Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditNever having sought or held public office, Caroline Kennedy is something of a political blank slate.
But as she competes, aggressively, for the soon-to-be-vacant New York Senate seat of Hillary Clinton, who will leave to become President-elect Barack Obama's Secretary of State, Kennedy is doing the right thing.
She's talking about where she stands on the issues.
Senators should never be appointed.
But if we must continue with the practice of allowing governors -- as opposed to special-election voters -- to fill empty seats in the chamber, those who seek appointments should at least let the people know where they stand.
So what do we know about the daughter of former President John Kennedy and the niece of Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Capitol?
Caroline Kennedy is aligning herself with her uncle Ted.
In answers provided in recent days to questions from various media organizations, she has signaled that she "always" opposed the war in Iraq and "supports President-elect Obama's plan to work with our military leaders to begin a responsible withdrawal."
That's a bit of a deviation from the line taken by Clinton, who supported authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq. But Kennedy's generally cautious with regard to foreign policy; for instance, she echoes Clinton's relatively uncritical view of Israeli government actions with regard to Palestinian proposals for resolving conflicts over issues such as the status of Jerusalem. Specifically, her camp tells The New York Times: "Caroline supports a two-state peace solution for Israel, so long as there is a true partner for peace in the Palestinians, and so long as Israel's security is assured."
Domestically, however, Kennedy errs to the left.
She "supports full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples."
She embraces the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
She backs gun control.
She is no fan of school vouchers.
She is a proponent of proposals to aid the auto industry -- a smart move in a state that still has a number of auto parts plants.
She favors legislation that will make it easier for unions to organize. And she expresses reservations about free-trade initiatives. Kennedy's camp tells the Times: "Caroline believes that NAFTA has had unintended, negative consequences in some regions of New York, and that is why she agrees with President-elect Obama that we need to take a careful look at the agreement and pay particular attention to its impact on jobs and wages in American manufacturing communities. She also believes that we must ensure that American communities and workers benefit as we craft new trade agreements."
That's a bit deviation from Clinton, and a good one.
Does any of this mean that Caroline Kennedy will be a great senator?
Not necessarily.
But the signals are generally encouraging.
And the most encouraging signal of all is that she is, in a fashion, campaigning -- as those who seek senate seats should.
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
Another celebrety entitlment program..... First Minnesota and now New York.
Where she stands on the issues? Last name is what counts and ability to raise cash... And that name does raise cash.
I notced the article has her following in UncleTeddy, the moral giant of govts footsteps.....
Pitt she coldnt follow her fathers foottsteps.... But then she would have to be "running" as a conservative or worse a Reagan repub/ democrat.
JFK wouldn't be allowed in the party today,Too right wing..
Why doesn't the governor appoint someone who is actuallyvquwlfieefor the job instead of turnbg the Snate sat in an affirmative action set aside for lberal women?
Pathetic. Might as well run Madonna.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/21/2008 @ 12:49pm
Nichols, this is just kind of sad but nonetheless indicative of the nation's status as an appendage of celebrity/democratic politics.
Caroline called for an undivided Jerusalem in her response!
Did you read it, or were you just tingling with thoughts of camelot reignited.
This position is digusting on its merits. You owe a retraction of your ludicrous title.
Her stances on labor are patently weak - an acknowledment of the negatives of NAFTA. Earth shattering!
What is embarassing is that you would be so foolish to write excitedly about proposals she has not articulated and rather had her political consultants submit.
This is not journalism. Get a new job.
Posted by royce307 at 12/21/2008 @ 1:10pm
Great link you posted, Larry (12:58 pm)!
These are the folks Jesus would have loved the most. If he actually existed that is, which is far from a certainty.
The four gospel accounts are in pretty profound disagreement on the details of his story, the letters of Paul which constitute the backbone of Christian theology today are completely devoid of any references to the events of Christ's life, the preeminent historian of the day, Flavius Josephus, details Herod the Great and barely murmurs the name of Jesus except in two short sketchy entries that are considered later insertions by most experts today, and finally, if there was a Jesus as described in the bible, he was almost undoubtedly a narcissistic sociopath.
Look, I love the beatitudes in Matthew 5, but just read the continuing sermon to its conclusion at the end of chapter 7, or the further teachings in chapters 10, 13, 18, or 24 & 25 of Matthew and any objective observer would have to conclude that the guy was a kook.
Sorry.
A fact's a fact.
And miracles are for children's fairy tales, not grown ups --not to suggest that a sense of mystery and awe are excluded by this statement. It's just so damned obvious that we ought to be a little more scientific in where we ascribe our hopes, and how we formulate our actions.
It's the "Christ-like" thing to do.
Merry Solstice and a Happy New Year to all!
By the way, here's a nice holiday tune fer ya'
tinyurl.com/8peh9n
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/21/2008 @ 2:04pm
The signals are encouraging are they?
Had Nichols a shred of integrity he would wonder, for example, how Caroline can be "no fan of school vouchers" yet have sent all of her children to private schools. He youngest, Jack, is even now at the Collegiate School. Moreover she herself was educated, from kindergarten on, in private schools, as were both of her parents.
How honest is an opponent of school vouchers who insists on public education for others, but not for her own children?
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/21/2008 @ 2:10pm
"How honest is an opponent of school vouchers who insists on public education for others, but not for her own children?"
~Hugo Pirovano @ 2:10pm
Hear, hear!
I join Hugo in the call for perfect politicians.
No more bribe taking, equivocating, flat out lie making, or making flippy floppy for that matter.
Here's a live one:
tinyurl.com/8ntu9t
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/21/2008 @ 2:18pm
No, b_kool_66.
We can't expect and don't need perfect politicians. But we can expect journalists to display some honesty.
This Nichols is a self righteous little punk who brings to his work all the detachment and objectivity of a hysterical girl at a Beatles concert.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/21/2008 @ 2:39pm
Dude, you need to decompress just a bit.
Just feel the back of your head --it's under the cranial aponeurosis at the point where the occipital bone sutures with the two halves of the parietal bone-- and press down on the valve.
Pssssssssssssssssss.....Ahhhhhhhh.
You'll feel so much better, and bloggers here won't have to be put upon by such superiority anymore, hopefully.
;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/21/2008 @ 2:48pm
That one was for Hugo, not Larry.
Happy Solstice, Lar!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/21/2008 @ 2:50pm
One more post for the road:
Lar, for whatever reason --lord only knows-- I kinda like you, dude. You're just one bizarre, twisted muthaf&@ka --not that uncommon unfortunately.
If you want to feel sad during this festive holiday season, please feel free to feel sad for the innocent Vietnamese children and mothers and fathers that we napalmed and carpet bombed during your favorite war that you supposedly participated in --probably from a bloodless distance, but if you've ever killed face to face and didn't feel some powerful pangs of remorse then dog have mercy on your pitiful ass.
Cheers!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/21/2008 @ 3:38pm
Caroline Kennedy is simply a democratic party rubber stamp. I understand why she's acceptable to demaocrats. Image, not substance rules politics today.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/21/2008 @ 4:13pm
I understand why she's acceptable to demaocrats. Image, not substance rules politics today.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/21/2008 @ 4:13pm
And the substance of the Republicans is what exactly????????
Posted by Caj at 12/21/2008 @ 4:35pm
Funny, I must have had too much coffee earlier! I didn't even notice that the "Flippy Floppy" vidthat I posted above had been sped up by the dink who posted it apparently.
Here is the more well-paced version:
tinyurl.com/8t9279
Much better........Jeezuz.
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/21/2008 @ 5:48pm
Caroline also supports rightwing Israelis & AIPAC in their demand that all of Jerusalem be Israel's capital.
This has never been US policy & was specifically rejected by several US presidents ... indeed, it's said by some that if Nixon hadn't opposed it so strongly, there would never have been a Mark Felt as Deep Throat.
Posted by sloper at 12/21/2008 @ 6:45pm
I wrote, "Image, not substance rules politics today."
Caj, please note I didn't say "democrats" I said "politics."
I did not claim that the republicans are in any way showing more substance than the democrats. Anywhere. Because they aren't in any material way.
I also think it is hypocritical of republicans to attack the idea of Caroline Kennedy as a Senate appointee. Positions reversed, they would act exactly the same. Agreed?
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/21/2008 @ 7:10pm
It is sad indeed that large swaths of the left are devolving into a celebrity cult. Was it not the GOP that so clearly abandoned any pretence of merit by, for example, elevating W and other manifestly unworthy people? It was bad enough to see the ridiculous fanfare around Obama, but at least he has some political experience and accomplishments. Now we have the pathetic, vacuous spectacle of Princess Caroline on royal progress, deigning to turn her patrician visage to the ragged peasants in the poorest reaches of the Empire State. Will she touch them to heal their scrofula? How about healing their unemployment? What, pray tell, has she or any other leftwing (or rightwing) celebrity done for those poor reaches? The bigger picture is one in which both major parties continue to discredit themselves in this time of multifaceted crisis. Time for a seismic shift that frees the nation of all these mountebanks.
Posted by feinfein at 12/21/2008 @ 9:08pm
RE: Caroline ...
Oh, it's just impossible, this amateurish cast of characters like Kennedy and obama. This is more of a denigration of public service than Dybya and Dick Cheney did 8 yrs back.
Posted by HelenDAO at 12/22/2008 @ 02:10am
Another celebrety entitlment program..... First Minnesota and now New York. Posted by YourJomamma at 12/21/2008 @ 12:49pm
You mean the entitlement in Minnesota that consisted of Franken possibly being elected by the people of that state?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/21/2008 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Impose?!? Right LL, we all know that Christians in this country are FAR more oppressed than gays.
Incidentally, I wrote out my take on why New York can do better than Ms. Kennedy here http://jeffersonlocke.blogspot.com/2008/12/ caroline-kenndey-new-york-can-do-better.html (I had to add a space before the "c")
Posted by brunowe at 12/22/2008 @ 06:13am
Hey, Hey, CBK, how many babies will you kill today? What a remarkable transformation, from the adorable little girl with her father at the White House in the early 1960s into a nature-averse Ilse Koch bent on sterilizing the human race. What's next, sweetie, lamp shades from the skin of Evangelicals?
I see where Caroline - like our Panderer In Chief - calls for an "undivided Jerusalem". Soon, like his Ambassador to Bagojevich, Rahm Emanuel, she'll be signing up for service in the Israeli military and piloting a bombing run on Iran! I care little how we manage to keep scum like this off the public payroll just that we do so. How do you join the opposition?
Posted by john lowell at 12/22/2008 @ 06:41am
I remember JFK from the good old days! Yes! I am that old! I was 18 when he became President. I don't know where people have gotten the idea that JFK was that conservative (other than they want to believe that). He would probably roll over in his grave if he heard that. Because what I remember of him wasn't. He was for civil rights when being for it could get you killed in this country (it was a liberal idea in those days). The blacks were a group of people most American's wanted to forget existed. It was a growing problem that to many politician's swept under the rug and liked to ignore. I admire LBJ for having had the gonads to do the right thing by the blacks. In his day JFK was as liberal as his daughter is today! A lot of people hated him because he was so liberal. I personally was not that fond of Hillary Clinton because I didn't think she was liberal enough. She was to far right for my tastes. She and her husband were to Republican! I personally hope that Caroline is allowed to follow in the family footsteps. We need another Ted Kennedy to keep the Republican thugs in line.
Posted by ganddw42 at 12/22/2008 @ 09:40am
More Minnesota senate race ballots found for Franken on cereal boxes. Learn more at, http://stopthepresses2.blogspot.com
Posted by stopthepresses2 at 12/22/2008 @ 10:07am
I also think it is hypocritical of republicans to attack the idea of Caroline Kennedy as a Senate appointee. Positions reversed, they would act exactly the same. Agreed?
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/21/2008 @ 7:10pm
Yes, I do agree, but I do think given half a chance she may be quite a good Senator. I know her name will anger a lot of people and see it as just "favoritism" because of her Uncle Teddy. I think if she comes out more and speaks about her abilities and her beliefs people would get to know her better. One thing for sure is not a person who likes to hog the limelight and is quite reserved, I'm sure she will handle all that in due course if selected.
Posted by Caj at 12/22/2008 @ 10:49am
Thanks for the interesting post. I would point out that the only thing Hillary came to the Senate with was her husband's last name and an inflated resume. Her only real claim to public service was her incompetent handling of Bill's health care "initiative".
The funny thing about New Yorkers is that they think they're so much smarter than Texans. Yet they are just as likely to elect an overrated empty-suit (or skirt as the case may be) with the right surname as any Texan!
Posted by BSanchez at 12/22/2008 @ 11:16am
Damn man some in here are really COLD hearted, have you no compassion for anything beyond your view. Is there no evolution ??? In your taking in of information. Allot of stances here but no offering of solutions.
Posted by Voodoo_Chile at 12/22/2008 @ 11:39am
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/21/2008 @ 12:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this is awfully cute,coming after 8 years of a disastrous nepotism presidency. congratulations Maasch, eine auf den Kopf gestellte post.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/22/2008 @ 11:40am
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/21/2008 @ 2:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you are as dishonest as they come. the repug pols who favor vouchers, and wish to starve the public schools, send their kids to private school too.
the voucher thing is a shuck, they are never high enough for a good education.
Hugele, you are far too much in love with the sound of your voice. purple prose does not result in admiration or respect, it's sophomoric.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/22/2008 @ 11:47am
Is she qualified? Heck yeah, she's a Kennedy. "Caroline Kennedy is aligning herself with her uncle Ted."
Well. Rembrandt could paint. But Murray Rembrandt couldn't paint a house.
Posted by musqua at 12/22/2008 @ 2:20pm
ganddw42,
You said "I remember JFK from the good old days! Yes! I am that old! I was 18 when he became President. I don't know where people have gotten the idea that JFK was that conservative (other than they want to believe that)."
Uh, ganddw42, you seem to have missed some things Mr. Kennedy said.
Here they are below (and I will have to split this into 2 posts) - words you would never hear a modern day Democrat or liberal or "progressive" say:
============================
I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor, who has symbolized throughout the world the fighting spirit of West Berlin. And I am proud to visit the Federal Republic with your distinguished Chancellor who for so many years has committed Germany to democracy and freedom and progress, and to come here in the company of my fellow American, General Clay, who has been in this city during its great moments of crisis and will come again if ever needed. Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum." Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner." I appreciate my interpreter translating my German! There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.
(to be continued below)
Posted by sjchermak at 12/22/2008 @ 2:37pm
If you like the idea of Caroline Kennedy for the Senate, you can sign the petition www.carolineforsenate.com. I did. Also, there is a great, extremely comprehensive article on Caroline Kennedy by Giordano in the Huff Post today.
Posted by jonnirae at 12/22/2008 @ 2:38pm
continuation of words by John F. Kennedy
==========================
Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us. I want to say, on behalf of my countrymen, who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far distant from you, that they take the greatest pride that they have been able to share with you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years. I know of no town, no city, that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope and the determination of the city of West Berlin. While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your Mayor has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together. What is true of this city is true of Germany–real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main.
(to be continued below)
Posted by sjchermak at 12/22/2008 @ 2:39pm
continuation of words by John F. Kennedy
========================
So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.
Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades. All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner." President John F. Kennedy - June 26, 1963
Posted by sjchermak at 12/22/2008 @ 2:40pm
ganddw42,
Sorry, it took 3 posts.. search that speech on the Internet and LISTEN to it........the sentiments are opposite what the Democrat party (except for Joe Lieberman) stands for today.
John F. Kennedy told that communists that the existence of the wall was unacceptable and that it would come down.
He let the communists know in no uncertain terms that their communism was not to be tolerated and would not last.
Ronald Reagan then completed the effort, he told Gorbachev to tear down the wall. Gorbachev did what he was told, he made no effort to stop it when the wall was torn down.
The Soviet Union is no more. The "German Democatic Republic" is no more. Poland is free. Hungary is free. The Czech Republic and Slovakia are free, instead of being a communist Czechoslovakia.
All things that would not have happened had modern-day Democrats had their say, let alone the enlightened on The Nation, such as Katrina Vanden Heuvel.
Mr. Peanut (Jimmy Carter) told us it was time we get over our "inordinate fear of communism".
The person that followed Mr. Peanut in the White House showed how you get over the fear of communism.
YOU DEFEAT THE COMMUNISM!!
Thank you, President Kennedy and President Reagan, for defeating the Soviet Union.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/22/2008 @ 2:47pm
b_kool_66 on 12/21/2008 wrote:
<<Just feel the back of your head --it's under the cranial aponeurosis at the point where the occipital bone sutures with the two halves of the parietal bone-- and press down on the valve.>>
I see you have not just time on your hand, but Snell's text. If you read on he will tell you of the aperture where you can shove it.
Or perhaps that is your problem. In that case I suggest your grab your ears with both hands and pull your head out of your ass.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/22/2008 @ 4:09pm
Kennedy also cut taxes and understood the use of military power..
...I believe he would have clobbered Pakistan by now and would have had Bin Landen filleted alive, and Iraq would never have seen the second war..it would have been finished in the first one....and ABU GRAV along with Gitmo would have been celebrated..filled, tried, and excuted..all with the American peole and the press cheering him on...
all of these would and are totaly rejected by todays loon left that comprises the Dem party.
JFK would not be allowed in the party...treated like Zell Miller... Civil Rights? Think Eisenhower and Nixon who got all the repubs to back it when the dems would not...
Revisonist history once again from the left.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/22/2008 @ 11:24pm
JFK would not be allowed in the party...
....and ABU GRAV along with Gitmo would have been celebrated
Revisonist history once again from the left.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/22/2008 @ 11:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Revisionist history indeed.
Seriously, is that what you are reduced to now John? You just pull some completely idiotic statements out of your anus...
...and pretend they make sense?
Go have another drink John.
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 12:36am
"you are as dishonest as they come. the repug pols who favor vouchers, and wish to starve the public schools, send their kids to private school too. the voucher thing is a shuck, they are never high enough for a good education. Hugele, you are far too much in love with the sound of your voice. purple prose does not result in admiration or respect, it's sophomoric." Posted by emile duBois at 12/22/2008 @ 11:47am
Actually, I enjoy his posts. They're insightful, and I tend to agree with them. And, he rarely resorts to name-calling, unlike some on this site who will remain nameless.
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 12:46am
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 12:46am | ignore this person | warn this person
of course answering my points would be intellectual heavy lifting for you.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 08:56am
The 17 amendment to the Constitution provides for the following:
The son of Basil Paterson (former state senator, NY Secretary of State, and NYC Deputy Mayor) may appoint the daughter of John Kennedy (former US President) to replace the wife of William Clinton (former US President).
Posted by Mistral at 12/23/2008 @ 10:20am
sjchermak What is your point or do you honestly have one????? I am more than aware of President Kennedy's speech in Berlin. There aren't many I missed. I simply stated that Kennedy had some very liberal (progressive) ideas for his time. He was not a conservative like a lot would like to imagine. In fact he could along with LBJ be credited for having the drug the US kicking and screaming into a modern world where all people are equal. That may have cost him his life early. It had literally nothing to do with his speech in Berlin on communism. Even then its debatable if Ronald Reagan defeated communism. Yes it imploded financially from the Star Wars race Reagan started that billions are still being wasted on. That is more what I consider Reagan's legacy he bankrupted the Soviet Union as well as the US from his out of control spending. Not everyone sees Reagan as another JFK model. He was about as far from it as one could get.
Posted by ganddw42 at 12/23/2008 @ 10:38am
ganddw42,
You know what my point was.
You are trying to construct that JFK was not conservative compared to today's democrats, that he was quite liberal.
His actions regarding communism were not something "progressives" today would support.
JFK cut taxes, in the manner typical of a Republican:
January 28, 2004, 9:07 a.m. Dread Kennedy Democrats try so hard to hide their supply-side tax cutter.
In the area of taxation, there is probably nothing that drives Democrats crazier than when they hear Republicans praise John F. Kennedy's tax cut and compare their tax cuts to his. Unfortunately, Democrats keep running up against Kennedy's own statements and actions, which show a clear parallel to Republican tax policies since 1980. http://www.nationalreview.com/ nrof_bartlett/ bartlett200401280907.asp
You said he and LBJ drug the U.S. kicking and screaming into a modern world. Correct. You didn't mention that a greater percentage of the Repbulican delegation in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Bill than did a percentage of the Democrat delegation. Don't try to connect Civil Rights to leftist philosophy, owned and promoted by "progressives" and "leftists" or Democrats or Liberals.
JFK and LBJ promoted civil rights, which was the right thing to do. It was not Democrat philosophy or Republican philosophy, but AMERICAN philosophy. Don't even try to make it the sole provice of the Left, or try to imply that Conservatism impeded it or seeks to impede it now.
Ronald Reagan did not bankrupt the U.S., by the way:
Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore http://www.cato.org/ pub_display.php ?pub_id=1120
You failed to refute me, wanna give it another try?
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 10:54am
ganddw42,
In case you try to follow my links I will point out that when I paste these links in some spaces get put in, I have not figured out why that is happening. When you copy and then paste the link into your browser, take any inadvertant spaces out before hitting the return key.
Otherwise, you will have no page come up or some other website that has nothing to do with where I am directing you.
I do not know why these spaces are getting in, they do not get in until after my post goes to the server.
Yes Libs, I am an ignorant stupid unenligtened Conservative who is also a neocon, I guess, and thus I apparently do not know how to make the computer work properly.
If I were only a Lib, then I would suddenly become brilliant and know what to do. Like Algore, I guess.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 11:02am
'I did not move away from the Democratic Party, it moved away from me.' -- Ronald Reagan
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/23/2008 @ 11:04am
of course answering my points would be intellectual heavy lifting for you. Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 08:56am
And which points would those be, O wise and gifted one?
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 11:18am
Posted by Mistral at 12/23/2008 @ 10:20am | ignore this person | warn this person
droll.
hail to the ruling class.
not that there's anything wrong with that. we have a process. the voters elected Patterson, along with Spitzer. they elected and re-elected Hillary Clinton. they have not exactly been shut out of the process. the voters elected democrats every step of the way. our local repugs are strictly from hunger.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 11:25am
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 11:18am | ignore this person | warn this person
I don't want to strain you.
Ronald Reagan Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/23/2008 @ 11:04am | ignore this person | warn this person
Nicht diesen Trottel wieder.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 11:27am
ganddw42,
I realized after my posts that I do need to elaborate further.
When you said that JFK and LBJ drug the U.S. into the modern world - actually you should have said that JFK and LBJ had the U.S. lead the way into creating the modern world.
Phrased the way you did implies that the U.S. was backward and other places were not.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The conditions of slavery, segration and Jim Crow were not in any way acceptable, but they were not conditions only existing in the United States.
There were many places in the world where slavery did not exist, but plenty of other places where it did, and where it and other injustices continue to this day.
Americans, along with British who tried to stop the slave trade on the high seas, led the way to abolish slavery. And Americans fought to stop the injustices of segregation and Jim Crow.
Americans dealt with this themselves, not by being forced to from the outside.
Some portray other places such as Europe as enlightened and not racist, etc - failing to understand that those people are not poster children for tolerance towards others.
In Eastern Europe, there are a group, the Roma (referred to as gypsies), who have been shunned for years. This is in enlightened Europe. And I would also point out that from 1945 to approx 1989-90, this area was comprised of "People's Democracies" such as Hungary, where all people were comrades and equal and everything was fair (sarcasm). I point this out in case you try to promote socialism or liberal economic thought as connected to, or part of, the cause of civil rights.
So LBJ, and actually if one reviews the actual history, to a much lesser degree JFK, CREATED the modern world, with the U.S., as always, leading the way.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 11:29am
I don't want to strain you.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 11:27am
Better to keep your mouth shut, and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt, eh?
Posted by twillie at 12/23/2008 @ 12:52pm
Hey girl, the German the DuBwah is cutting and pasting roughly translates as "Not this doofus again." But in this blog most of the "dialog" is either foam-at-the-mouth abuse or blank-stare incomprehension, so being called a doofus is not so bad (or maybe they're calling Reagan the doofus?).
Posted by Mistral at 12/23/2008 @ 2:00pm
I revel in the ambiguity.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 4:53pm
I do not need to paste and cut german. it is my mother tongue.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/23/2008 @ 4:55pm
His actions regarding communism were not something "progressives" today would support.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 10:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
SJerk, since you aren't now, and have never been, a 'progressive', by what logic to you get to describe what 'progressives' today would or would not support?
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 6:03pm
You didn't mention that a greater percentage of the Repbulican delegation in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Bill than did a percentage of the Democrat delegation.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 10:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics...and now you're just bloviating BS there SJerk.
The most vehement opposition to the Civil Rights Bill existed along North/South lines, not so much by political parties. (It was opposed by 100% of southern Republicans in both The House and the Senate! It was opposed by 15% of northeren House Republicans and 16% of northern Senate Republicans!)
The Civil Rights Bill was introduced and promised by a Democratic President (JFK). After he was assasinated, another Democratic President (LBJ) sheparded it through both houses of Congress using fellow Democratic legislators (Mike Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey) and then signed it into law.
Sorry, but only someone with a clear and obvious *disconnect* from reality would try to argue that the Civil Rights Act wasn't a Democratic idea or triumph.
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 6:04pm
JFK cut taxes, in the manner typical of a Republican:
January 28, 2004, 9:07 a.m. Dread Kennedy Democrats try so hard to hide their supply-side tax cutter.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 10:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
From the Wall Street Journal...
Of course, to say that President Kennedy cut taxes is something of a stretch. He formally proposed the tax cut in December 1962, he was assassinated in November 1963, and Congress passed the tax cut, to be signed by President Johnson, in February 1964.
. .
The administration believed that there was a long-term problem of fiscal drag...this potential growth rate would not be achieved with existing tax and expenditure policies, because they would yield excessive surpluses, which would depress demand. So the long-run growth problem was to get rid of these troublesome budget surpluses.
. .
...the administration did not care much about balancing the budget, except as a useful political slogan.
. .
Cutting taxes was not Kennedy's first choice for getting rid of those troublesome surpluses. He had plans for many expenditure increases - for defense, education, urban renewal, regional economic development, worker training and medical care for the aged.
. .
The administration did not propose to couple the tax cut with a spending cut.
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 6:05pm
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_06162004
When President Reagan took office in 1981, he quickly succeeded in passing substantial "supply-side" cuts in both individual and corporate income taxes. He predicted that the 1981 tax cuts would "pay for themselves" through higher investment and faster growth in productivity and incomes. Once enacted, the 1981 tax cuts opened up wide budget deficits (6% of gross domestic product, the largest peacetime deficit in history), leading Congress and the president to agree to substantially increase taxes on corporations in 1982 and on payrolls in 1983.
.
...the largest peacetime deficit in history...
...leading Congress and the president to agree to **substantially increase taxes** on corporations in 1982 and on payrolls in 1983...
...
...increase taxes on corporations...
.
.
Contrary to the predictions of supply-side proponents, the 1981 tax cuts did not lead to better economic performance. Economists generally measure performance from one business cycle peak to the next. The last three peaks occurred in 1979, 1989, and 2000. It is instructive to compare the performance of investment, productivity, and output in the 1979-89 cycle, which was influenced by the 1981 tax cuts, with the 1989-2000 cycle, which was little affected by those cuts.
The boost to investment from the 1981 tax cuts that supply-siders had predicted never materialized. In fact, investment grew much faster during the 1990s than the 1980s--5.9% versus 2.5%. Productivity also grew much faster in the 1990s. Although total output, or GDP, grew slightly faster in the 1990s (3.2% versus 3.1%), the promised increase in federal revenue was a bust. Revenues rose at only a 2.5% rate in the 1980s compared to 4.1% in
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 6:10pm
http://tinyurl.com/7624ve
Keep in mind there is no actual evidence that tax cuts can pay for themselves or actually lead to increased revenues. The Treasury Department under President Bush issued a report finding that there was no evidence for this, and Bush's current budget director has also said that tax cuts do not pay for themselves or lead to increased revenue.
The Laffer Curve
This idea of revenue increases resulting from tax cuts -- the crown jewel of the supply-side belief system -- could of course be true in some conceivable context. The concept is illustrated by the Laffer curve, named after its creator, which is basically a diagram showing that tax hikes will increase revenues only up to a point, after which tax hikes will actually lead to a decrease in revenue because incentives to work and invest are so severely damaged. If profits are already taxed at 95 percent, raising that rate might, in fact, lead to less revenue, as people realize there is little to be gained from investing or running a business and there are consequently less profits to be taxed. Lowering that rate could instead lead to more business activity, more business profits, and even more taxes paid on business profits. (Or at the very least, more business profits might be reported, leading to more taxes paid.)
But supply-siders often take this idea, which might apply in very few situations in real life, and apply it to the United States today.
While this is the most bizarre form that supply-side economics takes, even the ideology's more mainstream adherents seem to believe that tax cuts will lead to economic growth that is so great that higher budget deficits and starved public services should be considered nothing more than a minor side-effect.
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 6:15pm
Lillian,
Glad you are back! I bet you have missed calling me "SJerk" and instructing me about the world!
You ask how I would get to describe what "progressives" would or would not support.
I would get that by observing Lib behavior on The Nation, The Progressive and other venues, that's how.
You question my ability to do this, but sometimes Lillian it actually is better to be on the outside looking in, in order to view what is happening.
You then go and question much of my commentary about JFK. You remember, the orgininal argument, by ganddw42, was that JFK was not more conservative than modern day Democrats. He of course was, as has been shown and proven.
The discussion then turned to Civil Rights, and I was on the lookout for any attempt by libs to start playing the race card again when discussing this issue, attempting to showcase (in the lib view) how morally right libs are on this issue and how "racist" libs say Conservatives are.
So I decided to head that off at the pass, and as a result there were no lib attempts to do so.
I am certainly aware JFK and LBJ were Democrats. I was simply pointing out that the question of fairness and opportunity for all in this country, and progress made towards that goal, can not be co-opted by libs into a lib triumph only, because it was not.
And, as you know, further progress towards that goal today is impeded rather than aided by modern liberalism, the liberalism that provides failed public schools, the liberalism that encouraged single motherhood and welfare dependence, and the liberalism that promotes weakness in law enforcement which in the past led to high crime rates in inner city neighborhoods, hurting rather than helping the people libs claim they are helping.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 6:19pm
http://tinyurl.com/84ew6x
Two New Reports Explore the Strange Allure of Supply-Side Economic Policies and the Overwhelming Evidence of Their Failure
Two recent reports help explain supply-side economics, its logical inconsistencies and its failures in practice. One is "Take a Walk on the Supply Side: Tax Cuts on Profits, Savings, and the Wealthy Fail to Spur Economic Growth" by Michael Ettlinger of the Center for American Progress and John Irons of the Economic Policy Institute.
The report spends some time pointing out how supply-side economics is questionable even on a theoretical level. Do we really know that tax cuts always result in more work or more savings? What if you have a certain earnings goal or savings goal and you have to work or save less to reach that goal as the result of a tax cut? And how do we know more savings would mean more investment? Couldn't it lead to investment overseas, or maybe lower consumption which could in turn be harmful to the economy?
The second report is "Tax-Cut Snake Oil: Two Conservative Theories Contradict Each Other and the Facts," by Jeffrey Frankel at the Economic Policy Institute. Frankel adds to our understanding of the supply-side theory and the evidence that has discredited it after the tax cutting under Reagan and Bush II. He also adds a lot of interesting information about the key players involved. For example, he provides quotes from economists who worked for Reagan and George W. Bush saying that tax cuts cannot lead to increased revenues, as well as quotes of their bosses saying that they can.
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 6:19pm
You ask how I would get to describe what "progressives" would or would not support.
I would get that by observing Lib behavior on The Nation, The Progressive and other venues, that's how.
.
Anyone can observe. My dog observes...but that doesn't mean she has a clue what she is observing...exactly as is the case with you, SJerk. You have, literally, no clue whatsoever what "progressives" would or would not support...which is glaringly obvious by your posts, when you 'just make stuff up' about what "progressives" think. It is intellectually dishonest and mental masturbation. At least my dog is smart enough not to engage in it.
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 6:53pm
You then go and question much of my commentary about JFK. You remember, the orgininal argument, by ganddw42, was that JFK was not more conservative than modern day Democrats.
He of course was, as has been shown and proven.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 6:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Actually, your tenusous grasp of' facts' is showing again SJerk. Cutting and pasting long sections from newrepublic neither 'shows' nor 'proves' anything...other than that your mind is quite closed and your range of actual research is quite limited.
ganddw42 did NOT argue that JFL was more conservative than modern day Democratics. Look aagain SJerk,...that was YOUR construct. (And one that obvisouly proves you have done little, if any, research into the views of modern day Democrats - like, say, Joe Biden, your Vice President elect.)
What ganddwk42 said was that "In his day JFK was as liberal as his daughter is today! A lot of people hated him because he was so liberal." You tried to refute that with long cut and pastes from JFKs "berlin" speech (which demonstrated noting whatsoever about JFKs liberlism or conservatism) and then pretending that JFK subscribed to supply-side economics theory - which turned out to be a comlete fabrication on your part.
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 7:16pm
And, as you know, further progress towards that goal today is impeded rather than aided by modern liberalism, the liberalism that provides failed public schools, the liberalism that encouraged single motherhood and welfare dependence, and the liberalism that promotes weakness in law enforcement which in the past led to high crime rates in inner city neighborhoods, hurting rather than helping the people libs claim they are helping.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/23/2008 @ 6:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Actually SJerk, as you know, this is another complete fabrication on your part with no basis in reality. As you are no doubt aware, the failures of the public school system are the direct result of cons, such as yourself, who push unfunded government mandates (No Child Left Behind) and demonize the very people who work the hardest (public school teachers) to provide the actual educational experience for our children.
And of course you are well aware that liberalism never 'encouraged' single motherhood nor welfare dependance. It was, of course, cons such as yourself who have opposed and cut literally every program devised to help the neediest of our society (you of course remember when Reagan closed down all of the state-run hospitals in California for those with mental and emotional problems and offered them **no support at all** - then repeated that act on a national level single handedly creating the the vast numbers of homeless you now step over in every city in the US? - Of course you do.
And SJerk, you also no doubt understand full well that there is NO lib-induced weakness in law enforcement and that high crime rates are directly tied to the removal of the societal oppotunities that progressives support (education, job training, child ca
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 7:36pm
(Character limit)
And SJerk, you also no doubt understand full well that there is NO lib-induced weakness in law enforcement and that high crime rates are directly tied to the removal of the societal oppotunities that progressives support (education, job training, child care, community outreach...you know...basically all of those programs that cons like you have fought so hard to kill.) That, and the fact that you cons love to make draconian laws and sentences - that now have the US locking up a higher percentage of its population than any commmunist state would ever have tried to do.
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 7:37pm
"It was, of course, cons such as yourself who have opposed and cut literally every program devised to help the neediest of our society (you of course remember when Reagan closed down all of the state-run hospitals in California for those with mental and emotional problems and offered them **no support at all** - then repeated that act on a national level single handedly creating the the vast numbers of homeless you now step over in every city in the US? - Of course you do."
Posted by Lillian at 12/23/2008 @ 7:36pm
He may not remember this, because it is utter fiction. The shutdown of mental institutions began in 1965, when the Democrat-led Congress issued the IMD exclusion law. Don't believe me? Convinced that it was those evil cons? Read it for yourself.
http://www.psychlaws.org/HospitalClosure/index.htm
Posted by twillie at 12/24/2008 @ 12:08am
Posted by twillie at 12/24/2008 @ 12:08am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Not fiction at all...and you might actually want to try educating yourself a bit more on the subject before you declare it to be "utter fiction"...
http://tinyurl.com/r3kw
http://www.psychlaws.org/generalResources/article45.htm
In California, Reagan pushed and signed into law the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act which essentially ended the ability for the judiciary to comit the mentally ill. He then used that as an excuse to gut funding not only for state mental institutions, but also for ALL community based mental health resources.
when he became President, he did the same thing on a larger scale, gutting federal funding for such service and pushing the responsibility to the states...which couldn't afford them.
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 01:34am
The Reagan administration was slow to acknowledge the problem, much less respond constructively to it. In 1981, the federal government's Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program was designed to deliver surplus agricultural products to the needy. But by 1986 it was clear that almost none of this food was actually getting to the homeless. The president was chastised by activists when he stated that most street people were in that situation because they chose to be. Presidential Counsellor Edwin Meese claimed that people went to soup kitchens because they didn't want to pay for their meals.
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 01:35am
Thanks man. I tried the BabelFish translator online, and it gave me an error message: 'Since German has been irrelevant since the end of the Nuremberg trials in 1949, we have discontinued this translation facility'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/24/2008 @ 10:16am
how many languages do you speak, dishonestneocon?
I thought so.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008 @ 10:51am
This law was pushed through by mental health reformers, NOT Reagan. And guess what party two of the three sponsors belonged to?
The articles of intent of the LPS act:
To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities; To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism; To guarantee and protect public safety; To safeguard individual rights through judicial review; To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons; To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures; To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.
Yeah, that sounds like Reagan trying to screw the mentally ill, alright.
So, yeah, I'll say again, this statement is utter fiction: "Reagan closed down all of the state-run hospitals in California for those with mental and emotional problems"
Posted by twillie at 12/24/2008 @ 10:59am
Lillian,
JFK supported a strong national defense and spoke out against communism. Modern day libs hate the military (Bill Clinton is on record as saying he loathed it), seek to weaken the military, and do not view our enemies as evil. Libs view the U.S. as the blame for things such as terrorist "anger".
JFK cut taxes in a manner typical of a Republican, a manner totally opposed by modern day libs.
I am not stupid, although you think so, and I am well aware that JFK was viewed as liberal by many and disliked by some because of this. But he still was more conservative than modern day libs. ganddw42 contended that he was not. JFK was more conservative than either of his brothers.
Liberalism has totally failed public school. Liberals are more interested in the concerns of teachers unions than of childern. Libs oppose merit pay for teachers, they are to be paid by union seniority rules instead, regardless of qualification or competence.
Liberals oppose disciplining kids in school. Kids are kids, and need to be disciplined some times. Libs have revised cirriculum in schools now so as to teach feel good subjects more and more at the expense of basic skills. Libs don't believe in emphasing grades because libs think that effects a child's self esteem. So kids do not receive the message some of them need to get their ass in gear and study and make something of themselves. Libs allow the kids to make excuses for poor grades.
Libs did cause the growth of crime rates in the 60's and 70's. Libs believe if someone is a criminal, society is at fault. But sometimes people are simply just criminals and need to be punished and dealt with accordingly. You blamed crime on "removal of societal opportunities" - totally off of the mark.
to be continued
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 11:21am
Lillian,
So we have libs making excuses for kids not learning or behaving, we have libs making excuses for adults not behaving. Now you say libs did not encourage single motherhood.
Libs did encourage single motherhood. Libs promoted and set up the welfare system in a way that discouraged marriage. But the single motherhood damaged the poor far greater than the less availability of welfare(if one was married) could possibly have.
Libs destroyed a large part of the family structure among African Americans in the inner cities.
The homeless situation, especially in San Francisco, was created by benevolent lib attitudes that made it easy for homeless to fall back on government handouts rather than take responsibility for themselves.
And, since there are many in the homeless population that are mentally disturbed, libs pitched in to make the problem worse by giving homeless people more control over their affairs than should have been practical - opposite what libs advocate for sane people in our society.
In every facet of life, libs advocate more government control and dependence is the way to go - except for the homeless!
There, with some people that should have been institutionalized, libs stepped in and promoted they had legal rights and could not be institutionalized against their will.
So people who are sane and can manage their affairs are told they need more government to do it for them, but people who are not sane and who are mentally troubled are told they have complete control over their affairs.
You really need to stop trying to defend this, Lillian, because you can't no matter how hard you try.
But, I have no doubt you will try. You believe in this stuff, I can not account for why, since it can't be supported.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 11:32am
Hey, that's not so nice, HonestLiberal. If DuBwah thinks DuBwah's arguments have any increased relevance just because DuBwah says DuBwah speaks German, then just leave DuBwah alone, but don't mqke nasty remarks about the Germans!
Posted by Mistral at 12/24/2008 @ 11:33am
Posted by Mistral at 12/24/2008 @ 11:33am | ignore this person | warn this person
this is false. I pepper my posts now and then with a german expression, just for variety.
and what's this shit I claim to speak german? I was born in Austria. lived in Vienna 'till I was four. emigrated to Germany. it is there that I received a jesuit education 'till I was 15. I subsequently emigrated to the US, where I completed my formal education.
I received the German achievement medal in High School here. I should have been awarded the English medal, that's where my achievement was. my H.S. english teacher did not know I was foreign born, nevermind that I had only been in this country for a year. as Maasch can testify, I have no german accent.
sooo my friends, eat shit, as we say here so colloquially.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008 @ 12:05pm
You're right, Mistral, I shouldn't have made the crack about the Germans. Remember the old Tom Lehrer line from 'MLF Lullaby':
'We taught them a lesson in 1918/ And they've hardly bothered us since then...'
But I have to laugh when I see the German snippets. It reminds me of older times when snobs would insert Latin quotes and think it made them sound erudite, but then they'd confuse Habeas Corpus with Corpus Delicti (oops! sorry, doing it myself now! Bad Liberal! Bad Liberal!).
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/24/2008 @ 2:06pm
Yeah, that sounds like Reagan trying to screw the mentally ill, alright.
Posted by twillie at 12/24/2008 @ 10:59am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
While quoting the text of the LPS Act, I see you completely missed the part about how Reagan THEN used that as an excuse to cut funding for both the state hospitals AND community-based mental health programs while Governor (and federal housing assistance to those same mentally ill when he was President.) He basically left them with absolutely nowhere to go EXCEPT the streets.
That actually DOES sound like "Reagan trying to screw the mentally ill", now doesn't it?
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 3:41pm
And the rest of DuBwah's post reminds me of high school kids bragging about SAT scores, or Joe Biden bragging about his IQ. It's hard to take anyone seriously if their argument ends with "eat shit!"
Posted by Mistral at 12/24/2008 @ 3:44pm
JFK supported a strong national defense and spoke out against communism. Modern day libs hate the military (Bill Clinton is on record as saying he loathed it), seek to weaken the military, and do not view our enemies as evil. Libs view the U.S. as the blame for things such as terrorist "anger".
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 11:21am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
In this alternate reality you've created for yourself, does anyone actually ask you how you came to such conclusions? Do the cons in your universe all wear the white hats and the liberals are all evil? In your fantasy world, do the cons bear any responsibility for anything at all?
.
JFK cut taxes in a manner typical of a Republican...
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 11:21am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Actually, he didn't. And I supplied you proof. I supplied you with facts showing that JFK wanted to vastly increase spending as a way to eliminate the budget surplus - which is anything BUT "in a manner typical of a Republican". Unfortunately, those facts apparently got drowned out by the ranting that passes for rational thought in your weird little fantasy world. You want desparately to claim JFK as a 'con' - but he wasn't. Sorry, those darned facts are pesky, aren't they?
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 3:51pm
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/24/2008 @ 2:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
allow me to refer you to the citation from Götz von Berlichingen.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/24/2008 @ 3:53pm
Liberalism has totally failed public school. Liberals are more interested in the concerns of teachers unions than of childern. Libs oppose merit pay for teachers, they are to be paid by union seniority rules instead, regardless of qualification or competence.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 11:21am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Actually, it is the cons who have failed public schools - by gutting funding at every turn (while imposing unfunded mandates at the same time.) I work very closely with several public schools - we are forced to conduct fund raisers at every opportunity to supply teachers with basic items like paper, pencils, and erasers - even though most of them willingly supply these items from their own paychecks because they are DEDICATED to providing a quality educational experience to our children (which is why nearly every one of them entered the field in the first place.)
And the notion that union rules have prevented the removal of incompetant teachers is just more of your stupid con fantasy. Teachers are required to acheive proper competance and qualification to BECOME teachers...and they take ongoing training and education in order to preserve their qualification. If they don't the can be viewed as incompetant. And teachers are removed from service ALL THE TIME and for a variety of reasons. Union rules just insure that such actions are done through fairness and due process.
Which you'd know if you actually spent some time listening to someone other than Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 4:01pm
In every facet of life, libs advocate more government control and dependence is the way to go - except for the homeless!
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 11:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
Oops, you got going on a major rant there about 'libs did this' and 'libs destroyed that' - then almost trapped yourself in your own incoherent babbeling. Good thing you through in that "except for the homeless" line there to save face.
Except you didn't. You offered a bunch baseless lies about what 'libs' are responsible for (spitting that 'libs' like an epithet, over and over) without so much as a shred of evidence or support. It's what makes you such an...
...SJerk!
.
You really need to stop trying to defend this, Lillian, because you can't no matter how hard you try.
But, I have no doubt you will try. You believe in this stuff, I can not account for why, since it can't be supported.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/24/2008 @ 11:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Unlike the vast body of evidence you supply for your pathetic blubbering? Oh wait - that's right - where I supplied rational arguement backed by you didn't supply ANYTHING except a screaming, incoherent rant.
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 4:23pm
Liberals oppose disciplining kids in school.
Libs don't believe in emphasing grades...
Libs allow the kids to make excuses for poor grades.
Libs believe if someone is a criminal, society is at fault.
Libs did encourage single motherhood.
Libs destroyed a large part of the family structure among African Americans...
In every facet of life, libs advocate more government control...
.
SJerk, when you spout this junk, you make yourself look like a total idiot. Literally every single statement above is absolute horse hockey! The rantings of a desperate, pathetic, moron.
Please, pontificate more on your pathetic con fantasies. It makes you sound so...so...
funny!
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 4:25pm
Lillian, you're ignoring passage of the IMD exclusion, probably because it was passed by a Democrat-led Congress in 1965. You're also ignoring the fact that Jerry Brown or Davis could have easily repealed any law passed by Governor Reagan.
So, if Reagan TRIED to screw the mentally ill, why didn't they and the Democrat led California legislature right the wrong?
Because you are in a fantasyland where evil Repubs do untold damage, and brave Dems are powerless to stop them. Like I said, utter fiction.
Posted by twillie at 12/24/2008 @ 5:33pm
Because you are in a fantasyland where evil Repubs do untold damage, and brave Dems are powerless to stop them. Like I said, utter fiction.
Posted by twillie at 12/24/2008 @ 5:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Wow, did you read ANY of the posts here or do you just suffer from a major lack of reading comprehension?
It was SJerk who has been posting over and over about the evil 'libs' and what they've done to destroy the country.
Maybe you just missed all that huh?
Posted by Lillian at 12/24/2008 @ 6:07pm
Lillian- you're great at distraction. I read LOTS of the posts here. But, why don't you answer the question that I asked:
"Lillian, you're ignoring passage of the IMD exclusion, probably because it was passed by a Democrat-led Congress in 1965. You're also ignoring the fact that Jerry Brown or Davis could have easily repealed any law passed by Governor Reagan. So, if Reagan TRIED to screw the mentally ill, why didn't they and the Democrat led California legislature right the wrong?"
If you want to discuss the points brought up in this thread, let's discuss. It just seems like you are trying to get in the last word. And that's just boring.
Posted by twillie at 12/25/2008 @ 8:35pm
Lillian, you're ignoring passage of the IMD exclusion, probably because it was passed by a Democrat-led Congress in 1965.
Posted by twillie at 12/25/2008 @ 8:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Well actually, no...I'm not ignoring it, or your attempt to paint it as a 'Democratic' thing. The federal government had established the prohibition of federal assistance for IMD residents long, long before Medicaid came along. In fact, contrary to your "probably because it was passed by a Democrat-led Congress" statement, the principle of the prohibition of federal assistance for IMD residents was established in 1950 - in ammendments passed to the Social Secutiry Act - ammendments that passed with the full participation and agreement of Republicans at the time (only 3 Republicans voted no.)
.
why didn't they and the Democrat led California legislature right the wrong?"
Posted by twillie at 12/25/2008 @ 8:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
.
Well first, while you are looking up the historic roots of the IMD exclusion and the Republican complicity in it, you might want to also look up the fact that it was a Democratic Congress in 1988 that passed a major EXEMPTION to the IMD exclusion that allowed federal Medicaid payments to facilities with 16 beds ot less. (You know, the same 'community based' facilities that Reagan had previously cut funding for.
You might also want to check out the Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963, again a Democratic effort to stop the warehousing of mental patients by establishing federal funding for community-based facilities - you know, the kind of federal funding Reagan gutted.
While you're at it, try looking up The Mental Health Systems Act of 1980, passed just before Reagan took office.
Posted by Lillian at 12/26/2008 @ 4:26pm
The Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 would have provided a federal/state partnership and vast new resources to support and expand community based mental health programs and facilities...
...except Reagan summarily repealed it just after he took office.
Posted by Lillian at 12/26/2008 @ 4:26pm