from one of his Good Morning America shows in 1998…
ABC Good Morning America Sunday
July 26, 1998
AARON BROWN, Host: “Tomorrow President Clinton will be in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
for what is being called a national forum on Social Security.
The trustees of the system predict that by the year 2032,
not that far away any more, Social Security will have only enough money
to pay out about 75 percent of full benefits to retirees,
and there will be a lot of retirees then as the baby boomers grow old.
Lawmakers are looking at several options, and one of the most intriguing
and probably the most controversial is the one to allow Americans
to invest on their own and at their own risk some of the taxes they
pay into the Social Security fund.”
So, in 1998, Social Security was considered to be in trouble and I don’t recall the Dems clamoring for Clinton’s hide then. There must be a logical explanation… can it be politics?
Bloggerhead
Surely ya’ll understand that PK is refraining from details because he doesn’t want to get caught negotiating with himself. After all, its pretty widely acknowledged that the vague privatization proposals of President Blinky (I wonder what drug causes that, um, nervous tick) don’t solve the funding problem that he’s freaking out about.
Let’s face it, boys, it’s politics of the playground at this point: I’ll show you mine if you show me yours first.
Kimmitt
There must be a logical explanation… can it be politics?
Hm, maybe it’s that productivity growth kicked back in, so Social Security isn’t considered as badly off as it was back in 1998. Nah, that’s “reality-based.”
Pass Bill Clinton’s phone number along to Krugman: he was once a proponent for “privatization.”
Please find me a single quote from Bill Clinton in which he endorsed taking money from the SS Trust Fund and giving control over to individual accounts. Hint: you can’t. Clinton never endorsed such a thing. Clinton did discuss changing the law to allow the SS Trust Fund to invest in stocks and bonds, a la other pension programs, but that is significantly different from the Bush plan.
I’m not a regular reader of Krugman’s column (too busy reading his textbooks), so I can’t comment as to the veracity of the the banner. It’s certainly not surpring that a weekly columnist would be distracted from a given project.
RW
Yeah, we all remember the economic malaise known as the tech-bubble wild ride of 1998, when the US economy was the best in the history of civilization and inlays were flowing in.
[groan]
Sheesh, do you even read the stuff you crop from other sites and paste here, Kimmitt?
Or is your newfound “hey, the Bush economy is better than the Clinton tech bubble in 1998” recitation of someone else’s work the new talking point you guys – who said that the Bush economy was a reason to vote him out of office – are going throw up against the wall & see if it sticks?
I must say, your commendation of the Bush economy is a welcome change, even if it is done in a defensive mode without much thought, since it’ll be brought up again as a reminder in the near future. Bank on it.
Kimmitt
Yeah, we all remember the economic malaise known as the tech-bubble wild ride of 1998, when the US economy was the best in the history of civilization and inlays were flowing in.
Look, don’t waste everyone’s time accusing me of lying about things of which you’re profoundly ignorant. Projections of Social Security’s solvency did not incorporate the improved productivity growth until the end of that particular business cycle in 2001 (when we could definitively state the date of the cycle’s peak in 2000).
In addition, the Bush years have been characterized by uninspiring GDP growth and stagnant job and wage numbers — but we have continued to enjoy the productivity growth engendered by the still-increasing use of computers in business. That’s the Bush economy in a nutshell; we work harder, we do more, and we get less.
Seriously, though, please try to be at least marginally educated on a subject before attempting to call out someone whose job is in the field.
RW
Projections?
BWAHAHAHHAHA!
Projections?
You’re arguing projectcions while I’m pointing at the actual inlays?
BWAHAHHAHA!
I can see why I tweaked a nerve.
Hint: go look at the inlays, Kimmitt.
Yeah, your expertise led me to a link about ASSumptions. Thanks for the slow fastball, Kimmitt. Here on planet earth the payroll tax inlays were booming in the late 90s. Check the historical record and stop passing off what you read from Delong, Drum, Kos & atrios and you won’t get so verklept when your recitations get outed.
Speaking of you getting called out, have you got that list of racist Dems who switched to the GOP, yet? Tick, tick, tick.
(and lighten up, kiddo. It’s not like I questioned your manhood, only your commentary. You don’t want a pissing contest so let’s keep it civil)
Kimmitt
You’re arguing projectcions while I’m pointing at the actual inlays?
This is the second stupidest thing I’ve read about Social Security over the course of this entire debate. If we’re talking about revenues today, Social Security is completely solvent. The only question is whether or not Social Security will be able to meet benefits in the future, and that requires making projections.
Furthermore, I was most certainly talking about projections in the post to which you replied.
Speaking of you getting called out, have you got that list of racist Dems who switched to the GOP, yet?
Meh, someone else did the job for me:
Senator Strom Thurmond
Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr. of Virginia
Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr. (Dem -> Independent)
Those are the most famous ones; state-level party-switchers aren’t included in the analysis.
RW
Third. Your contention that projections are “reality based”, is at the top. Projections are not reality, they’re educated guesses. No one knows what will happen in 15 years and each side sends up their rosiest scenarios.
Wow, and the third name on your list didn’t even switch to the GOP but rather became an independent.
’nuff said. You were reciting blather you saw somewhere else (again) and got caught, then did a quick wikipedia search….and can’t even make it past two names.
Noted. Keep that in mind the next time you try that line.
Have a nice day.
Kimmitt
Third. Your contention that projections are “reality based”, is at the top. Projections are not reality, they’re educated guesses.
Hence the phrase, “reality-based.” You know, like, “I think it will rain tomorrow, based on the reality that there’s a front coming in.”
No one knows what will happen in 15 years
Then why even pretend that Social Security is solvent, insolvent, or otherwise? What you’re saying is that we cannot plan for the future in any way, shape, or form. Fine. So why are you even taking part in the debate? This is your position — we don’t know what will happen, so it’s not worth even trying to plan.
And yes, I found two high-ranking racist Democrats who switched to the Republican Party (and one who couldn’t stand to be associated with the Dems any more . . . I wonder why). You didn’t ask for how many there were or what office they had to hold, you asked for a list of Party-switchers. My thesis is supported — the Civil Rights Bill was so bad for racist Democrats that some of them even went so far as to first abandon the Democratic Party, then go searching for more congenial quarters in the Republican Party.
RW
That’s okay, Kimmitt.
There are over 300 former elected Democrats who have left the party since 1993 because the Dems are for higher taxes, socialized health care and excusing perjurers.
And counting…don’t count out Ben Nelson. Yet.
Two people….heh. I can simply retort: Robert Byrd and George Wallace stayed with the party, although I don’t know if they’re into the outing of homosexuals that they don’t like, as so many other Democrats are keen on doing nowadays.
Two people?
And it took you a year and a new search to step up to the plate, at that.
Be honest, Kimmitt, did you even have any names in mind when you recited the words of someone else (on multiple occasions) or is the hatred for Republicans so entrenched that it’s second nature to accuse a group of being racist as a kneejerk reaction?
Actually, reality based means “not real” & I was being kind. Didn’t you know that?
What I say is what I type. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. But, don’t do the “in essence what you’re saying is” thing….that’s a no-no.
Kimmitt
There are over 300 former elected Democrats who have left the party since 1993 because the Dems are for higher taxes, socialized health care and excusing perjurers.
Hey, if people want to leave because they’re against paying our bills, making sure our kids get health care, and using the Constitutional power of impeachment to settle petty politics, that’s fine. I also agree that there’s a place in the Republican Party for such people. The Republican Party stands for all sorts of reprehensible behavior, but one particular bit of that reprehensible behavior was racism* and is now homophobia.
*and is now to a much lesser extent.
RW
Yeah, bigots are bad.
Ever read the definition of it, Kimmitt? Maybe you & Bob should check it out, since you’re hip deep in it.