Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe headlines tell the story. On Tuesday, my hometown paper played the news relatively mildly as "Layoffs Spread to More Sectors of the Economy"; the Washington Post chose the slightly stronger, "Layoffs Cut Deeper into Economy"; the Los Angeles Times picked "Deluge of Layoffs Hits U.S. Economy"; the Indianapolis Star, "50,000 New Pink Slips Pile Up"; and the San Jose Mercury, "Bloody Monday: U.S. firms slash 50,000 jobs." At a news conference, the new president rattled off selected names from the all-star line-up of companies that were tossing out bodies and shutting down lives: "Over the last few days we've learned that Microsoft, Intel, United Airlines, Home Depot, Sprint Nextel, and Caterpillar are each cutting thousands of jobs. These are not just numbers on a page. As with the millions of jobs lost in 2008, these are working men and women whose families have been disrupted and whose dreams have been put on hold."
Meanwhile, the one-day estimate of the number of layoffs, depending on how you were counting and whether you were speaking nationally or globally, rattled around the world -- more than 40,000, 50,000, 55,000, more than 60,000, 71,400, 76,000. And the following day, yet more sizeable corporate layoffs were announced. Whatever way you cut it, these were staggering tallies that, as Econowhiner wrote in her blog, gave the phrase "Bloody Monday" new meaning in our world.
Add in the possibility that the flood of foreclosures might be even larger than imagined and, as Nick Turse indicates in a new report from the front lines of economic disaster, "Meltdown Madness," "bloody" is no longer just a metaphor. Turse has been trolling the local press across the country and has come up with a grim, but striking drumbeat of economically-sparked suicides (from multimillionaires to jobless and foreclosed workers), acts of arson, burglaries -- people who are now robbing banks simply to pay their back rent -- rising domestic violence, and soaring calls to help hotlines of every sort. Across the country, in fact, extreme acts are on the rise.
Increasingly, the "bloody" layoffs and "bloody" foreclosures lead to "bloody" facts on the American ground. This is a crucial story that Turse first began covering back in October in a piece, "The Rising Body Count on Main Street," that explored local press reports nationwide about extreme acts by economically distressed and desperate Americans. Like his "Fallen Legion" series of the Bush era -- an invaluable record of those government insiders who "fell" while fighting to hold the line against the administration from hell -- this is a subject my website, TomDispatch.com, expects to return to regularly. After all, as "Bloody Monday" makes all too clear, the bloody count of extreme acts in America is likely to rise for a long, long time to come.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
You know, somehow, I am a little dubious of that "Bush will be redeemed by history" thing.....dunno why.
Maybe because nobody named "Hoover" has ever become President again.
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 09:57am
Mask,
Will Bush be remembered after Obama and the left spends TRILLIONS , more in 1 or 2 years than the much criticized Bush the spender did in 8 years?
Obama will destroy what's left of the dollar.
We have become ...France.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 10:23am
We have a pork bill called stimulus.... A complete boondoggle of spending on items that will not jump start anything. This money will just go down the black hole only to be followed by demands for more....
And the media watch dogs?
They fixate on........Limbaugh.
Must be audience envy.
I am so outta here and soon before what I have left is totaly gone to Washington.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 10:28am
We have become ...France.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 10:23am
Your talking points have become...stale.
After Bloomberg's dreadful report on the state of the NYC economy, I'd guess NY's going to start looking like it did in the seventies with plenty of "bloody Mondays" to come. And this is just the start.
Posted by HAL9000 at 01/30/2009 @ 10:34am
We have become ...France.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 10:23am
No, MAASCH...you and Darin need to settle on one country and stick with it, huh?
"We're turning into Russia."---Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/30/2009 @ 08:21am
Blago Removed --- After Mounting a (Really) Lame Defense posted by John Nichols on 01/29/2009 @ 5:21pm
heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 10:51am
Maybe because nobody named "Hoover" has ever become President again. Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 09:57am
ah, life in a vacuum.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 1:35pm
life expectancy
#9 France: 80.87 years 2008
#47 United States: 78.14 years 2008
<<<>>>
obesity
#1 United States: 30.6%
#23 France: 9.4%
<<<>>>
murders per capita
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#40 France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
<<<>>>
you should be so lucky.
<<<>>>
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 1:40pm
"I am so outta here and soon before what I have left is totaly gone to Washington."
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 10:28am
We know that the mewling legions of rump rightwing trash are in the unbreakable habit of talking tuff and then not getting off their pampered asses. Pro-War George W Loser's record on the Golf Course and in the discotheque's bar area during Vietnam present furnish clear examples.
In JOMAMMA's case, ya' just gotta' say it: Need a ride to the airport if you are "so outa' here"? Hell, given your lawn mowing business is not going so well, do you need airfare for a ticket to one of those much admired stateless paradises such as Somalia, the anti-France? Do not hesitate to ask and the one-way transport will be gladly provided, in the name of national house cleaning of useless junk that takes up mucho space.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/30/2009 @ 2:00pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 1:35pm
At this point Granny Palin has a better shot than Jeb Bush.
Hell, you could dig up and revive VANNEVAR Bush (the great engineer and thinker) and he couldn't get a job as dog catcher after what Dubya did to the ancestral name.
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 2:09pm
I disagree with this story. The only reason why this story cites "an increase in violence" is because the news media chooses to focus more on them.
Any alleged increase in crime cannot be attributed to the recession. It's a mere correlation, not a causation.
The only true fact is, as more crimes are committed, more are reported to the police.
Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 2:23pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/30/2009 @ 2:19pm
How long do we give Dubya for redemption, LVLIB?...5 years...10....20....30?
Ballpark it for us. (BTW, you might want to time it out to some future "I'm sick of this blog...I'm quitting it for good" post from you!...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 3:14pm
Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 3:14pm
Hey, leave Frankgrits alone. He'll be back!
Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 4:20pm
Will Bush be remembered after Obama and the left spends TRILLIONS , more in 1 or 2 years than the much criticized Bush the spender did in 8 years?
not everything is the same. Bush spent on tax cuts for the super rich and two wars. Obama is spending to save your ass, mine and everyone's. big difference.
ask yourself, what was the state of the economy in 2001, and what was it in 2009?
not even you can escape that conclusion.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2009 @ 4:38pm
I am so outta here and soon before what I have left is totaly gone to Washington. Posted by YourJomamma
hot air. you ain't going nowhere. you are far too old to start over somewhere else.
an' you ain't foolin' nobody.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2009 @ 4:39pm
Maybe because nobody named "Hoover" has ever become President again. Posted by Mask at 01/30/2009 @ 09:57am
Not to mention 'Hoover' is synonymous with something that SUCKS. Or, as I like to say about Bush, we can't spell S-U-C-K without 'U'.
What's up with YourJomomma? He seems to have a lot of time to blog even though he's packing up to leave. So get out, already. We've had enough of your plaintive moaning from the wastelands of your own making.
A lot of conservatives used democracy and the system to enrich themselves, then, when it faltered they say the experiment didn't work... I'm moving to another country. Guess what... they aren't going to like you there. In this democracy, when your side doesn't win, you are supposed to make the best of it. Palin 2012? Blecchhh. You ran out of platform AND a viable option simultaneously.
Obama didn't send this country into poverty... although people blame him already after only two weeks in office. Deregulation, largely supported by Republicans, and criminal activity, largely perpetrated by republicans, did, notwithstanding the Blago debacle. This stupid finger pointing all the way back to Clinton, pushing Bush and Co. completely out of the picture just portrays them more clearly as immature, self centered people of the first degree.
Recently there has been an annoying spate of mind numbing whining and 'Yeah, but' philosophies voiced by our good conservative bloggers. They clearly exemplify the 'If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem'. Get out of my country.
Posted by ficheye at 01/30/2009 @ 6:36pm
Posted by HAL9000 at 01/30/2009 @ 10:34am
"After Bloomberg's dreadful report on the state of the NYC economy, I'd guess NY's going to start looking like it did in the seventies with plenty of "bloody Mondays" to come. And this is just the start."
The worst thing about bad news from New York, California, and other liberal states is that their liberal inhabitants, having fouled their own economic nests yet again, will abandon ship like rats, move to some red state with their idiotic leftist ideology, and start the cycle all over again. We've got so many New York license plates in Virginia now it's making me sick. No wonder we went blue in the last election. Yecchh.
Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2009 @ 6:40pm
Gold is setting new highs again. Over $920 today. Stock market tanking. Busted underwriting standards created by the CRA still unaddressed, therefore housing is still in the toilet and will remain so until the hyperinflation sets in. I told you folks when Obammy was elected, sell your stock and buy gold. It's not too late. With a whole new generation of under-25 suckers born since Carter was booted out, we have a whole new crop of wet-behind-the-ears, indocrinated nitwits who will need to learn the lesson yet again of what liberal economics does to this country.
Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2009 @ 6:47pm
No wonder we went blue in the last election. Yecchh. Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2009 @ 6:40pm
Bad choice of handle, considering your opinions.
.........................
Pontificate: Express ones opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic.
.........................
You seem to be holding to that definition. Maybe a name change would be in order. Maybe not.
Posted by ficheye at 01/30/2009 @ 6:55pm
Posted by ficheye at 01/30/2009 @ 6:55pm
"You seem to be holding to that definition. Maybe a name change would be in order. Maybe not."
Not. I enjoy irritating you people. There's no way I can change your minds, you'd have to have open minds, brains, and free will for that, and that is most certainly not in the cards for most of you whiny, arrogant, sheep-like liberals. I might as well try to teach a pig to sing. I'll just settle for annoyance.
Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2009 @ 7:05pm
My target price for gold is $9,200 and ounce, by the way. The last time we had a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, 1976, gold went from $102 an ounce to over $800 an ounce in just under 4 years, after an orgy of spending that is nothing compared to today. A couple more years spending trillions of dollars on liberal Democrat boondoggles, and everyone in the world will finally figure out that the dollar is now funny money. Yup, I'm betting on $9,200 an ounce within 4 years.
Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2009 @ 7:17pm
not even you can escape that conclusion.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2009 @ 4:38pm
Debt...one left alot of debt and other hasn't even started yet...and it will destroy us all...
there is no Obama saving your ass or anyone elses...that is YOUR responsibility.
As I have said JR,
After I close my China deal this year, sell the rest to an American company who is already making offers(not ready yet..but in a year or two, maybe)..come looking for me on one of the Islands running my own little tikki bar, complete with skimply clad waitresses( a sexy dundel(sp) if you will), on the beach..paid for with Swiss Francs after selling my goodies to the Chinese...a table with a reserved sign will be there for you anytime. The menu will be long on Ales...and as a good little capitalist that I aspire to be, I choose to treat you.....you will never see a bill...I have you covered.
Ask for Edwardo..(my new handle in the Carribean)
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 7:22pm
"The menu will be long on Ales..."
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 7:22pm
Lagers damnit. Hops are your friend.
Posted by Benchrest at 01/30/2009 @ 7:44pm
Lagers damnit. Hops are your friend.
Posted by Benchrest at 01/30/2009 @ 7:44pm
Indeed.
The lagers are for me...Pilsners...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 8:05pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/30/2009 @ 7:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
good luck with that.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2009 @ 8:06pm
I disagree with this story. The only reason why this story cites "an increase in violence" is because the news media chooses to focus more on them.
Posted by ACook at 01/30/2009 @ 2:23pm
you need to read more.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 8:11pm
2001 vs 2008?
hmmmm..
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 8:14pm
life expectancy
#9 France: 80.87 years 2008
#47 United States: 78.14 years 2008
<<<>>>
obesity
#1 United States: 30.6%
#23 France: 9.4%
<<<>>>
murders per capita
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#40 France: 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
<<<>>>
you should be so lucky.
<<<>>>
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2009 @ 1:40pm
Intriguing..... did you make it up, or you got a source?
Posted by twillie at 01/30/2009 @ 9:15pm
posted by Tom Engelhardt on 01/30/2009 @ 09:48am
what a lame post. Tom, you will provide statistics, as they become available, showing the increase in "extreme acts" as the GDP goes down, right? I guess I'll go rob a bank, and then just say,"the economy made me do it", when I go to trial. I know I'll get sympathy from the progs on the jury.
Posted by twillie at 01/30/2009 @ 9:23pm
Obama is spending to save your ass, mine and everyone's. big difference.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2009 @ 4:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
There is NOTHING in the economic stimulus bill to back up your statement! It is a pity that the left does not even bother to read what the money is to be spent on! The only correlation to the stimulus bill is found in the physics applicable to "black hole" theories! Anything sucked in disappers forever!
Show us your list that backs up your statement?
Posted by comancheamerican at 01/31/2009 @ 01:27am
I'll just settle for annoyance. Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2009 @ 7:05pm
Well, I'll have to give you that.
But wait... you are wrong ON PURPOSE... just to annoy 'those on the left', as CHERMAK would say. I get it now.
Never has there been such a bright shining intellect on the blogosphere! Man, oh, man are you ever the clever one! We all stand in awe (may we stand, or should we kneel?) of your bombastic wit!
Hey, by the way... just what DID happen the last 8 years? Is it all Obamas fault yet? Or still 'Slick Willy's' fault? Or was Hoover reincarnated in George Bushes body? That must be it.
I have to tell you that you will NEVER annoy me. Or anyone, I don't think. You lose on that one. I feel sorry for one who lives in such a deluded state, but other than that I find it fun to come back here and see what utter nonsense folks like yourself can perceive to be the truth. Good luck with that. Hey, did YourJomamma leave the country yet? I'm throwing a party when he does.
And about those liberal economics ruining the country... you mean all two weeks of them? Boy, you are sharp! Took us 'libruls' to school, you did!
Posted by ficheye at 01/31/2009 @ 03:31am
Posted by ficheye at 01/31/2009 @ 03:31am
"I'll just settle for annoyance. Posted by pontificus at 01/30/2009 @ 7:05pm" ... "Well, I'll have to give you that. " ... "I have to tell you that you will NEVER annoy me."
George Orwell:
"Doublethink is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. Both are seen by you as true, at the same time."
Ah George Orwell. Sixty years and still going strong.
Posted by pontificus at 01/31/2009 @ 09:01am
Posted by emile duBois at 01/30/2009 @ 4:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"Obama is spending to save your ass, mine and everyone's. big difference."
Hey JR. If $8.5 trillion that we don't have is being spent to "save your ass, mine, and everyone's"....why don't we spend $85 trillion and solve all the world's economics problems forever?
Ah, liberal economics. Gotta love it. Time to buy gold! With the lunatics in charge of the asylum, the American dollar will be as worthless as the Zimbabwean one in a few years.
Posted by pontificus at 01/31/2009 @ 09:11am
The same way that many of us suggest will redeem Bush. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/30/2009 @ 2:19pm
---------------
I would love to hear some suggestions on how history is going to redeem Bush. We are only at the beginning of the disaster he and his supporters have spawned. Enjoy!
Posted by Citizen54 at 01/31/2009 @ 12:26pm
Hey JR. If $8.5 trillion that we don't have is being spent to "save your ass, mine, and everyone's"....why don't we spend $85 trillion and solve all the world's economics problems forever?
Posted by pontificus at 01/31/2009 @ 09:11am | ignore this person | warn this person
How are you coming to $8.5 trillion?
The Presidents stimulus plan is $800+ billion (Democrat), the TARP (Passed under Republican Administration and threats that the whole system will come down without it) was $700 billion, $150 billion for state and local governments (Democrat), the AIG bailout $120 billion (Republican), Bear Sterns $29 billion(Republican), Auto bailout $25 billion and approx. $400 billion in various bank nationalization programs. All this comes to roughly $2.5 trillion. Add in the deposit gaurantees the Fed and Treasury have made and you could stretch the number to $4.5 trillion eventhough the $2 trillion is in gaurantees, not, expenditures. Still, no where near $8.5 trillion.
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/31/2009 @ 1:17pm
<i> Ah, liberal economics. Gotta love it. Time to buy gold! With the lunatics in charge of the asylum, the American dollar will be as worthless as the Zimbabwean one in a few years.
Posted by pontificus at 01/31/2009 @ 09:11am <i>
Surely Nixon, the Bushes, and Reagan were NOT lunatics. Nixon: "If the President does it, it is legal." Proved to be prophetic for next coming Rep Presidents. Reagan: "Government is the problem". Then why would he wanted to be President any way and keep very large deficits (remember his embarrasing 6.5% deficit of the Gross National Output) ? Start of the philosophy of abandonment of the weak in this society..., or: Reagan: "Basketball is the solution for African American employment..." Actually he did not said African...He was really demeaning... Bush Jr.( or his alter ego Cheney):" Will we wait for the fungus-like smoke of nuclear attack over one of our cities to act on Irak?"...Without comments Bush Jr.: "I am a compassionate conservative"... But actually never shook hands with the people of New Orleans...
Lunatics deny reality by definition..,or change it with their desires. What we are trying to spend to balance the savage effects of uncontrolled capitalism, is on the range of what was spent in Iraq (600 billion)...Actually no! In Iraq we lost 4,500 of our youth and gained several million more enemies...
I recommend you visit the shrink.
Posted by Frank42 at 01/31/2009 @ 1:24pm
"Doublethink is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. Both are seen by you as true, at the same time." Ah George Orwell. Sixty years and still going strong. Posted by pontificus at 01/31/2009 @ 09:01am
Still going strong... right. Because this statement by Orwell addresses, very precisely, YOUR particular malady, I can see that your reading comprehension is way down.
Pontiflatus, since you don't really have a point you should actually read some Orwell instead of just scanning the internet for things that might be annoying.
He was against, strongly against, the kind of government that you would like to see in place, so it's pretty amusing to see you hi-jack the honorable Orwell's writing to try to: Make a point... rile someone... seem intelligent... none of which is likely. I'll bet that very soon you will lose your license to drive because you think a 'stop' sign is a liberal plot of some sort.
But as you revealed before, you aren't into making sense (like the entire conservative party at this point), you are just making crazy statements so that someone will pay attention to you. Your wife probably gave that up long ago. EHarmony? And try prune juice... it's widely prescribed for your affliction.
Posted by ficheye at 01/31/2009 @ 3:18pm
Posted by pontificus at 01/31/2009 @ 09:01am
...and to address the statement about annoyance, I guess I should have just said that you were being stupid, not annoying. My mistake, I guess. But if that's all you've got I WILL give you that, you strange little man. Ya got me!
Posted by ficheye at 01/31/2009 @ 3:24pm
Intriguing..... did you make it up, or you got a source? Posted by twillie at 01/30/2009 @ 9:15pm
nationmaster.com
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2009 @ 3:35pm
Ah, ignorance is bliss. Pontificus, is your real name Bliss?
Posted by guanabana at 01/31/2009 @ 4:09pm
Posted by ficheye at 01/31/2009 @ 3:18pm
"Still going strong... right. Because this statement by Orwell addresses, very precisely, YOUR particular malady"
Well, now. In the context of my original post, I believe I pretty clearly demonstrated how the definition of 'doublethink' applies to you, inasmuch as in the same post you a) stipulate that I do, in fact, annoy you and b) you then go on to state that I will 'NEVER annoy you'. When I put it that way, does it become clear to you?
With regard to myself, you, on the other hand, accuse me of doublethink as well, but you never say, even generally, how it does. Perhaps you would wish to think hard on this and come up with an example.
Posted by pontificus at 01/31/2009 @ 4:26pm
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/31/2009 @ 1:17pm
"How are you coming to $8.5 trillion? "
A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money, eh? I'll tell you what. Let's use your figure: $4.5 trillion, and I'll ask the question again. If $4.5 trillion in government spending, of money that we don't have, saves the economy, why don't we spend $45 trillion and save the world? Really would like to have an answer to this question, instead of quibbling about the figures. Do you have an answer?
Posted by pontificus at 01/31/2009 @ 4:30pm
Posted by guanabana at 01/31/2009 @ 4:09pm
"Ah, ignorance is bliss. Pontificus, is your real name Bliss?"
I'm sorry, is that an argument? Is that your idea of engaging intellectualism? A contrasting point of view? Tolerance for dissenting opinion?
Posted by pontificus at 01/31/2009 @ 4:34pm
Posted by Frank42 at 01/31/2009 @ 1:24pm
I'm trying to make sense of your post here, FRANK. Are you saying deficits are bad? If so, I agree with you, wholeheartedly. Do you think that Reagan was in favor of huge deficits? I don't think so - but that would have been too bad for him, because under our system of government, only the Congress is empowered to appropriate and spend - which they did prodigiously during Reagan's term - and Tip ONeill joyfully and proudly presented the bill for him to sign, or shut down the government. Are you blaming Reagan for that?
And anyway, if you are against deficit spending, why are you in favor of spending trillions on more government programs, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with creating jobs OR addressing the housing crisis?
Posted by pontificus at 01/31/2009 @ 5:00pm
FZ- thanks. I love statistics. Like these:
GDP per capita: US $44,155 France $36,546 Of course, if they didn't go on on strike every time someone suggested they work 40 hours a week, they might be up at US levels.
External debt per $ of GDP France $1471/$1000 GDP US $760/$1000 GDP
Nuclear waste generated France 2.18 US 1.67
Daily smokers France 27% US 17.5% Good thing they have that great national health service!
Maternal mortality France 10/100,000 US 8/100,000
Tuberculosis France 12.8 cases per 100,000 US 4.5 cases per 100,000 Or, maybe it's not so great.
Yeah, I think I'll stick with the US. Maybe all that government regulation is not so great after all.
Posted by twillie at 01/31/2009 @ 9:55pm
Perhaps you would wish to think hard on this and come up with an example. Posted by pontificus at 01/31/2009 @ 4:26pm
Gee, ponti, when I said 'I have to give you that' it was referring to the fact that I can see that your intent is to annoy. But you don't annoy me. Parsed finely enough
And when I referred to the fact that you are afflicted with doublethink yourself, well, if you can't stand back from the computer and see the weird parallels you are drawing to your own mindset then discussion is of no use (go for it).
You're doing so much good work here! Roping in those 'libruls' that wrecked your world. Go get 'em! You're really showing them... what? You liked Reagan and Bush, you hate liberals, you're not averse to name calling and you want to be purposefully annoying. Your great intellect is frightening! I think that you COULD teach a pig to sing!
Oh, by the way, hijacking Orwell, who was clearly against your type of conservative politics, is a strange thing. I guess that you think no one has read Orwell outside of his pop novels. But you did a nice job of co-opting a statement for your own purposes. I'm sure that there will be more to come. Much more. Now crack your knuckles and prepare to disparage!
Posted by ficheye at 01/31/2009 @ 10:56pm
ooh,
dueling stats!
well, their food is waaaaaaaaaaaaay better.
u.s. gdp is one big housing bubble joke.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2009 @ 11:40pm
Spontaneity, intuition & authenticity. Keep em alive.
Life is for living. Institute the 35 hour work week.!
Posted by Sorelish at 02/01/2009 @ 01:25am
Posted by ficheye at 01/31/2009 @ 10:56pm
"Gee, ponti, when I said 'I have to give you that' it was referring to the fact that I can see that your intent is to annoy. But you don't annoy me. Parsed finely enough"
Oh, so when I say "I'm here to annoy you" and you respond "Well I'll give you that", your response simply is an acknowledgement that I made the statement in the first place, and not an acknowledgement that you have been annoyed? Boy, that's brilliant. You appear to have parsed yourself into a state of inanity, which does not appear to have been a long trip.
"And when I referred to the fact that you are afflicted with doublethink yourself, well, if you can't stand back from the computer and see the weird parallels you are drawing to your own mindset then discussion is of no use (go for it). "
So, you actually can't cite an example of doublethink on my part, you merely consider it self-evident because you disagree with my positions and you are therefore willing to make the accusation. Not entirely rational, although I'm coming to expect little more from you.
Posted by pontificus at 02/01/2009 @ 09:33am
Posted by Sorelish at 02/01/2009 @ 01:25am
"Life is for living. Institute the 35 hour work week.!"
Why not 30 hours?
Posted by pontificus at 02/01/2009 @ 09:33am
Posted by ficheye at 01/31/2009 @ 10:56pm
"You liked Reagan and Bush, you hate liberals, you're not averse to name calling and you want to be purposefully annoying. Your great intellect is frightening! I think that you COULD teach a pig to sing!"
So, you discern that I 'like' Reagan and Bush merely because I am willing to correct FROSTY's lies or ignorance about the American system of governance, and the historical record regarding Reagan and his relations with the Democratic Congress that he was saddled with? If someone says 'Bush is a terrorist murderer', do you consider anyone who disputes that as 'liking' Bush? You know, I really think you might.
Posted by pontificus at 02/01/2009 @ 09:47am
u.s. gdp is one big housing bubble joke. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2009 @ 11:40pm
Sarkozy offered up 40 billion to bail out 6 French banks. So, how did that happen, when progs are so proud of the government regulated French economy?
Posted by twillie at 02/01/2009 @ 11:15am
Actualy. If you figure the American worker doesn't get to keep his earned money until around June 6 or 7, then I'd say we have a 24 hour work week. The rest us stolen, er, donated for govt use.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/01/2009 @ 11:20am
http://tinyurl.com/aopgyo
"Six years into FDR's presidency, his Treasury secretary (and close friend) Henry Morgenthau Jr. ruefully acknowledged that the New Deal had proved an economic disaster.
"We have tried spending money; we are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work," he told two senior congressional Democrats. "I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . After eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . and an enormous debt to boot!"
A new New Deal will not work any better than the old one did. Recessions hurt, but recessions compounded with colossal government growth hurt worse. So much worse, sometimes, that they are known as depressions."
Posted by pontificus at 02/01/2009 @ 11:34am
Pinto,
Doesn't matter the new deal didn't work. All those here on the left know the conservatives lied about it and they just know it worked.
What got America out of the depression were the Germans and the Japanese, unfortunately.
The bottom line is not to spend even more than Bush in a shorter time
Cut spending and taxes.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/01/2009 @ 1:26pm
pontificus, just a hopeless dream of the 35 hour week. We all know that the global economy will require Americans to work 60 a week, at an average of 35 cents per hour. We've simply got to compete. We can get our manufacturing economy back & jettison this absurd "service" econ. God bless you for pouring such a large serving of koo., I mean reality.
Posted by Sorelish at 02/01/2009 @ 1:41pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/01/2009 @ 1:26pm
"Doesn't matter the new deal didn't work. All those here on the left know the conservatives lied about it and they just know it worked."
Just doing missionary work hear jomamma. If one ideological life can be saved, it's worth the cost. It's doubtful that most Nation posters will listen to reason. Most of them are either devoted statists dedicated to massive government expansion with little regard to whether it's actually a good idea for the average person or not. Many more are simply enchanted with the idea of getting something for nothing.
For the rest of us, a strong dose of reality could help weather the storm cause by our fellow citizens' delusions. Despite Morgenthau's claim that spending did nothing to help America during the Depression, our Community-organizer-in-chief, drawing on his vast experience in wealth creation, has pledged to double down on an already discredited policy of massive government boondoggles. Might as well take advantage of the situation. Buy gold and sell stock I think is the best move.
Posted by pontificus at 02/01/2009 @ 2:14pm
Posted by pontificus at 02/01/2009 @ 09:47am
PONTI, did you "like" when Reagan raised corporate taxes in 1986?...er, I mean "closed loopholes"?
Posted by Mask at 02/01/2009 @ 2:39pm
Posted by pontificus at 02/01/2009 @ 2:14pm
Hey, you can cash out that "investment" that you call your home & buy gold. Geez, you'll be able to give up your maintenance position with Happ & move to the Caribbean with yojo..
You got to keep all the cash only wages received from Happ & you don't want or need the Social Security (like LvL)
Don't forget to deflate the life sized rubber doll (a gift from Red River) before boarding the plane. Don't want you having to pay for an extra seat. Bon Voyage!
PS. Tell the Troll to lose some weight so he can fly again. They WILL NOT honor his request to ride in cargo!
Posted by Sorelish at 02/01/2009 @ 3:28pm
Posted by pontificus at 02/01/2009 @ 2:14pm
Yes, which is why I am taking my currency in Swiss Franks with my export side of the business and opening a small place in the Islands..
The service division stays in the US and keeps the US workers working at $50k starting plus stock...most here do not believe this because they have no vison or drive.
Those 60 hour jobs mentioned above are what many like me have been putting in for years, decades..some years with NO PAY...but the hope to make it when the place is sold..
and at that point, will not stand by and watch lib loons try to steal all of ones life work...
to be fair, of course...
Ask for Edwardo should you get down there in a few years.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/01/2009 @ 4:37pm
If someone says 'Bush is a terrorist murderer', do you consider anyone who disputes that as 'liking' Bush? You know, I really think you might. Posted by pontificus at 02/01/2009 @ 09:47am
No, oh, tower of intellect. Nice try. You realize that I've been purposely baiting you by now. I'll just leave holes and you drive the semantical truck right through them. There's a lot of people doing the 'libertarian shuffle' and they are lots of fun because they are so predictable. It's always about semantics with them.
When you admitted that you will settle for being annoying here on this site, I realized that you are the kind of guy that just cannot leave any response to you unchallenged. The keyboard beckons you; it is your muse, your solace of some kind.
So I accuse YOU of double think rather than parse the semantics of the earlier post, about being annoying. Away you went. Like the energizer bunny. You can't help yourself. It's like an addiction.
Of course, you'll accuse me of the same as an initial defense.
BTW, you never responded to why it's OK to utilize Orwell like you do when he seemed to be against the type of current conservative policies that are prevalent today. Is that wrong? I'm pretty sure that you'll shuffle around that issue as well. Good luck. By the way, I'm not really a 'liberal' per se. I'm just somebody having fun with you. You have no idea what my thoughts on policy are, because with you there's no hope of discussion... only derision. There needs to be no actual exchange on your road to nowhere.
Posted by ficheye at 02/01/2009 @ 5:19pm
En route to the Caribbean, we look in on pontificus, seated with his "dame" high over the Gulf of Mexico...
Flight attendant- "Would you like a drink, sir?"
pontificus-Yeah, gimme a zombie.
Flight attendent- "And for the lady?"
pontificus- "A canister of compressed air, please."
Posted by Sorelish at 02/01/2009 @ 5:39pm
reagan was a fraud.
national debt as % of gdp on reagan's day 1
~34%
national debt as % of gdp on reagan's day last
~60%
<<<<>>>>
REAGAN COALITION PERILED BY UNEASE ON BUDGET DEFICIT
REAGAN COALITION PERILED BY UNEASE ON BUDGET DEFICIT
REAGAN COALITION PERILED BY UNEASE ON BUDGET DEFICIT
REAGAN COALITION PERILED BY UNEASE ON BUDGET DEFICIT
By HEDRICK SMITH, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 29, 1982
The winning political coalition that President Reagan put together in Congress last year is threatened by widespread uneasiness among Republicans as well as Democrats over the huge bud get deficits contemplated by the Administration.
The President sought in his State of the Union Message to put the main focus on his proposals for shifting Federal programs to the states. But many of his Congressional supporters have indicated that the deficit remains their top priority. And they say they are not satisfied with Administration projections of deficits approaching $100 billion.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2009 @ 10:54pm
REAGAN TELLS CHILDREN OF REGRET OVER DEFICIT
REAGAN TELLS CHILDREN OF REGRET OVER DEFICIT
REAGAN TELLS CHILDREN OF REGRET OVER DEFICIT
REAGAN TELLS CHILDREN OF REGRET OVER DEFICIT
SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: November 16, 1988
LEAD: President Reagan told a group of schoolchildren this week that the one thing he most regretted not achieving in office was a lessening of the Federal deficit.
President Reagan told a group of schoolchildren this week that the one thing he most regretted not achieving in office was a lessening of the Federal deficit.
At a question-and-answer session with students from junior and senior high schools in the area, Mr. Reagan was asked, ''What was the most important thing that you wanted to accomplish, but weren't able to accomplish as President?''
He said, ''I could sum that up very quickly: the Federal deficit.''
At the session on Monday, the President did not place any blame on Congress or his Administration. Rather, he took a historic view. The fact is, he said, ''that for over a half a century, our Government has been spending more money than it takes in.''
But he said that the Federal deficit-reduction law ''is a plan working now'' that is aimed at ''bringing us down each year.''
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2009 @ 10:56pm
REAGAN MAY CONSIDER TAX CHANGES TO CUT DEFICIT
REAGAN MAY CONSIDER TAX CHANGES TO CUT DEFICIT
REAGAN MAY CONSIDER TAX CHANGES TO CUT DEFICIT
REAGAN MAY CONSIDER TAX CHANGES TO CUT DEFICIT
By STEVEN V. ROBERTS, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: September 30, 1987
LEAD: The Reagan Administration would consider making changes in the tax code as part of an effort to raise revenue and avoid an estimated $23 billion in automatic budget cuts this fall, James C. Miller 3d, the director of management and budget, said today.
The Reagan Administration would consider making changes in the tax code as part of an effort to raise revenue and avoid an estimated $23 billion in automatic budget cuts this fall, James C. Miller 3d, the director of management and budget, said today.
President Reagan has adamantly opposed any increase in taxes, but his aides are trying to figure out a way of endorsing a tax bill that can be called something else.
Accordingly, possible changes in the code are being referred to as ''loophole closings,'' in an attempt to make them more palatable politically.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2009 @ 10:58pm
To Reagan We Owe A Catastrophic Debt E-MAIL PRINT REPRINTS SHARE Published: July 24, 1991 To the Editor:
Edwin Meese 3d credits President Reagan with producing "the longest peacetime economic expansion in modern history" (letter, July 9).
President Reagan's tax and defense policies produced an eight-year increase in the national debt of $1.9 trillion (up 186 percent), the foundation for this false prosperity. While blaming Democrats for "tax and spend" politics, Mr. Reagan directed a "borrow and spend" spree, stealing from America's future well-being to promote a shortsighted agenda.
Every household in the United States went $20,000 more in debt, and interest payments on that debt tripled to $240.9 billion a year in 1989. To call Mr. Reagan "a successful President" for this fiscal disaster is like claiming a Cabinet officer who can leave office without being indicted is a success. EUGENE J. CARROLL JR. Washington, July 10, 1991 The writer, a retired rear admiral, is deputy director of the Center for Defense Information.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2009 @ 11:03pm
President Reagan's tax and defense policies produced an eight-year increase in the national debt of $1.9 trillion (up 186 percent), theMany fiscal experts cite disparities between Mr. Reagan's talk and his actions. Among their points are these:
* Long committed to balanced budgets and fiscal integrity, Mr. Reagan has overseen the creation of more new debt than the combined deficits of all previous Presidents. He assailed Jimmy Carter's $73.8 billion deficit in the 1980 campaign, but the deficit reached $220.7 billion in 1986, and the deficit target for the forthcoming budget is $136 billion. The deficits rose from 2.6 percent of the gross national product in the fiscal year 1981 to 6.3 percent in 1983, then dropped to 3.4 percent this year.
* While Mr. Reagan was committed to reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government, the Federal civilian work force increased during his Presidency by 150,000, growing to more than 3 million.
* While Mr. Reagan was committed to reducing Government spending, it rose by $321 billion during his Presidency, to more than a trillion dollars. Federal outlays rose from 22.7 percent of the gross national product in 1981 to 24 percent in 1985. Then, bowing to Congressional pressures, spending dropped back to 22.7 percent of the G.N.P. foundation for this false prosperity. While blaming Democrats for "tax and spend" politics, Mr. Reagan directed a "borrow and spend" spree, stealing from America's future well-being to promote a shortsighted agenda.
PARADOX OF REAGAN BUDGETS: AUSTERE TALK VS. RECORD DEBT
PARADOX OF REAGAN BUDGETS: AUSTERE TALK VS. RECORD DEBT
PARADOX OF REAGAN BUDGETS: AUSTERE TALK VS. RECORD DEBT
PARADOX OF REAGAN BUDGETS: AUSTERE TALK VS. RECORD DEBT
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2009 @ 11:08pm
ah, but he was a great actor.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2009 @ 11:08pm
To call Mr. Reagan "a successful President" for this fiscal disaster is like claiming a Cabinet officer who can leave office without being indicted is a success. EUGENE J. CARROLL JR. Washington, July 10, 1991 The writer, a retired rear admiral, is deputy director of the Center for Defense Information. Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2009 @ 11:03pm
Hmmm, what is this CDI?
Oh, here it is:
A critical element of the 'General's Revolt' that has not received enough attention is the involvement of the Center for Defense Information (CDI). The CDI is a Washington--based advocacy group that, like the Institute of Policy Studies or the National Resources Defense Council, is usually described with a bland, harmless--sounding tagline that hides more than it reveals. The CDI claims to be an organization making available continuing, objective information and analyses of our national defense when in fact for the past three decades it has been the Left's point organization for attacking military and defense policy.
So, I'm sure Mr. Carroll couldn't possibly be biased against Reagan in any way.
Posted by twillie at 02/01/2009 @ 11:48pm
So, I'm sure Mr. Carroll couldn't possibly be biased against Reagan in any way. Posted by twillie at 02/01/2009 @ 11:48pm
uh, that's admiral carroll to you.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2009 @ 11:52pm
pump up the bubble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2009 @ 11:53pm
reagan was a failure.
borrower in chief.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2009 @ 11:53pm
While Mr. Reagan was committed to reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government, the Federal civilian work force increased during his Presidency by 150,000, growing to more than 3 million.
mr. reality, tear down the b.s.!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2009 @ 11:55pm
uh, that's admiral carroll to you. Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2009 @ 11:52pm
Uh, no. He's just a citizen like you and me.
While Mr. Reagan was committed to reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government, the Federal civilian work force increased during his Presidency by 150,000, growing to more than 3 million. mr. reality, tear down the b.s.! Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2009 @ 11:55pm
*sigh* Source?
Posted by twillie at 02/02/2009 @ 12:19am
Overall, the main factors sustaining growth in living standards for American households outside the top 20 per cent have been an increase in the labour force participation of women and a decline in household savings. Over the period since 1999, consumption financed by borrowing against home equity has been the main factor offsetting stagnant or declining median household incomes.
Thus, in statistical terms the US offers little support to the trickle down theory. It is equally important, however, to look at how the theory is supposed to work. The general idea is that, the more highly owners of capital and highly-skilled managers are rewarded, the more productive they will be. This will lead both to the provision of goods and services at lower cost and to higher demand for the services of less-skilled workers who will therefore earn higher wages.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2009 @ 12:35am
Finally, there is the classic ‘trickle-down' effect in which the wealth of the financial sector generates demands for luxury goods and services of all kinds, thereby benefitting workers in general, or at least those in cities with high concentrations of financial centre activity such as London and New York.
The bubble years from the early 1990s to 2007 gave some support to all of these claims. Measured US productivity grew strongly in the 1990s, and moderately in the years after 2000. Household consumption also grew strongly, and inequality in consumption was much less than inequality in income or wealth. And, although income growth was weak for most households, rates of unemployment were low, at least by post-1970 standards for most of this period.
Very little of this is likely to survive the financial crisis. AT ITS PEAK, THE FINANCIAL SECTOR (FINANCE, INSURANCE AND REAL ESTATE) ACCOUNTED FOR AROUND 18 PER CENT OF GDP AND A MUCH LARGER SHARE OF GDP GROWTH. WITH PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS SERVICES INCLUDED, THE TOTAL SHARE WAS OVER 30 PER CENT.[1] The finance and business services sector is now contracting,
and IT IS CLEAR THAT A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE OUTPUT MEASURED IN THE BUBBLE YEARS WAS ILLUSORY. Many investments and financial transactions made during this period have already proved disastrous, and many more seem likely to do so in coming years. In the process, the apparent productivity gains generated through the expansion of the financial sector will be lost.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2009 @ 12:36am
*sigh* Source?
Posted by twillie at 02/02/2009 @ 12:19am
federal employees (in thousands) 1971 5,675 R 1972 5,225 R 1973 5,113 R 1974 5,091 R 1975 5,061 R 1976 5,002 R 1977 5,005 D 1978 5,028 D 1979 4,939 D 1980 4,965 D 1981 4,982 R 1982 4,972 R 1983 5,039 R 1984 5,088 R 1985 5,256 R 1986 5,228 R 1987 5,301 R 1988 5,289 R 1989 5,292 R 1990 5,234 R 1991 5,152 R 1992 4,931 R 1993 4,758 D
page 335
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2009 @ 12:43am
Thus, in statistical terms the US offers little support to the trickle down theory. It is equally important, however, to look at how the theory is supposed to work. The general idea is that, the more highly owners of capital and highly-skilled managers are rewarded, the more productive they will be. This will lead both to the provision of goods and services at lower cost and to higher demand for the services of less-skilled workers who will therefore earn higher wages. Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2009 @ 12:35am
On the ground, here's how trickle down works: I employ 6 to 8 people full-time over the course of two years to re-landscape my yard.If I don't have the money (like if the top tax rate were 50-60%), then I wouldn't get it done, or I would spend less. It's that simple. And it can be applied across the board to all goods and services.
What do you think the rich do with their money? Keep it in their money room like Scrooge McDuck?
Who's going to keep all those good French restaurants in business? The Government?
Posted by twillie at 02/02/2009 @ 01:10am
more like trickle upon.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2009 @ 01:22am
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2009 @ 01:22am
"more like trickle upon."
Only if you're jobless, or (as in your case), your understanding of 'wealth creation' is when someone writes you a check you didn't earn.
Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2009 @ 12:56pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2009 @ 01:22am
To understand why FROSTY just doesn't get it when you try to explain fundamental economics to him, you have to realize that the poor fellow depends on his wife for sustenance and works as a drummer in a band. From this vantage point, it is easy to see why he inveighs against the 'greedy rich'; they won't give he the money they earned that he feels he deserves. In another life, he might have been a preacher.
Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2009 @ 12:58pm
ponti,
my wife is a full-time university student.
i don't play the drums.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2009 @ 3:03pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/02/2009 @ 3:03pm
"my wife is a full-time university student.
i don't play the drums."
Uh huh. Your experience with money appears to be limited to the ways in which you obtain it from the State then, I would imagine. It's no wonder you appear to have no idea where the State gets it from.
Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2009 @ 4:18pm
A buddy of mine just told me that 60 percent of John Deer is produced off shore and I saw a television program on cable that said that caterpillar had plants all over the world and that parts for same were produced in other countries and imported for assembly here. I don't care if IBM is a Chinese company, but I don't want to give them billions of dollars in subsidies . Why did the states subsidize; Honda, Toyota, and why is Mitsubishi building nuclear power plants for Texas? Why are foreign countries buying up interstate highways, and why did Alaska export oil? If coal is such a dirty form of energy, Why are we exporting as much as we can mine? I f we give billions for infrastructure can we ask the builders to buy American tools to build the roads, or do we still make tools like; trucks and tractors and dozers here?Are we being jerked around by our politicians and corporate pick-pockets?
Posted by julien38 at 02/02/2009 @ 4:19pm
As the number of American workers hit the unemployment and bread lines, not many are informed enough to understand how this has happened. It's been a 30 year journey, but a revolution by US capitalists was initiated at the time Reagan hit the WH steps. That journey was to make capital paramount in the world's economy and subordinate labor to a non-factor. Initially, this was referred to as supply-side economics, but was quickly repackaged under the rubric, neoliberalism. In fact, liberal language was hijacked while liberals and progressives were being strangled. Today's dislocation of millions of American workers, estimated by some as about 12 million, but since this happened in my lifetime, I'm estimating about twice that.
Karl Marx and Frederik Engels tell us why this has been a revolution in Das Capital: "In the history of primitive accumulation, all revolutions are epoch-making that act as levers for the capitalist class in course of formation; but, above all, those moments when great masses of men are suddenly and forcibly torn from their means of subsistence, and hurled as free and "unattached" proletarians on the labor market. The expropriation of the agricultural producer, of the peasant, from the soil, is the basis of the whole process. The history of this expropriation, in different countries, assumes different aspects, and runs through its various phases in different orders of succession, and at different periods. In England alone, which we take as our example, has it the classic form."
The "means of subsistence" that are being taken away from workers in the United States in the guise of "globalization" is pure and simple: our jobs, our benefits, our pensions, our futures – in a phrase, all that workers have striven for in a liberal political economy.
Posted by afrothetics at 02/02/2009 @ 7:26pm
To understand why FROSTY just doesn't get it when you try to explain fundamental economics to him, you have to realize that the poor fellow depends on his wife for sustenance and works as a drummer in a band. From this vantage point, it is easy to see why he inveighs against the 'greedy rich'; they won't give he the money they earned that he feels he deserves. In another life, he might have been a preacher. Posted by pontificus at 02/02/2009 @ 12:58pm
Go easy on FZ. He can mine statistics like no other prog on this website.
Posted by twillie at 02/03/2009 @ 01:12am
Yet another reason why we need a Fairness Doctrine. Iff peeple refuse to listen to liberal radio, zey must be FORCED to do so - for their own good!!!"
"Monday, February 02, 2009 So much for Obama Radio Posted by: Dwayne Horner at 5:11 PM Howard Kurtz had this little nugget over the weekend, apparently another sign that liberal talk radio doesn't work in today's radio medium:
"President Obama may be riding high in Washington, but OBAMA 1260 is not.
"The area's only progressive talk station is changing formats, dropping such syndicated liberal hosts as Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller and Bill Press in favor of financial news, starting next week.
"The move by Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who purchased the station, WWRC, and others in Washington last summer, leaves the city without a liberal radio outlet. Program Director Greg Tantum says he thought the station could work because of enthusiasm over Obama, but that ratings collapsed to a level that could not be measured after the election.
"But ratings nearly doubled, he says, at Snyder's conservative station, WTNT, which features Laura Ingraham and Bill Bennett. Tantum said he will move Schultz to WTNT to give him another shot.""
Posted by pontificus at 02/03/2009 @ 04:19am
Hilarious! LOL! Sandwich the liberal guy next to the conservatives! Maybe THEN people will listen to him, when they make the mistake of thinking they're tuning in to Rush Limbaugh! Sounds like you've already got your Orwellian Fairness Doctrine in place! At least until people start complaining!
Posted by pontificus at 02/03/2009 @ 12:19pm