Hmmm. You do have a point... but not sharp enough.

Scott Brown has my vote.

EXACTLY!!

How do you know the 52% got it wrong? Because they didn't vote as you did?

It was the 48% who got it wrong....

Everyone's wrong: Warren won 53.7% ti 46.3% That's by 7.4%.

so 53.7% got it wrong...

I agree. I too feel that Liz Warren's "because I said so" proof of Native American ancestry was the best approach.

I also feel that because she made $385,000/year teaching part time at Harvard, she feels my pain as a middle class American trying to put kids through school.

I mean, who HASN'T looked at their bank balance and said "$385,000?!?!? What am I supposed to do with this pittance? I wish Harvard would increase my hours!"?

and Pocahontas Warren isn't?

"Folks in MA only vote (D), due to an ill-informed electorate."

You really think it's because they are "ill-informed"? As if voting R is always the best choice if only we all knew the "facts", as presented on FOX News and the Glenn Beck show? "Facts" as tweeted by the likes of Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin?

I think folks vote D because they can parse out facts from agenda-driven rhetoric.

How many of those Tea Baggers do you suppose checked a D on their ballot. I'm guessing you checked the R box without even knowing some of the candidates. Glass houses shatter quickly!

Kristoff,

I agree that Brown has voted independently, especially by today's hyper-partisan standards. But a couple of exceptions:

1st, on economics he's been 100% down the line pro-Trickle Down Economics. That is, on the issue of the age - the economy - he's been devoutly with the GOP.

2nd, according to the Mass GOP (http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/01/study_concludes_scott_brown_is.html) Brown was MUCH LESS bipartisan in his 1st year in the Senate when he voted with the GOP 78% of the time.

That's what's called "The Elizabeth Warren effect".

No betrayal. Only thankful he was open minded enough to compromise. Excactly what he said he would do.

When was there a bill for him to vote on? I cannot find anything on any of the government tracker websites. The only thing I came across was a news article stating that Scott Brown was the first Republican to formerly support a ban on assault weapons. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/sen-scott-brown-backs-assault-rifle-ban-article-1.1224280

Curly will be President
Mow will be VP
Larry: Speaker of the House
Now, isn't that an improvement we can all live with?

NICE!

Sadly, Capt. Lou Albano died in 2009.

I agree with Dick.

Whoa ?
Octogenarians, septuagenarians, close enough.
Go get yourself a history book, or a sense of humor perhaps ?
Sad thing is, it's more truth than humor with an electorate of sheep here in MA..

That's right, call your readers "sheep" for a punch line. Clearly we all have different ideas of what is humorous. Not to mention, what is true. LOL

polo

I agree with Carla 100%!

FACT; our state is one of the best run states in the country. highest paying jobs, highest realestate values, best schools in the world, second to none hospitals,97% health care for our people, balanced budget, ect. ect. ect .. and the kennedys are one of the reasons this state is on solid footing. i lived in a red (moron) states so i can tell you first hand vote democrat and thank a kennedy.

Get out of here Marko. Massachusetts is now easily in the top 10 of U.S. States of debt per person....along with probably Connecticut and Rhode Island. You really think Massachusetts is financially sound? This isn't 1963.

But don't take my word for it. Here's a link per huffingtonpost.com listing the 10 States With The Highest Debt Per Person:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/states-debt-combined-may-exceed-4-trillion_n_1029162.html#s429795&title=7_Massachusetts

chris, we have more debt per person becouse our incomes are much much higher then 98% of the rest of the country. we also give more $$ to the feds then we get back to support the poorer states. i work all over this country and all i can tell you is we live in the best state.

Marko, I have lived in both Massachusetts and Texas for half of my life. I can tell you that you get much more for your $ in Texas. Yes, salaries may be lower in general but there's also no sales tax and you get a bigger home for your $. Sure, Texas may not look as pretty in some categories as Massachusetts because of the huge immigrant influx that throws stats off, but depending where you live it's not too bad. Just look at the population rate change in recent years as proof. Texas is #2 overall. Massachusetts isn't even in top half of U.S. states. Would you really want to retire in Mass???? I like Massachusetts and New England in general in the summer and fall months but I can do without this cold and snow. Don't get me wrong I don't dislike Massachusetts and there are a lot of great benefits here like the schools....but the country is changing fast.

I have to agree, Texas is very cost-efficient. Just compare the number of convicts that Texas kills annually compared to Massachusetts, it's not even close. And that's even if you exclude the mentally handicapped folks Texas sends to the gas chamber.

ouch chris! i just purchased a retirement home in hyannisport . now your telling me..... big mistake? too late now. i also like texas but not to live there. scott brown should run for a seat in texas. got my vote!

Marko, If you can afford a retirement home in hyannisport god bless you. The Cape is great in the summer. I was just referring from the average persons perspective.

Back to topic, I think Scott Brown is a pretty good moderate Republican and hope he does run for Kerry's seat. It's the hard core southern conservative Republicans you have to watch out for. But then again, I would also make the same case for California and northeast liberal Democrats. Good to not have one party dominate or the extreme wing of that party in office.

David, why would you assume that because I have had enough of the Kennedy influence in Ma. that I am prejudice? The word "prejudice" should not be part of this discussion because it simply has nothing to do with it. There was a time before the 2008 election that if I didn't vote for a democrat it was because I didn't like his policies. Since the 2008 election, by not voting for the democrat, all of a sudden I'm prejudice or a racist! President Clinton was right when he said the race card will only go so far until people will begin to see through it! It is getting old...time to shuffle the deck! As for actors running for office, Reagan was one of the the best presidents and he was not a Hollywood wannabe like Obama!

I am not assuming anything, Carla. You are denouncing a group based upon something as superficial as (--and few things are more superficial than--) a name. That's a standard definition of prejudiced, which is what your comment is. You don't like "Kennedys"--that's a prejudice. Nobody ever said it was racist--so YOUR introduction of the term seems to me inappropriate, unless of course you intend to indicate some other problem you have, which is your prerogative. But don't tell other people what terms they should or should not use--that's just being pushy. I think Reagan was a pretty bad actor, though perhaps, as a former Democrat and Union Leader, he was a bit better. I have a feeling that President Obama is not bothered by your misinterpretation of him, and neither am I.

David, ....."something as superficial as a name...." ????
Jack Kennedy: OK'd the Bay of Pigs, and didn't back up the force. Marilyn Monroe ? Mafia Molls ?
Robert Kennedy: Marilyn Monroe, Hollywood Starlets.
Ted Kennedy: Touched everything but the third rail. Immigration act of 1965. Obamacare, Waitress sandwich with Chris Dodd, Left a young woman to drown in his car.....for 12 hours before reporting it.
Michael Kennedy Smith: Kennedy boys family fun weekend in Palm Beach, rape charge, Ted with his pants down to his ankles.
Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel: In prison for murder.
JFK Jr: Breathtaking stupidity as an inexperienced pilot, resulting in the death of his wife and her sister.
Michael Kennedy: Kennedy boys fun with the babysitter
Joe Kennedy: Rolled his jeep over on a young woman, resulting in her being paralyzed.
Patrick Kennedy: Stiffed his landlady out of rent, accosted female security guard at an airport, "Ambien Boy" hits jersey barrier at Capitol.
Papa Joe: Hitler sympathizer, had his daughter Rosemary lobotomized.
RFK Jr: Wife commits suicide, is buried. RFK has her disinterred & moved to another gravesite.
Caroline Schlossberg: "I'm entitled to a senate seat."
So David, what's "superficial" to you, has in many cases been a negative or life changing event to many, particularly the women above who were victimized by a member of the "Kennedy" clan. "We" have had enough of them, and wish they would simply go away.

That is about as grotesque a litany of one-sided and highly prejudicial (in the phrasing as in the selection) complaints against the members of a single family that I have ever seen, or ever hope to see. Where to begin? With the widely debatable nature of many of your accusations (Marilyn Monroe? Really? Tell us all the details) or the incredibly callous--even brutally slick--description of tragedies (the low point, I guess, is your apparently privileged, supernaturally-sanctioned verdict on the late JFK Jr's "stupidity" and his and Caroline Bessette's fatal accident. You have heard of accidents, right? God forbid we should ever have one. God forbid a stranger should have the last word on one of ours.). Talk about judge and jury! And you conveniently leave out the assassinations--why mention a paltry thing like John F. Kennedy's or his brother, Bobby's, sacrifices--and the decades of dedication to the causes of education and the poor that are, for example, a great part of the late Senator Ted Kennedy's legacy. When you say "'We' have had enough of them"--for whom do you speak? The female victims?

cont'd.

But the main issue for me has nothing to do with the Kennedys--it has to do with the simple fact that every person--every American citizen, at least--is answerable only for him- or herself. Your impassioned but vicious and one-sided diatribe does not change that fact. In this country, you are not guilty because of anything someone in your family has done, just as you are not better or more deserving because of who your father or mother is. A name, no less than skin color or accent or gender, is a truly superficial and baseless (and base) criterion for judging any individual, who remains always and only knowable through his or her own words and deeds. I saw numerous comments on this very Patch decrying the recent candidacy of Joe Kennedy for Congress because "He is a Kennedy!!" And that is prejudiced. And un-American.

Well David, it's blatantly obvious that you don't speak for ANY victims of the Kennedy clan, as you choose to ignore them, and the rest of the facts in my post....'cause it doesn't suit your agenda. Instead you are personally insulted by it all, and launch into an ad-hominem attack.
But.....I have to hand it to you.....you are a good "do as I say not as I do liberal" !!! Many of your posts paint all republicans in the same way you criticize here !!
As for JFK Jr., yes he was stupid. With minimal to no experience of "IFR" (as opposed to "VFR"..look them up) HE decided to fly the plane that night, putting the Bessette sisters lives in jeopardy. Is there some part of the word "stupid" that you don't understand ?
So, keep drinking that Kennedy kool-aid David.....except that I fear you're not drinking it, it's a 24-7 I-V drip the size of a fire hose.

Wow David you debate Ken B's remarks about the Kennedy's? It is all avalable from the freedom of information act that you so loved when they just released all he gun owners names. Those events are factual David. History. the same history you like to twist to serve your perverted agenda.

Again, DGM? You said you were over me, and now you are lying again. Coward.

Ken B. Whoever taught you "ad hominem"? You should have stayed for the definition, not just the pronunciation.
Again, to judge any individual on the basis of the name he or she bears is prejudicial. I'm sorry that angers you so.

Coward? That is funny David. A coward is the guy that calls people names with a keyboard.

EXACTLY! Go back and read your last few posts, and learn where you go wrong.

David, I apologize I didn't realize you were over 65. My bad.

David, just because you are a leftist demo doesn't mean that you can make up definitions, so we'll chalk you up for another major top-of-the-mark epic fail for your pathetic sad attempt to re-define "ad-hominem"

Get a grip, KenB. I never redefined anything. Just because you are whatever it is you are (not my job to know or care), doesn't make it right to judge any individual on the basis of the name he or she bears. As for who should run for Kerry's seat, I still prefer Ed Markey FROM MALDEN. At the same time, I am not terribly against Scott Brown, whom I thought started off very well as Senator Kennedy's replacement, though some of his financial backers worry me, and I thought he ran an unnecessarily negative campaign against Senator Warren; his patronizing got tired and, I think, lost him the election.

DGM, I'm not. Why do you keep lying? I'm sorry, I hate to do this to you, but I'm cutting you off. You can go and tear off your beard and stomp your pointed shoes through the floor boards, but nary another response will you receive from me. Your constant invective--your name-calling, your virtual illiteracy, your libelous and cowardly insinuations, and your constant lies, have earned you your place in outer space. Good bye, DGM, goodbye!

And as I said above, I would expect the contest to be between Brown and Markey.

But, David as a lefty demo, you can can deny what you said, and keep repeating the lie, right ?
In any event, keep apologizing for the Kennedys, and enabling them to continue to wreak havoc with impunity.

David It is not the Kennedy name that I am denouncing or more like not in favor of; It is all that they stood for in Ma. that I do not agree with. I could not have said it any better than Ken B. and DGM. But Ken B. said it best regarding your comments when he said "you are a good "do as I say not as I do liberal"!!! So need I say more......

Carla, behave yourself. You don't know anything about me, except that I think it is wrong to judge people by their names, and you did just that when you said, "No more Kennedys". It is fine, and far from surprising, that you have found your bedfellows in "DGM" and "Ken B"--those towers of prejudice and bad grammar. No more Carlas! I don't like what "they" "stand for". Jheesh.

By the way, a lot of people, rightly or wrongly, still like some of the Kennedys, though I am sure they care more about the INDIVIDUAL bearing the name than you do.

"He lied, deflected and attacked, ... "

Really... and I suppose the pristine Mrs. Warren did none of that.

Scott Brown is a good moderate candidate for the Republicans who would represent MA well. As an Independent, he has my vote.

Actually, lots and lots of people knew who Warren was, and we were hoping she would run. Glad she did.

Not a big Lynch fan. Too socially conservative, did not support PPACA and he's a big middle-east intervetionist.

Shaunna is a Republican and she will never win in Massachusetts.

I sort of agree with paul, which is very sad commentary on the state of politics in Massachusetts. But I don't think that's any reason to give up. She's a smart, hard working politician. Which is more than I can say for many of the others. I'd like to see her give it a shot.

DJ, we are commenting on a Massachusetts Senator's Seat. Thanks for the Republican Google facts.

no, but it means you shouldn't win!

Let me refer you to this topic: "Should Sperm Donors Be Held Financially Responsible?"

Homosexual is not a synonym for non-breeder.

As I understand it, Barney Frank wants to be appointed to the three-month term of interim senator. Which is fine with me. He can't do too much harm in three months.

I do not want Barney Frank anywhere near Washington, especially on behalf of MA, even if only for a few months. I would think it wise for the Democrats to choose someone who wants the job long term so that that person can run as an incumbent.

I find Massachusetts to be a breath of fresh air.

We have Reps who were entangled in sex scandals with pages in DC, but MA voters forgave them, because they were Democrats.

The capital city of Massachusetts has a Mayor who is bent on making the citizens of Boston healthier people, by attempting to regulate what they can and cannot put into their bodies. Meanwhile, he has spent 2 months hospitalized after learning he has Type 2 Diabetes.

Obviously, Menino is a man of great conviction and wisdom. Here he sits, a victim of his own appetites and uninformed eating decisions, attempting to make sweeping changes to what Bostonians can purchase and eat. I applaud him for falling on the proverbial sword for Boston.

And of course, now we have Elizabeth Warren. She feels my pain. She was a part time Harvard professor, and apparently she was underemployed. So she took on a full time job in DC that is a pay cut for her. But at least she is employed full time and has benefits now.

Are you sure you meant GDP? It's soared since 08/09.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp
You "conservatives" love to point fingers and pretend you've spent less aggressively then the left. Why don't you go and google some of your claims and wake yourself up.

The Democrats are to blame for all those things? The Republicans have a terrible record of tax increases stretching over fifty years (see for starters http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/2-of-the-last-3-gop-presidents-signed-larger-tax-increases-than-obamacare/259300/ and http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/24/253569/reagan-1982-flashback-economy-boomed/?mobile=nc). The Republicans themselves seem slowly to be realizing that their policies of preferential treatment for the rich are neither intelligent nor practical--certainly not practical politics. Despite your sweeping, unsupported accusations, people of all parties are still working hard, things are slowly getting better, the unemployment level is dropping, and the economy is improving, under President Obama. The American Dream is still very much alive, and will continue to elude being restricted to a single, conservative interpretation. My own hope for Senator Kerry's replacement would be an open-minded, pro-social-programs, pro-education and pro-infrastructure-overhaul man or woman who is capable of being, rather than merely claiming to be, bi-partisan. A worker, like President Obama himself; by which I mean someone who really takes on a job and works to accomplish it.

Richard--Your link didn't pan out I'm afraid. In any case, in the interest of fairness, you should specify those states which receive the most money through Federal programs and assistance. That's right, across the board, it is the states that vote conservatively, and went for Romney in the last election, that are the biggest recipients of Federal moneys...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html
... Pause to think.
And are you really going to suggest that the economy was BETTER OFF during the Bush regime, even as the bills for the latest wars just started to come in? Don't you remember the last years of President Bush's government? How on earth can you blame President Obama and "left wing Democrats" for that?
As for spending more--most of us spend more than our predecessors. It's not spending alone that matters--it's what you get for your money. Peace and a fairer and more just division of opportunity and national resources and basic health care for all and a decent education for children and care for the elderly and disabled are what, if you ask me, the money is for. And worth every penny.

President Obama inherited the worst recession since the great depression; 750,000 jobs lost a month, 2 wars and a prescription drug benefit not on the books, and he turned all this around. Had Bush not blown Clintons surplus, we would now be debt free. Blame Bush for this, not Obama.

Thank you, Just Saying! One does get a little tired of hearing Bushisms like the reference to the expensive but worthwhile "war on terror"--and those Bushisms from the same people who think Bush was too long ago too mention. And referring to a shockingly costly--in financial and human terms--war that we were lied into as "maybe not so necessary" (woopsy! my bad) tells us a lot about the people who make such comments. Unemployment is dropping. The stock market is recovering. We have mandated healthcare for the first time in history. Etc. Etc.

Hmm, The war on terror isn't worthwhile? Seems there are Families of about 3,000 people that would disagree.

For your viewing (dis)pleasure:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/republican-party-deficit_n_1858295.html#slide=1477002

When was the Middle East NOT waiting to explode? And Emcee, you do your share to keep the vitriolic divisiveness current. But I'm flattered you read my Herbert Hoover comment!

Much of that spending on defense, was actually spending on offense, and was initiated under W.

This country DOES NOT need a defense budget that is close to being as large as ALL of the world's defense budgets combined. That's right: If you add up ALL of the world's defense budgets, compare that total number to the U.S. defense budget you'll find that they're very close: Within a few percentage points. The U.S. Defense Budget is 8 times as large as the 2nd largest defense budget (China's).

The world has changed. We're no longer challenged by adversaries with ICBMs, carrier groups and fleets of nuclear submarines. But we continue to ACT like we still face those adversaries. About 99% of defense expenditures ARE NOT directed at the new threat: Terrorism.

The hawks and elected officials from defense industry states have brain washed us into believing that we need this gargantuan defense budget and that to suggest otherwise is defeatist and unpatriotic.

We've been brainwashed to believe we need this defense budget.

Health care. Finding Osama Bin Laden after the Bushes lost him. Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Reducing unemployment. Giving American auto workers another chance. Just off the top... And he does have FOUR MORE YEARS--godwilling.

Emcee: Can you find an Obama quote or speech from 2009 in which he said he would bring the troops home from Afghanistan (much less Iraq) in a year? I presume you can find such a quote - you said he said it.

Emcee,

You feel sorry for the NEXT President? OK, but then I presume that you felt bad for Obama who inherited this from Bush:

- An economy losing 600,00 jobs per month. That's right, you didn't misread that: 598,000 jobs lost in January of '09 and 650,000 jobs lost in February of '09.
- A $1.3 Trillion deficit
- Severe negative GDP growth (-6.3% for Q4 2008)

Did you feel bad for Obama when he had to inherit that from Bush?

There’s no debating the fact that Obama underestimated the difficulty of closing Gitmo. So there’s a promise he didn’t keep. As to bringing the troops home? Sorry DGM: You’re all wet.

Would you accept a Fox News review of Obama’s campaign promises on Iraq?
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/05/brief-look-candidate-obamas-2008-campaign-promises
“As a candidate out on the trail … Obama said he would work with military commanders on the ground in Iraq and in consultation with the Iraqi government to end the war safely and responsibly within 16 months.
Here is one that is widely considered to be a promise kept for President Obama. Although about 48,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq as a transitional force, the bulk of the combat forces were headed home by the end of summer 2010”

It was harder to find a promise on bringing troops home from Afghanistan, and guess why? There was no such promise. Here’s what USA Today says about what Obama DID promise:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/obama-campaign-promise-tracker.htm

“Send at least two additional combat brigades, or about 7,000 troops, to Afghanistan to combat a resurgent Taliban”.

So I’m sorry DGM, Obama fulfilled both of his promises on the troops.

Richard,

The same method has been used to calculate unemployment for many decades now. That is, it has ALWAYS left people who have stopped looking for work out. If you want to take a shot at adding those people back in to criticize Obama but be fair about it, you'll have to do that for Bush and all previous Presidents.
he country's history. We're gong to have stubborn problems after such a meltdown.

Tax cuts along with smart spending, not out of control spending is what will bring a true recovery and reduce unemployment.

David,

And, much to the GOP's chagrin, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report last year that showed NO CORRELATION between low taxes for the wealthy and economic growth.

Recently, I asked a friend of mine how the h*ll the GOP could cleave to so many economic lies like this one. His response surprised me, or embarrassed me because I hadn't thought of it:

"All of the GOP's baseless rationales for protecting the wealthy are really cover stories for what it really wants to do: Gut the New Deal and Great Society programs that benefit the shiftless lower classes".

That is, the GOP's "Never ever under any circumstance raise taxes" mantra is really a "starve the beast strategy" for programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

David KEnt, It is so true--and I know people will groan when I remind them that, years ago, Hillary Clinton was very eloquent on precisely this topic. It is the conservatives, she claimed, who are the radicals, literally trying to DISMANTLE our great, shared, socially-conscious government that took centuries to build--which was and remains the IDEAL for the world--and these radical "conservatives" begin the process of deception by 1) de-educating the American people (the poster child for imbecility-as-patriotism is Sarah Palin--'I'm stupid, and proud of it, and if you're not, you're a socialist') and 2) convincing them that their freedoms are being threatened (when in fact their security--their Social Security, their health care, their unions and their livelihoods are being yanked from under them). I love President Obama for all he tries to do, and that he keeps trying even against such odds. But behind him I always see the great FDR. It wasn't so long ago that one out of every four grandparents in the US was living in dire poverty--starvation level. The Republican leadership has no problem spending all its time and money trying to persuade you that "it never happened, and it can't happen again." Think about that. If we don't learn from history...

Here is the information on the "taker" states.

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/11-states-now-have-more-people-on-govt-aid-than-they-have-people

I really hope you're not trusting Fox news.

Obama can't take the Kerry seat, he's President. You can get over that now, or four years from now, and most of that debt was dumped on him by George W. Bush and his warmonger buddy Dick Cheney.

Dennis, I have to confess that being referenced is a weakness of mine. Thank you!

Much of the 4 to 5 trillion is interest on what W ran up.

Message to Democrats: It's time to give up on people Emcee of Seekonk. To them, the 2nd worst economic crash in the country's history - the crash of 2008 - never occurred! Obama did not inherit the 2nd worst economy every inherited by a President. We weren't losing 600,000 jobs per month at that time. Our deficit had not been transformed from a $200 B surplus to a $1.3 trillion deficit. The GDP had not shrunk by over 6.3% in the previous quarter. The financial markets were NOT in complete shock.

Nope. None of that ever happened. Or, at the very least, none of that should have had any lasting impact. Rather, Obama should have been able to ride in on a white horse and deliver economic accomplishments never seen in human history! And short of that? He's a failure.

People like Emcee either don't know enough about economics to understand the depths to which Bush had taken the economy by 1/20/09 or they are so intellectually dishonest that they know that but refuse to acknowledge it in order to attack Obama.

I suspect the latter. But either way, they're lost causes.

Hey Richard Lunt,

Did you read the description of study that you referred to? If you did, then you read this:

" lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often"

This confirms what reasoned analysts have said about the CRA's impact on the Bush economic implosion of 2008: It contributed to the crash but it was not a dominant factor.

I know, I know: You adhere to the "the crash was all Barney Frank's fault" line of thinking. Well, that's a fig leaf not a reasonable theory. I know, I know: It's very convenient to blame it all on Barney Frank. Laughable, but convenient.

15% more defaults on 5% of lending. Keep that in mind Richard.

Emcee,

It is EXTREMELY difficult to address the deficit when you have a weak economy. Sure you want cuts, but have you studied macroeconomics Emcee? Severe cutting of an economy in recession or of a fragile economy just leads to economic downturn and then, guess what? MORE DEFICITS!!!

Conservatives think otherwise? I’ll word that another way: They don’t understand macroeconomics. They don’t understand, or they choose to ignore for political purposes, that you can’t cut your way out of a deep economic hole like the one left by Bush. I call that a “Herbert Hoover” for the last President to try that.

Now don’t get me wrong: At the right time, and that time is either now or very soon, cuts WILL be necessary and appropriate. At that time Obama will have to show that he is willing to cut. But the fact that Obama has resisted cuts over the last 4 years just shows that he understands macro-economics and that he refused to do a “Hoover”, which is what the GOP demanded.

Hold onto your wallets? If we’d done a Hoover or the last 4 years as the GOP – and apparently you – demanded we’d be stuck in recession today with a much higher unemployment rate than today’s. And, you know, those things REALLY hurt wallets.

Richard,

Vis-à-vis impact on a weak economy, all tax increases are not created equal. During recession tax increases on the middle and lower classes MOST DEFINITELY lead to economic downturn. But the same cannot be said of taxes on the wealthy.

Now, it’s not an all-or-nothing game. Back when were DEEP recession - you know, during the months soon after Bush departed, leaving an incredible chocolate mess – ANY tax increase was inappropriate. But over the last year or so, the strengthened economy has been able to support higher taxes on the wealthy. The CRS report that the GOP tried to silence has shown no correlation between high rates on the wealthy and GDP growth.

It’s not as simple as you describe Richard.

To use your words Richard:

"again as I have stated before" this CRA thing was A factor in the crisis of 2008 but it was hardly the dominant factor that you and other conservatives try to say it was. That's why I mentioned the 15% higher default rate on 5% of lending. That's not earth shaking.

To repeat again just so my point is clear:

Adjustments to the CRA driven by Barney Frank and others DID contribute to the crash of 2008. But it was not a dominant or a major contributor.

Hoover is also not available to take Kerry's seat.

For the 40 months of his administration after the crash of ’28 Hoover cut budgets and liquidity. That is, he did exactly what we know today should NOT be done during an economic downturn. Actually, I forgive Hoover because he only did what just about every Economist in the country said he should do in a troubled economy: Balance the budget. I do not, however, forgive elected officials today who recommend doing a Hoover because we know better today.

Of course deficits over $1 trillion are unsustainable, but to quote my father who loved old sayings: “You still don’t want to cut off your nose to spike your face”. That is, if cutting in a poor economy would leave us worse off than holding our collective noses at large deficits until the economy can withstand cuts, then we should not cut just because that seems right.

If you want an example, check out the “Depression within a Depression”. By the later part of FDR’s 1st term, the economy was growing . Of course, the fact that it had contracted so tragically after 1928 made that growth seem paltry, but it WAS growth. During the reelection year of ’36 FDR decided to slash the budget. Guess what happened? We went straight back to negative growth.

We should not cut off our noses to spite our faces by cutting before the economy can stand it.

Touche Paul

Paul Ryan is “impressive” if you’re impressed with Social Darwinism.

We need a balanced approach to fixing our budget similar to the one executed by Clinton in 1993 (long before Gingrich became Speaker): Moderately higher taxes and control of spending. Actually, we need more actual cutting than Clinton used.

Paul Ryan and company would have you believe that their brutal approach is the ONLY viable way to reign in our budget. That’s wrong. It’s ONE way to do that and a much too draconian, Social Darwinist way.

Richard, Of course the economy stinks!! That’s what happens when you (you = George Bush) allow an economy to make an almost unprecedented belly flop. Hmmm… unemployed over 3 years. I wonder, I wonder what could have caused that? Wait… I’ll get it. Right! The economic implosion of 2008! That’s 4 years ago. It caused monthly job losses in Q1 2009 of over 600,000 per month. These people were thrown out of work by Bush’s historic economic crash.

Fact of life Richard: Economies ravaged as our economy was ravaged under Bush take YEARS to recover. And those economies don’t just bounce back as you demand Obama deliver. The best away to avoid a long, unhappy economic period is to avoid ravaging the economy in the 1st place. Someone should send Dubya a little love note to that effect.

Richard--Did you read your own link??? How many of those worthy unemployed have been out of work for more than four years? A LOT! And things are getting better, according to your very own link!

I'm so sorry that your candidate lost the election. Show us on the doll where the liberals hurt you.

Daniel,

I guess you're not very comfortable with Democracy if your guy loses, huh?

In a Democracy, your side wins some and it loses some. Time to buck up and accept that Daniel.

Why not give the lady a chance Daniel? Are you so brainwashed by your right wing beliefs that you can't give Senator Warren a chance? She's the first female senator from Massachusetts, you should be proud that the rest of Massachusetts got it right.

Hey, I have a question Daniel: Did you grow up in a country where, over the previous 3 decades the wealth of the top couple of percent skyrocketed at an inflation adjusted 270% while the incomes of the rest of us rose at just 40%? That’s what the CBO says has happened in this country since the beginning of the Reagan Revolution.

Until last week Scott Brown did everything in his power to protect the incomes of the wealthiest Americans and next to nothing to help the rest of us. Now I don’t claim to understand Warren’s approach in detail, but she ran on helping the middle class. And I think she should be given a chance to deliver on that.

You know, it confounds me how hard working middle class people like you can support members of a party so blatantly tied to the wealthy. To the wealthy, that is, over the needs of the rest of us.

Oh God, the "Barney Frank Destroyed The Economy Oh Look I Have Some Quotes From What He Said When He Was A Minority Member Of A Finance Committee He Was The Reason Fannie Mae Collapsed" lunacy comes out.

I honestly thought that Richard was a made-up character, an online puppet used by some liberal/Democrat to make conservatives/Republicans look as stupid as humanly possible. But no, he's a real unemployed dingbat from southeast Mass, yes people like this do exist and walk among us.

Richard,

Are you a comic writer? You should be. So tell me this: If the economy collapses in an almost unprecedented way before Obama leaves office, you'll cover for him, right?

As I said Richard: Extremely funny!

Avon,

There's no doubt that Barney Frank was the most powerful minority member of a House committee in U.S. history. Well, at least to hear the Bush/GOP apologists talk! Back when I used to debate this seriously with conservatives I used to ask them where the majority was on the Banking committee when Barney was doing all of his skullduggery. Where was the Committee chair? Apparently Barney gave them sleeping sickness!!

Yes, there's no end to the delusion it there. They're good for laughs though.

Boy DGM, you really have memorized the GOP play book haven't you. Who said the rich were evil? You, that's who. Nobody else.

Now read this slowly: One can avoid jealously of the rich AND be concerned about unhealthy distribution of wealth in society. Those are not the same things. If you think about it a bit you may see it.

In the meantime, keep studying those GOP talking points.

David,
From 2001 to 2007 the unemployment rate was low and people had good paying jobs, thanks to the sound fiscal conservative Republican policies of the Bush administration and both Republican controlled House and Senate.

http://scottstanzel.com/2010/06/04/unemployment-rate-during-president-bush/

I certainly agree that President Clinton left President Bush with a pretty healthy economy. Most Republicans acknowledge that... And a surplus, etc. Now, do you acknowledge that the economy plunged under Bush's warmongering, rich-pampering regime, or not? That is, BEFORE President Obama was elected (the first time)? And yet, you blame Mr. Obama constantly in your comments above... Even though for all but four months of his presidency he has not had a real (filibuster-proof) majority in Congress. See link above. But we agree, the unemployment rate was low in 2001. We just disagree as to why it rose, before President Obama was elected (the first time--I just like saying that).

David, Richard has a problem with the whole cause-and-effect concept. It's what keeps people from coming to the realization that Ronald Reagan didn't smash through the Berlin Wall in a bulldozer driven by the Pope, and that Saddam's statue wasn't toppled over by hordes of jubilant Iraqi freedome fighters relishing their first taste of liberty.

Oh Avon, I wish I'd said that!

Richard gives a fantastic example of conservative memory lapse:

They remember 2001 to 2007 when the economy was fair to middling under Bush. I mean, no hing to compare to the 2nd half of Clinton, but by today's standards Shangrilah. But then suddenly, the memory blocks out 2008. Hmmm..... why could that be? Could it be because Bush's supposedly wise policies led to complete implosion of the economy? In that one year, this country lost all of its economic progress from 1990 forward and for some reason conservatives can't remember that !

Then, of course, the memory returns on Januray 20, 2009 with Obama holding the bag and it's all HIS fault.

That's conservative memory for you. How convenient, huh?

I will admit that the unemployment figures are lousy and could be alot better; however, the Bush era tax cuts are helping although it's at a slow pace; however, by taxing the rich job creators, there is a risk of falling back into a recession, maybe not though. The rich, under the fiscal cliff deal are only paying 39% instead of 35% and it's only a few percentage points. It would be drastic if the rich were paying between 70% to 90% in taxes. When the full effects of Obamacare come into play, that may very well put the economy back into a recession because Obamacare is the biggest tax increase on the middle class which is why I would prefer someone such as Scott Brown or Bill Weld to be our next Senator, we need a balanced approach to what President Obama and the Democrats are doing to the country.

Since the advent of President Johnson's "Great Society" began Trillions of dollars have been $pent trying to eliminate poverty, with the opposite effect happening as more people are now living under the poverty level than in the 1960's. In fact OBAMA (another Democrat) has $pent more toward welfare programs in 2010 alone, which is MORE than A L L the money used during the Bush Presidency for the Iraq War. Extensive fraud and abuse thrive and are rampant in A L L of these programs and NOTHING seems to be done to eliminate the corruption and misuse of these programs. Which is why I'm for "Hope & Change" ~ CHANGE the current politicians (Democrat or Republican) and HOPE things improve although I think the damage is done and nothing can or will be done. Hmmmm.

Whoa, Ted Kennedy is dead?