Take your medicine, you're hallucinating. --- On Thu, 11/25/10, Leland Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Leland Jackson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OT] There will be blood > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, November 25, 2010, 2:31 PM > On 11/25/2010 11:52 AM, Nicholas Geti > wrote: > > Yep. He has a Nobel Prize but it sure didn't mean > anything. I saw another > > article which said essentially Krugman is exactly > that. He had gone on and > > on about how bad the Republicans were in the Clinton > era and that it would > > be 50 years before the Republicans ever saw any power > again. The Democrats > > had a lock on the American psyche. He is a total > liberal/progressive. And > > yet he still goes on and on about how bad the > Republicans are. > > > > I put Leland in the same category based on this latest > missive. He is > > talking exactly like Krugman. In fact he might even be > getting his > > information from Krugman's articles. > > Ya Think! LOL The New York Times is much more > balanced than Fox News, > where I suspect you get your propaganda, oop, I mean > news. LOL > > The Republicans control the House, so now its on the > Republicans to > delivery, but the Republicans seem to only be interested in > undermining > the Obama Administration; country and American people be > damned. The > Republican's aim in undermining everything the Obama > Administration is > trying to do for the country, and the American people, is > to gain > greater Republican power. Power obtain in this way is > unlikely to be > used to represent the needs and wises of the People. > > The messages currently coming from the Republicans is so > conflicted, its > funny. For example: > > 1) Reducing the deficit is conflicted with extending > the Bush tax cuts, > including the tax gifts to the wealthiest, (eg the American > elitists) > The annual deficit results from the government spending > above and beyond > its tax revenues raised during the annual budget year, so > extending the > Bush tax cuts aggravates the deficit. Reducing the > annual deficit is > not compatible with reducing taxes, so calling for deficit > reduction and > tax cuts at the same time is a message coming from a forked > tongue. > LOL At the end of each budget year, the surplus or > deficit is closed, > resulting in a increase of decease to the national debt, > respectively. > > During the Bush Administration money was appropriated > outside the budget > process to finance wars, so this increased the national > debt directly. > > 2) Reducing government is conflicted with having a > large, well > equipped, centrally commanded, military, and government for > that matter. > > 3) Reducing unemployment is conflicted with > eliminating government help > and reducing the government. > > 4) Reducing the damage from a prolonged > recession/depression is > conflicted with reducing the centralized federal government > that can > help keep the country running on a more even keel. > > 5) Repel of the National Health Insurance program is > conflicted with > reducing the long term health insurance cost of the > American people. > > Above are just a few examples of conflicts coming from an > ever > increasingly, extreme Republican party. There are > some serious decision > lying ahead, and I doubt the new Republican House of > Representative will > have the wisdom to make legislation that would be in the > best, long term > interest of the USA and her people. > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > > Actually I hope there is government gridlock. It keeps > them out of our > > pockets or trying to control our lives. I think the > economy will recover > > without their "help". > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael Madigan"<[email protected]> > > To: "ProFox Email List"<[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:02 PM > > Subject: Re: [OT] There will be blood > > > > > >> Krugman is a fool > >> > >> --- On Wed, 11/24/10, Leland Jackson<[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> From: Leland Jackson<[email protected]> > >>> Subject: [OT] There will be blood > >>> To: "ProFox Email List"<[email protected]> > >>> Date: Wednesday, November 24, 2010, 2:07 PM > >>> Here's a good article from the New > >>> York Times about the current state of > >>> bi-partisan politics in the USA. The > Republicans have their > >>> priorities > >>> seriously disorganized, and seem to be placing > gaining more > >>> power within > >>> the party above all else, including country > and what's in > >>> the best > >>> interest of the American people. If things go > on like this > >>> much longer, > >>> I wounder what Thanksgiving and Christmas, if > any, will > >>> look like in the > >>> future. LOL > >>> > >>> #----------------------------------- > >>> Op-Ed Columnist > >>> There Will Be Blood > >>> By PAUL KRUGMAN > >>> Published: November 22, 2010 > >>> > >>> > >>> Former Senator Alan Simpson is a Very Serious > Person. He > >>> must be — after > >>> all, President Obama appointed him as > co-chairman of a > >>> special > >>> commission on deficit reduction. > >>> > >>> So here’s what the very serious Mr. Simpson > said on > >>> Friday: “I can’t > >>> wait for the blood bath in April. ... When > debt limit time > >>> comes, > >>> they’re going to look around and say, > ‘What in the hell > >>> do we do now? > >>> We’ve got guys who will not approve the debt > limit > >>> extension unless we > >>> give ’em a piece of meat, real meat,’ ” > meaning > >>> spending cuts. “And boy, > >>> the blood bath will be extraordinary,” he > continued. > >>> > >>> Think of Mr. Simpson’s blood lust as one > more piece of > >>> evidence that our > >>> nation is in much worse shape, much closer to > a political > >>> breakdown, > >>> than most people realize. > >>> > >>> Some explanation: There’s a legal limit to > federal debt, > >>> which must be > >>> raised periodically if the government keeps > running > >>> deficits; the limit > >>> will be reached again this spring. And since > nobody, not > >>> even the > >>> hawkiest of deficit hawks, thinks the budget > can be > >>> balanced > >>> immediately, the debt limit must be raised to > avoid a > >>> government > >>> shutdown. But Republicans will probably try to > blackmail > >>> the president > >>> into policy concessions by, in effect, holding > the > >>> government hostage; > >>> they’ve done it before. > >>> > >>> Now, you might think that the prospect of this > kind of > >>> standoff, which > >>> might deny many Americans essential services, > wreak havoc > >>> in financial > >>> markets and undermine America’s role in the > world, would > >>> worry all men > >>> of good will. But no, Mr. Simpson “can’t > wait.” And > >>> he’s what passes, > >>> these days, for a reasonable Republican. > >>> > >>> The fact is that one of our two great > political parties has > >>> made it > >>> clear that it has no interest in making > America governable, > >>> unless it’s > >>> doing the governing. And that party now > controls one house > >>> of Congress, > >>> which means that the country will not, in > fact, be > >>> governable without > >>> that party’s cooperation — cooperation > that won’t be > >>> forthcoming. > >>> > >>> Elite opinion has been slow to recognize this > reality. Thus > >>> on the same > >>> day that Mr. Simpson rejoiced in the prospect > of chaos, Ben > >>> Bernanke, > >>> the Federal Reserve chairman, appealed for > help in > >>> confronting mass > >>> unemployment. He asked for “a fiscal program > that > >>> combines near-term > >>> measures to enhance growth with strong, > confidence-inducing > >>> steps to > >>> reduce longer-term structural deficits.” > >>> > >>> My immediate thought was, why not ask for a > pony, too? > >>> After all, the > >>> G.O.P. isn’t interested in helping the > economy as long as > >>> a Democrat is > >>> in the White House. Indeed, far from being > willing to help > >>> Mr. > >>> Bernanke’s efforts, Republicans are trying > to bully the > >>> Fed itself into > >>> giving up completely on trying to reduce > unemployment. > >>> > >>> And on matters fiscal, the G.O.P. program is > to do almost > >>> exactly the > >>> opposite of what Mr. Bernanke called for. On > one side, > >>> Republicans > >>> oppose just about everything that might reduce > structural > >>> deficits: they > >>> demand that the Bush tax cuts be made > permanent while > >>> demagoguing > >>> efforts to limit the rise in Medicare costs, > which are > >>> essential to any > >>> attempts to get the budget under control. On > the other, the > >>> G.O.P. > >>> opposes anything that might help sustain > demand in a > >>> depressed economy — > >>> even aid to small businesses, which the party > claims to > >>> love. > >>> > >>> Right now, in particular, Republicans are > blocking an > >>> extension of > >>> unemployment benefits — an action that will > both cause > >>> immense hardship > >>> and drain purchasing power from an already > sputtering > >>> economy. But > >>> there’s no point appealing to the better > angels of their > >>> nature; America > >>> just doesn’t work that way anymore. > >>> > >>> And opposition for the sake of opposition > isn’t limited > >>> to economic > >>> policy. Politics, they used to tell us, stops > at the > >>> water’s edge — but > >>> that was then. > >>> > >>> These days, national security experts are > tearing their > >>> hair out over > >>> the decision of Senate Republicans to block a > desperately > >>> needed new > >>> strategic arms treaty. And everyone knows that > these > >>> Republicans oppose > >>> the treaty, not because of legitimate > objections, but > >>> simply because > >>> it’s an Obama administration initiative; if > sabotaging > >>> the president > >>> endangers the nation, so be it. > >>> > >>> How does this end? Mr. Obama is still talking > about > >>> bipartisan outreach, > >>> and maybe if he caves in sufficiently he can > avoid a > >>> federal shutdown > >>> this spring. But any respite would be only > temporary; > >>> again, the G.O.P. > >>> is just not interested in helping a Democrat > govern. > >>> > >>> My sense is that most Americans still don’t > understand > >>> this reality. > >>> They still imagine that when push comes to > shove, our > >>> politicians will > >>> come together to do what’s necessary. But > that was > >>> another country. > >>> > >>> It’s hard to see how this situation is > resolved without a > >>> major crisis > >>> of some kind. Mr. Simpson may or may not get > the blood bath > >>> he craves > >>> this April, but there will be blood sooner or > later. And we > >>> can only > >>> hope that the nation that emerges from that > blood bath is > >>> still one we > >>> recognize. > >>> > >>> > >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/opinion/22krugman.html?ex=1306213200&en=d04ab225d1b83af9&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=NYT-E-I-NYT-E-AT-1124-L16 > >>> > >>> #----------------------------- > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> LelandJ > >>> > >>> > [excessive quoting removed by server] > > _______________________________________________ > Post Messages to: [email protected] > Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox > OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech > Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox > This message: > http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] > ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are > the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or > medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for > those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
