The Great Unwashed return to New York

Now that spring is in the air — your editor has seen the first robins of spring at his home now — and it won’t be quite so cold and miserable camping out in New York City, the Occupy protesters are returning to their fruitless protests:

NYC Activists Differ on Occupy’s Direction

By KAREN MATTHEWS Associated Press>NEW YORK March 18, 2012 (AP)

A day after police broke up a rally at Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park and arrested dozens, Occupy Wall Street protesters said Sunday that their movement for economic justice would pick up momentum with the spring.

Activists listed issues including student debt, the environment and the November elections as priorities going forward. But some observers who watched workers hose down the now-barricaded park that was Occupy’s home wondered whether a movement so diffuse could accomplish anything.

“I’m really grateful to be part of a generation that wants change, ’cause we should all want change,” said Jennifer Campbell, a graduate student in documentary filmmaking at Hofstra University. “But I’m not sure what that change is, or if they know what that change is.”

Meanwhile, police were seeking a subpoena to identify an apparent Occupy protester who they said tweeted a threat to kill police officers, police spokesman Paul Browne confirmed Sunday.

The Democrats welcomed the original Occupy protesters, at least for a while, until they got tiresome and obnoxious and, their primary political sin, started turning off more people than they persuaded. The Democrats might have liked to see a renewal of the Occupy protests, if they had begun again in October, close to the election. But by summer, they’ll just be another annoyance, a odoriferous annoyance. They’ll be there, yelling and screaming, still with their electronic toys — paid for by mom and dad, no doubt — but the lack of sanitation facilities will mean fewer opportunities for them to bathe, and whatever grassy areas they inhabit will turn to dirt and mud, and the people who see them, and might otherwise have had some inclination to sympathy, will look at them and think, no wonder they can’t get a good job; who would hire them?

133 Comments

  1. Perry writes,

    “You are quite partisan, which is fine, but got you in trouble when I punked you into criticizing a comment, in disguize, that someone on your side had actually made, your thinking it was a Lib who made it. That was a pretty good joke on you, DNW, wasn’t it? :)

    Well, Perry, since I had in my original remarks stipulated that you were quoting and redirecting a third party’s [ropelight's] comment aimed at another third party [Phoenician/Anna Nova], it is baffling how you could be delusional enough to imagine that I was unaware of it or that you’ve now successfully rewritten history.

    And of course, speaking of ignorant delusions, you didn’t even know who it was you were quoting for that second abusive paragraph you delivered; you, having falsely accused Koolo of originally authoring the text. The only person you punked there, with that false accusation, was you.

    And of course, the original gloat over anyone having been punked, (and which you subsequently picked up only in order to try and save face by means of spinning your emo-vitriol emission as part of a planned object lesson) was deposited by Phoenician, and was directed at the Editor, who may or may not have noticed the quotation marks.

    So, in getting that aspect confused too, you’ve only managed to drive the rhetorical punking stake further up your own arse.

    But hey, Perry, if you think that you can save face by pretending you are tricky rather than honest, and that you all along meant to look like an ungrateful emotionally out of control idiot as part of a clever plan, then go ahead.

    See if anyone is buying.

    Your only problem in getting that threadbare explanation to sell is going to be the result of the textual attribution you got wrong; the implied timeline which doesn’t jibe with your reframing of events; the fact that the formulations in the first half of your bitter attack on Dana were clearly all your own; and the transparency of your present attempt to take Phoenician’s claim that Dana was inadvertently punked, and to redirect it at me as a means of salving your self-inflicted wounds.

    So, aside from your documented pique, malice, factual errors, ineptitude, and now cowardice (You are afraid to claim that you punked Dana who was the original target of the accusation) you’re doing, all in all … ah, not so well.

    But it is clearer than ever as to why Phoenician in a Time of Roman’s e-mail address frauds don’t bother you.

  2. Wagonwheel quoted:

    Obama will propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue and a repeal of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

    Why, yes, he did. But that’s almost meaningless because he plans to spend so much more. In all of our history as a nation, total federal revenues — taxes, tariffs, fees, all of it — have exceeded 20% of GDP only thrice: at 20.9% in FY1944, 20.6% in FY2000, and 20.4% in FY1945. Total federal revenues have never, ever, neither in peace nor in war, not in good times or bad, reached 21% of GDP. Yet President Obumblefuck wants to spend between 22.2% and 23.3% of GDP every fornicating year for as far into the future as he can project, in times in which he projects no wars and steady and solid economic growth.

    The President’s budget assumes that he will get all of his initiatives passed, yet even with his huge planned tax increases, he projects total federal revenues maxing out at 19.2% of GDP in FY2017, when he plans on spending 22.2% of GDP.

    Those are the President’s own numbers, not mine, the President’s own plans, presented in his own FY2013 proposed budget.

    Yet, to you, the Ryan plan is terrible? What could be worse than the President’s own projections?

  3. Hoagie says:
    March 23, 2012 at 10:57

    Wasserman-Wagonwheel said: “Did you ever acknowledge being punked, DNW?”

    You need to enlighten me. What exactly is “being punked”? I know what a “punk” is. It’s a loud-mouthed idiot. Am I to assume a person “being punked” is is being spoken to by a loud-mouthed idiot? Or is there something more to it? Perhaps Pho and his “urban dictionary” ( read slang, low-life street talk ) could explain?

    Perry’s desperate and flailing. He figures that by accusing someone of being figuratively sodomized, he’ll create enough uproar to cover over his little buddy Anna Nova’s recent fraud with a layer of comforting debris.

    And of course Perry says he cannot find where I supposedly said what he claims I said. Because if he honestly quoted what I said, he would be forced to quote me as explicitly expressing an awareness that he was including, and redirecting, third party remarks as part of his own petulant attack on the Editor: a man who has been Perry’s benefactor.

  4. Hey Dana. If you want to delete those last comments of mine feel free. Meaning have no qualms. I was responding in the last two instances on what I assumed was a point of privilege.

    But if enough of those points of privilege accumulate, this blog will go the same way as the other.

    I’ll leave you to police your own blog, and decide what kinds of access ruses, or combox ethics, you will or will not tolerate.

    DNW

  5. Not to worry, DNW, since Wagonwheel is ever so willing to use homophobic sexual attacks against Conservatives, I believe it is fair to air out all of Wagonwheel’s dirty laundry (to borrow from a line from “Save the Last Dance”). See the final comment on the previous comment page.

  6. “Well, Perry, since I had in my original remarks stipulated that you were quoting and redirecting a third party’s [ropelight's] comment aimed at another third party [Phoenician/Anna Nova], it is baffling how you could be delusional enough to imagine that I was unaware of it or that you’ve now successfully rewritten history.”

    Well DNW, I’ll be gentle: You are obfuscating, and you know it well.

    koolo, ropelight, it does not matter, you were punked and punked real good. That you were punked goes to your own character flaw, which is quite evident, and now that you are unwilling to acknowledge the fact of this matter, you instead double down. This is not working in the minds of those who know and dare to tell, although predictably, the right wing partisans on here maintain a mandatory loyal silence about it. You are obviously unalterably devoted to your partisans and partisanship, couched in your superb linguistic skills which actually hide none of your unfettered biases!

    “I’ll leave you to police your own blog, and decide what kinds of access ruses, or combox ethics, you will or will not tolerate.”

    Well that’s mighty kind of you, DNW, to lower yourself such as to grant permission to our Editor to police his own blog, but nevertheless characteristic of your attitude of personal superiority!

  7. Here we have an excellent example of the right-wing mindset:

    “Editor: a man who has been Perry’s benefactor.”

    In DNW’s version of corruptions, he conceives the Editor’s largess to then make criticism of his views unwarranted, consistent with the idea of buying people off, something like the infamous Koch brothers. They all think alike, don’t they folks?

  8. There you go again, Wagonwheel, maliciously and falsely accusing the Libertarian Koch brothers of “buying people off” when I have already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they spend far less than a great many Leftist organizations, and far less than the convicted criminal and NAZI collaborator George Soros, who has, indeed, been very busy buying people off!

    And Wagonwheel, quit using your salacious and hypocritical homophobic sexual slurs against those who are better than you!

  9. First, Mr Editor, you claimed that our President had not submitted a budget.

    When I pointed out that he had, in fact every February since he took office, four in all, you then shift to attacking him anyway:

    “Total federal revenues have never, ever, neither in peace nor in war, not in good times or bad, reached 21% of GDP. Yet President Obumblefuck wants to spend between 22.2% and 23.3% of GDP every fornicating year for as far into the future as he can project, in times in which he projects no wars and steady and solid economic growth.

    ….

    Yet, to you, the Ryan plan is terrible? What could be worse than the President’s own projections?”

    Temper, temper, Mr Editor; those are mighty strong words from you.

    I am not able to fully defend the President’s latest budget or projections, but I will say that he is spreading the pain, having everything on the table, in contrast to the Ryan plan, which in plain English constitutes a war on the middle class in favor of the upper couple of percent. Please inform me of how the Ryan Plan makes sense when viewed from the perspective of equal pain, and from the standpoint of growing the economy? Even though our tax burden is lower than at any time since WWII, diehard right wingers like Ryan wish to lower the burden more, shifting this burden more to the middle, as I understand it. This is utter craziness which simply cannot be taken seriously!

    Moreover, why should we even consider rewarding those who brought our economy down to begin with, causing great strife to tens of millions of Americans?

    Focusing on jobs and on strengthening the middle class is the formula for success, given that it is going to take a while to materialize. This bottom line visonless fetish of the Republicans has to be stopped as not being healthy for the prosperity of this nation. Instead, we need to continue to patiently rebuild ourselves, wherein strengthening education is part of the task.

    Republicans want instant solutions, because they cannot focus past their middle finger gestures of hatred against our President!

    Here is what a world famous economist had to say briefly about this Ryan Plan:

    “Where I was at least somewhat wrong was in my expectations about how the Very Serious People would treat his [Ryan's] latest outing. I thought they would still treat him as a heroic deficit hawk, never mind the fact that his plan is really about transferring money from the poor to the rich, with no credible deficit reduction at all. That, after all, is what they did last year — he even received an award for fiscal responsibility.

    But I’m not seeing that this time. Overall, the response seems muted, maybe out of embarrassment. But leaving aside the predictable right-wing cheerleaders, it looks as if the emperor’s [Ryan's]nakedness is now common knowledge.”

    Thus, this latest Ryan Plan is the *awfullest* yet!!!

  10. A world famous economist? Is that how you justify quoting an anonymous source and not giving a link to that anonymous source? Would it be the very same “world famous economist” that an Ivy League department head called a “Nobel Prize winning fraud”?

    And Wagonwheel, when are you going to apologize for your salacious and hypocritical homophobic sexual slur against Conservatives? And when are you going to give your word to never use that salacious and hypocritical homophobic sexual slur again? Yeah, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that, HYPOCRITE!

  11. Yes, it was as I thought! Wagonwheel’s “world famous economist” — to whom Wagonwheel chose to give anonymity — is indeed the man an Ivy League department head called a “Nobel Prize winning fraud”! One absolutely radical Leftist Paul Krugman! The same Paul Krugman that the New York Times ombudsman declared has a habit of playing fast and loose with numbers, and getting caught in the traps of his own making!

    Your attempts at covering up who that “world famous economist” was failed, Wagonwheel!

    And Wagonwheel, when are you going to apologize for your salacious and hypocritical homophobic sexual slur against Conservatives? And when are you going to give your word to never use that salacious and hypocritical homophobic sexual slur again? Yeah, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that, HYPOCRITE!

  12. John Hitchcock says:
    March 23, 2012 at 12:56

    Not to worry, DNW, since Wagonwheel is ever so willing to use homophobic sexual attacks against Conservatives, I believe it is fair to air out all of Wagonwheel’s dirty laundry (to borrow from a line from “Save the Last Dance”). See the final comment on the previous comment page.”

    What surprises me a bit, is that while the signs of a potential moral derailing were always there, he’s now, finally and irreducibly, lowered himself to the level of a run-of-the-mill left-wing Internet comment box troll of the kind that blithely make patently false claims about easily verified factual matters, feign insuperable technical difficulties when it comes to validating their claims; and nonchalantly repeating falsehoods because they figure they have nothing to lose by promoting them (certainly no reputation), and everything – from their point of view – to gain emotionally by the annoyance they imagines they cause.

    But I think that this latest episode, wherein you caught his transgendered little buddy from New Zealand engaging in e-mail fakery, pushed him over the edge, and to the point where he’s now just doing anything he can to lash out at those who have exposed his moral-kind for what they are.

    For him, anything, is justified as “pushback”

    Civil relations with these kinds clearly cost something while benefiting nothing.

  13. I don’t apologize unless I have made a mistake, Mr Hitchcock, in which case I would do forthrightly, and have done so, moreover, the request to so coming from someone who is in great deficit on his own apologies, from whom I cannot recall giving even one on here, which all relates to a gigantic ego in the absence of humility, as he foregoes the model which he professes to worship, all this stated in only one all-inclusive sentence, so as not to overly tax and stress the target of it all!!! :)

  14. WW erred:

    First, Mr Editor, you claimed that our President had not submitted a budget.

    No, I did not claim that. i stated, with a source citation, that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner had admitted that the Administration had no plans for dealing with the long term debt crisis.

  15. “What surprises me a bit, is that while the signs of a potential moral derailing were always there, he’s now, finally and irreducibly, lowered himself to the level of a run-of-the-mill left-wing Internet comment box troll of the kind that blithely make patently false claims about easily verified factual matters, feign insuperable technical difficulties when it comes to validating their claims; and nonchalantly repeating falsehoods because they figure they have nothing to lose by promoting them (certainly no reputation), and everything – from their point of view – to gain emotionally by the annoyance they imagines they cause.”

    All this from the too easily played punked-man, who tarries here on not even one example, as he exudes his attack into the surrounding vapors, rising to the edge of nowhere. Good shew, DNW!

    Moreover, were there no annoyance, there would likely be no response from the factually deprived.

  16. I don’t apologize unless I have made a mistake, Mr Hitchcock, in which case I would do forthrightly

    That is a veritable lie, Wagonwheel, as you are far from forthright in nearly all your false allegations. But thank you for admitting you willfully engaged in salacious and hypocritical homophobic sexual slurs against Conservatives and that you are unwilling to apologize for your willful engagement in salacious and hypocritical homophobic sexual slurs against Conservatives!

    You have admitted you have absolutely zero interest in civil communications whatsoever as you sally forth with your salacious and hypocritical homophobic sexual slurs against Conservatives!

  17. The previous post is a mistake.

    “No, I did not claim that. i stated, with a source citation, that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner had admitted that the Administration had no plans for dealing with the long term debt crisis.”

    OK, but this claim has been made numerous times on here by your Righties.

    Geithner, however, is wrong in his claim, and so are you, Mr Editor. Look here and learn, from a reference I recently used on here.

  18. Mr Hitchcock, you have oft-times, and again just now, demonstrated that you are bereft of knowledge, especially regarding the subject of civil communications, as you continue to make stuff up, as always!!!

    Over and out!

  19. Wagonwheel, the man who falsely demands civility, has declared he will not apologize for using salacious and hypocritical homophobic sexual slurs against Conservatives. He has also dishonestly claimed he forthrightly admits when he “makes a mistake”. For proof of his dishonesty, one only has to be reminded of the dozens of times he has demanded citations from me while also demanding that I lied, only to be given those citations and then going silent, to bring up the same already proven falsehoods on other threads, as if nobody will remember that his falsehoods were already proven to be falsehoods.

  20. Wagonwheel says:
    March 23, 2012 at 13:03

    Here we have an excellent example of the right-wing mindset:

    “Editor: a man who has been Perry’s benefactor.”

    In DNW’s version of corruptions, he conceives the Editor’s largess to then make criticism of his views unwarranted.”

    I noted the Editor’s generosity to Perry, and Perry’s return to him of a dog-bites-the-hand-that-feeds-it, ingratitude. An ingratitude, which was delivered through Perry’s misplaced and falsely premised character attack on the Editor.

    Perry was attacking the Editor’s character, because the Editor had dared to ask a question.

    The Editor had rhetorically ASKED:

    “Now, how can an insurance company simply absorb an up to $1,000 a year outlay on a $1,895 policy, without significantly increasing the premiums?”

    After which, Perry retaliated against the Editor in the following two paragraph personal attack.

    Perry responded first:

    “You have absolutely no knowledge, Mr Editor, to make this statement.[Sic] This is your usual technique of assuming something which you no nothing about, then put it forward as a fact, which is what this entire thread is all about. It is about you nasty, cranky, right wing extremists on here, who are ideologically opposed to Sandra Fluke’s testimony, and have used every straw man they could find to attack her viciously, and undeservedly!

    [First character attack paragraph, which is all Perry's own]

    Then Perry continued:

    ” *So you especially, Mr Editor, “are a tiresome boor, the problem is you. …”

    [Second character attack paragraph lead off. Perry personalized it by addressing it to " ... you especially Mr. Editor" ... ]

    Thus in a series of factual errors, emotion blinded blunders, and cover-up lies:

    Perry falsely claimed he was originally the target of the text he redeployed in the second paragraph of his attack on the Editor. Perry was proven wrong on facts.

    Perry, falsely attributed the original text to Koolo. Perry was proven wrong on facts.

    Perry falsely accused the Editor of making a statement, when he was merely asking a reasonable question. Perry got the facts wrong again.

    Perry now falsely claims that he was earlier merely criticizing the Editor’s views, when it is clear from what Perry himself wrote in that same attack, that he was engaging in, and meant to engage in, an attack on the Editor’s character.

    Perry has repeatedly and falsely claimed that he was engaged in some form of object lesson insincerity: supposedly leveling a quoted attack on the Editor merely in order to make some further point about character attacks themselves.

    But Perry’s first paragraph, which is all his own and is not quoted, puts the lie to Perry’s ex post facto claim, by rendering it logically incoherent.

    Perry stands guilty as charged.

    Perry is guilty of an erroneous interpretation of a misunderstood and mis-attributed text. Perry’s misinterpretation of the text, led Perry to react first with hysterical emotionalism, and then to seek to vent a misplaced anger. This misplaced anger which Perry directed at the Editor, was roiled yet further by another of Perry’s faulty premisses: wherein Perry took a reasonable question as an ethically intolerable statement.

    Perry’s chain of errors and misunderstandings, when coupled to his hyper-emotionalism, resulted in Perry’s treacherous ingratitude toward a tolerant benefactor. It has culminated in the series of transparent cover-up lies which Perry continues to this very point.

    When will he mend his ways?

  21. Now we have DNW making a flawed and cowardly counterattack, all because he is still smarting from being resoundingly punked.

    Your current flaw, DNW, is the old trick of taking statements out of context, in an attempt to give them unintended meanings.

    Until you cite the actual statements, your feeble attempts will go unrecognized, except by those partisans who have their own axes to grind, then will join like lemmings.

    So be patient, folks, it won’t be long!

  22. Your current flaw, DNW, is the old trick of taking statements out of context, in an attempt to give them unintended meanings.

    Wagonwheel left the irony on again! Wagonwheel, with great regularity, takes statements out of context and gives them meanings which are their exact opposite! Like, for example, Wagonwheel’s anti-contextual quoting of Holy Scripture in order to claim Jesus — whom Wagonwheel categorically rejects — is some sort of Socialist! Beyond that, Wagonwheel is famous for unreservedly supporting PIATOR, who has a very long-running habit of intentionally taking words out of context for uncivil and dishonest attack purposes!

    But remember, folks, this is the very same Wagonwheel who refuses to apologize for using salacious and hypocritical homophobic slurs against Conservatives, so you cannot expect a whole lot of factuality or honesty or civility out of him!

  23. Until you cite the actual statements, your feeble attempts will go unrecognized, except by those partisans who have their own axes to grind, then will join like lemmings.

    You mean like your history of refusing to cite statements you provide here and on CSPT? For reference, just scroll up!

    But coming from a man who refuses to apologize for using salacious and hypocritical homophobic sexual slurs against Conservatives, it is to be expected. Your passive-aggressive nature and your dishonest debate tactics are very well known around these parts, Wagonwheel!

  24. Wagonwheel says:
    March 23, 2012 at 16:20

    Now we have DNW making a flawed and cowardly counterattack, all because he is still smarting from being resoundingly punked.

    Your current flaw, DNW, is the old trick of taking statements out of context, in an attempt to give them unintended meanings.

    Until you cite the actual statements, your feeble attempts will go unrecognized, except by those partisans who have their own axes to grind, then will join like lemmings.”

    You complained that you could not substantiate your earlier assertions because of a technical problem with this site.

    What good would such access do you, since you cannot recognize your own words when you are slapped upside the head with them? I provided text you said you could not access, in order to dispose of your pretense; and your lame response is that you have been taken out of context.

    You level charges. I provide evidence.

    You are in fact, so feeble in debate that you cannot even summon the strength to quote, much less quote honestly.

    Despite what you say you believe about the general tenor of this exchange, you will be forced to note, to your chagrin, that I quoted you extensively and accurately.

    You will also despite your attempts to ignore it, be mortified that I was correct, that you erred both as to the original target of the text, and as to the author of the text which you, as part of your attack on Dana, quoted.

    You are now thoroughly trapped in a sloppy tangle of your errors and malice, Perry. And unless you wish to try honesty, and to admit what everyone else already knows, there is nothing for it but for you to continue squirting shapeless blobs of ink, while hoping that it somehow clouds your retreat.

    Now, while you are being harrowed logically, you will of course continue to comfort yourself with the delusional conceit that you are at least succeeding in wasting time. And you will no doubt find some further satisfaction in the notion that merely by opening your mouth and disgorging the contents before a recoiling audience, you’ve managed to provoke either annoyance, or a disgust reaction.

    I suppose that’s also what those who jump off of skyscrapers say to themselves as they take the leap. But at the rate you are descending Perry, you have only moments before you hit the ground …

  25. Wagonwheel wrote:

    The previous post is a mistake.

    “No, I did not claim that. i stated, with a source citation, that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner had admitted that the Administration had no plans for dealing with the long term debt crisis.”

    OK, but this claim has been made numerous times on here by your Righties.

    Geithner, however, is wrong in his claim, and so are you, Mr Editor. Look here and learn, from a reference I recently used on here.

    I’ll go ahead and delete the mistaken post.

    But, I have to ask you: do you actually read the articles you link for us? The one you linked states that President Obama wants to raise taxes and cut spending (though I note that in not one single fiscal year of his budget projections is projected spending lower than the previous year), but there is not one word about the long term debt crisis. That was the subject the Secretary addressed, not the President’s (false) claims that he is reducing the deficits.

    If you look at the President’s own numbers, he plans on cumulative deficits of $3.44 trillion for FY2013-2017, which translates to more than that added to the national debt. He plans on $901 billion for FY2013, and all of the deficits subsequent to that would be over $600 billion, every last one of them higher than any of the deficits run under President Bush!

    The Secretary of the Treasury, testifying under oath, admitted that the Administration had no plans at all for attacking the continued, serious growth in the national debt, and you want to call him a liar? Why would he, of all people, make such an admission if it wasn’t true?

    Of course, we already know what Barack Obama said about President Bush adding $4 trillion to the national debt, in eight years; what does it mean, then, when President Obama has added more than President Bush did, in just three years and two months?

  26. DNW, you have yet to provide the context of the statements you attribute to me.

    You have yet to admit to your error which resulted in your being punked. You were caught in a partisan trap which revealed your dirty tricks.

    Instead your strategy is to go on offense, in which you actually have no offense, nor a defense, so your case is very weak indeed, actually non-existent.

    Now your true colors are quite apparent, DNW, and they are not neither complementary nor complimentary. In the vernacular, you stepped in it and now you stink!

  27. “… President Obama has added more than President Bush did, in just three years and two months?”

    That is correct, Mr Editor, and thank god for that, otherwise we’d probably be in Great Depression II! Moreover, Mr Bush did not inherit a Great Recession, although he managed to create one during his two terms, not to mention all the lying he did about taking us to war, making him the worst post WWII President we have had, by far, in my view!

    “That was the subject the Secretary addressed, not the President’s (false) claims that he is reducing the deficits.”

    You are in denial, Mr Editor. I gave you the cite on the President’s deficit reduction proposal, and you toss it aside by calling them “false claims”; that’s not at all convincing! Where does that view come from, or are you just making this up, as those on your side do so routinely on here.

    Based on the obstruction by your do-nothing right wing partisan House representatives and Senate filibusterers, i.e., party power ambitions over patriotism, in your sustained efforts to unseat our (black) President who you admittedly dislike immensely, your one-sided critiques, therefore, can hardly be trusted regarding doing what is best for our country as a whole.

    The President’s plan is to slowly phase out economic stimulation whilst simultaneously phasing in austerity, which seems to me a rational thing to do. Again, we see what austerity only, focused on the working classes, is doing to the UK, which is a no-growth economy and growing chaos. Here is a January 26, 2012 report, which indicates the UK economy continues to suffer badly. Is this your wish for our USA, Mr Editor?

    PS: As a quick off-topic sidelight, I note that the unfortunate activities in Sanford, FL, give credence to my claim about “The New Jim Crow”, as written in the book I offered to let you borrow and read, and you never took me up on my offer. Jim Crow is alive and well in our USA, that’s obvious. Is it also present on this blog? Only each individual can speak for himself/herself, which probably won’t happen, although I have to say that I wonder, due to the irrational apparent hatred of our (black) President!

  28. ““… President Obama has added more than President Bush did, in just three years and two months?””"

    Uh-huh.

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/03/per-capita-government-spending-by-president.html

    Firstly, the annualised growth rate in government debt under Obama is less than that under Reagan or both Bushes. If Reagan had been President over the last three years, the debt would be considerably higher.

    Secondly, government debt automatically goes up in a depression – more welfare, less tax. You may not have noticed but Obama inherited the worst depression since the great one.

    And thirdly – wait, there’s another link

  29. Miss Nova wrote:

    If your preferred policies had been followed, the US would be about 5% poorer than it is now.

    Would we? Perhaps so, who can know? But, had we followed our preferred policies, we’d be a trillion dollars, if not more, less in debt, than we are today, and the looming debt crisis we face would be less of a threat.

    We can see Greece, we can see Portugal, we can see all of those European economies which have borrowed themselves into crisis; we don’t want to get to the point that they have, because while the EU was there to rescue Greece, there’s no one who can rescue the US if we head for bankruptcy. That would bring on a true depression.

    The United States has spent more than we produce, for decades. Eventually, that kind of thing leads to economic collapse.

  30. Good points, Anna Nova, but for some reason certain facts don’t count for these Righties!

    “The United States has spent more than we produce, for decades. Eventually, that kind of thing leads to economic collapse.”

    That is certainly true, but we simply cannot turn on a dime, which is basically what the Ryan Plan demands. I already pointed out that President Obama has put forth a ten year $3.6 trillion phase in deficit reduction plan, according to the WSJ. Righties and Grover Norquist don’t like it because it contains tax increases, therefore Righties simply are not serious about deficit reduction if they have to help pay for it! The Bush tax cuts favoring the wealthy have to go,finally! Note that these tax increases on the wealthy do not kick in immediately, rather, in about two years.

    The Ryan Plan, on the contrary, calls for giving the wealthy more of a break, according to the trickle down approach which has never worked, but the Righties keep trying anyway. The Clinton tax policy, placing more of the burden on the wealthy, which did work very well indeed, as we all should know!

Comments are closed.