Yeparoo. Don'tcha just hate that? Too bad there are books and news clips etc. proving what really happened.

I doubt you can point to the millions of jobs saved but I can certainly point to the millions lost since he took office. Bad luck for him but it happened on his watch and he promised to fix it by providing us with hundreds of thousands of jobs, so did the Demoncrats in Congress. So far, nada.

I have seen people say they were beginning to start up projects. They have even had articles in the local paper about the stimulus money.

I wish more money had been focused on infrastructure and jobs too. But I am still willing to give him more time, because everyone always said it would not be immediate. If, after this year, the unemployment rate is still rising, I will start bitching with you, OK? We can march on Washington if you want. ;)

Here is the infrastructure allocation so far.

I'd like to know the facts... By magic!

Well it looks like Congress and all it spending may have finally reached a brink. At least someone is looking at the numbers. CBO say Demoncratic spending is unsustainable.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328

Well at least some Congress men still have a sense of their priorities.

Sen. Dodd (D) may snub lobbyists, but not their cash

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090726/D99LQR1O4.html

Keeping an eye on the bills in congress and how much they are costing us.

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/...nding-tracker/

Washington Watch is affiliated with the conservative/libertarian CATO Institute.

WashingtonWatch.com does not report the many benefits that may be provided by government regulation and spending, made possible by taxation. Proposals that “cost” the average American may benefit you, your community, your loved ones, or your employer.

WashingtonWatch.com does not report the budgetary consequences of legislation. A proposal that “saves” money may drive the national debt higher because it reduces taxes without reducing spending. One that “costs” may reduce the national debt because it includes more taxes than spending.

When you rely on a partisan service, you generally get a partisan perspective...which is fine, if that is what you want....but dont attempt to pass it off as a site w/o a political agenda.

If you want to keep an eye on Congress and want a non-partisan perspective, use non-partisan sources, like Thomas, the official Congressional site and read the CRS bill summaries and the CBO cost estimates that are included or use GovTrack, another good non-partisan source.

Keeping an eye on Congress is good....doing it with an open mind (is "not reporting the benefits that may be provided"....open-minded or objective?), rather than a predisposed agenda, is better.

You mean like the AARP?

I really didnt expect you to acknowledge that the the analysis of legislation by WashingtonWatch.com is as partisan and biased as any you will find.

I listed the others for those who are more open-minded.

Thanks Redux. I like the CBO. They had the guts to tell GWB what tax cuts combined with war spending would do. I trust them to be equally annoying to Obama and I've already seen our loyal opposition here refer to their estimates.

I'd relegate washingtonwatch and the AARP both to the spin cycle. Both have an agenda, although at least the AARP has a defined constituency whose interests they do look out for, mostly, while trying to sell them insurance.

Absolutely...there are few political sites that are without some spin.

I think its fair to say that the AARP doesnt hide or misrepresent what they are and for whom they advocate....as opposed to most of Merc's op eds and sites.

More evidence of a bloated expensive government without "transparency":

Federal Agencies Diverted Earmark Money

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/us..._r=2&th&emc=th

HEY! The Congress can just treat this like they did for Cash for Clunkers! Dump more taxpayer dollars into it because you know, "It's to big to fail."

Prolonged Aid to Unemployed Is Running Out

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/02unemploy.html?hp

You may not like the messenger but the message is quite accurate.

The message on WashingtonWatch.com is accurate. WTF?

When they say on their own site:

WashingtonWatch.com does not report the many benefits that may be provided by government regulation and spending, made possible by taxation. Proposals that “cost” the average American may benefit you, your community, your loved ones, or your employer.

WashingtonWatch.com does not report the budgetary consequences of legislation. A proposal that “saves” money may drive the national debt higher because it reduces taxes without reducing spending. One that “costs” may reduce the national debt because it includes more taxes than spending.

Hell....at least they acknowledge (if you know where to look for it) that their analysis is incomplete and biased...I will give them that.

Lets be honest here.

As much as you like to criticize me as an “agent” for the Democrats or just a typical partisan leftist, I am not the one who, day after day, floods the Cellar with biased partisan op eds and/or links, many (most) of which are misleading, incomplete (ignoring context) or completely dishonest....probably more than all other posters here combined.

Quite accurate? That would be when you acknowledge that many of your “snips” are as biased and partisan (and more often than not, less accurate) than anything I (or others) post.

:thumb:
Thanks, Redux. Not that it'll change anything, but im glad someone said it.

Partisan opinion from a partisan poster, just doesn't carry much weight or credibility.

Lets be honest here, as I said, you may not like the messenger but the message is quite accurate in most cases.

Nope. It certainly wont change anything.

There are political boards where members engage in honest and often lively discussions that makes for good infotainment. You can have fun and learn something new at the same time.

And there are political boards that will never be conducive to such discussions, where one member is so intent in pushing a personal agenda, with daily cuts/pastes and a “gotcha” mentality, that the likelihood of open and honest discussion among members, without that one particular member's disruption, is an exercise in futility.

In my short time here, I can recall at least 3-4 members who have fled the political forum as a result of one member's repetitive and disruptive actions ("I am right...my links are factual ...so fuck you liberal apologists!")

Oh well..that’s life in a political forum.

You mean that as long as they agree with your POV...

As you said, "Oh well..that’s life in a political forum." :D

That's the POV calling the kettle black...

Yep, he's no different IMHO, just supports everything the Obama Administration says, does, and every thing they do is going to be better for you and SAVE YOUR LIFE!. :D

You're on a roll!

How many more people can you drive away from the political forum or have put you on ignore? At least 4 and counting who have said as much publicly?

If no one is left to listen, what would be the point of your daily rants?

Matters not. Most likely the same 4 I have on ignore. No big deal. It is the beauty of this place. I doubt anyone is "driven away" by me. But that would be free choice as well.

My point exactly.

You dont give a shit.

Its more important for you to get our you "message" *(day after day, partisan op ed after partisan op ed...more than all other contributors combined, in my time here) than to contribute to the community in a manner than stimulates discussion.

About anything you have to say or your opinion. Correct. Not so much with others.

Like you said, if I am the only one who comes here who cares. I have confined most of my posts to a few threads. That is within the bounds of civility on a public forum.

Posting an endless number of partisan op eds, with occasional one line personal snarky comments, does not make for civil discourse by most reasonble standards.

Hey..if thats what you want and it makes you feel better about your position...carry on.

Yea, I know, you want me to post partisan op eds that support your savior. I know. I just can't bring myself to drink your Koolaid or swallow your guys propaganda. Sorry. I just can't do it. I will be here to point out the duplicity of the Demoncrats and how they are no different than what the Republickins did for 8 years, you know, all that stuff your guys whined about. Obama is not doing a bad job for a figurehead of the Dems, Congress on the otherhand....

In fact, I would prefer no partisan op eds be posted (at least not 3-5 times EVERY DAY) and for members to think for themselves.

I think it is fair to say that is how I, and most others I have encountered here, particpate.

The "savior" (the "messiah", the "one") mantra is just another example of parroting the right wing group speak and not being able to think for yourself.

You have supported most everything the Dems and Obama have done. You are an admitted Dem partisan. You can't hide behind your new found non-partisan look.

It is quite fitting for how people like you have drank the koolaid and see no fault, supporting everything Obama says and supporting Spend Spend Spend by the Dems in Congress. Tax tax tax is on its way. You will support that as well, I am sure.

Cite please....all of my partisan links!

I never said I was non-partisan..but I dont flood the site with bullship partisan op eds on a daily basis (or weekly basis...or even monthly basis) . NO ONE does to the same extent as you.

I offer my own opionions. I was critical of components of the ARRA. I was critical of components of Obama's detainee policly. I like the transparency I have seen compared to the previsous admin, but said it still doesnt go far enough. I have said I like some components in the various heallth reform proposals but not others.

I speak for myself and dont rely on op eds.

Like you said. I don't give a shit. :p:D

Ed: Wait, wait... your AARP article. Completely biased.

Yea, I am sure it is not enough of a far left socialist agenda. Eh... me, I am not big on government of your sort.

One AARP press release that was released solely to refute the bogus charges in you WSJ op eds about mandatory euthanasia counseling for seniors...and that was reaffrimed by FactCheck, Snopes and PoliFacts

All biased and the WSJ op ed not....right! :)

It was only one article and issue that you addressed. I conceed that. But as I stated you just don't like the messenger. No big deal really. I don't support yours. I asked you to provide support for other issues that the Demoncrats are pushing for our great grand children to pay for. You declined.

You made it clear that you dont give a shit what I have to say.

I'll wait for UG....at least, he has the abliity to speak for himself.

Ok, cool. Have fun.

Someone should remind these CLOWNS that they are in charge now and have been for more than 2 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080201824.html

Spend, spend, spend.

http://www.rollcall.com/media/37552-1.html

Aren't these the same guys that castigated the Automakers for arriving on jets?

^Came here to say this.
Got sucked into the Redux/Merc banter. Wow.
From the few pages I read, I don't see a whole lot of political discussion - more of an argument about whose newspapers/websites/preiodicals are more right. I was hoping for "I agree with the WSJ/AARP/insert-article's-publisher-here because..." Not that I consider myself at all competent to defend my political bent as eloquently as I would like, but now I leave disenchanted.

Carry on.

You answered your own question before asking it.

Not to mention that the first line in his quote asked his question he asked it.

yea, rhetorical.

Eh. Not all that important. I would be glad to discuss anything with you.

I am not really interested in political banter with Redux. He thinks he is correct. I think I am correct. It has never gone anywhere past that when you drill down to it.

Most of my posts of articles usually are of the "I found this an interesting read" nature. No one wants to comment on the articles, no biggy.

And that's 99% of the political forum.

I don't think it always has to be that way. But what eva...

This article refutes that statement:

www.italwayshastobethatway.com



:lol:

Ok, this is pretty typical of a way to stiffle discussion and demonize people you disagree with. Hey, didn't the Dems do that to the Repubs when they were in charge? hmmmmm... let me check on that.

Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...swastikas.html

This article refutes that statement:

www.youareabrokenrecord.com

I think they should ride like everyone else.

http://kleinosky.com/blog/b_openseating1.jpg

I'm cool with Merc posting articles he finds interesting. I'm cool with both parties having their own opinion of what's right. Guess I was expecting more debate over the issues at hand rather than over who's righter. No biggy.

And yes, let Congress hang from a net too. Or make them pay full fare on one of our failing airlines.

By the very nature of being in the Line of Presidential Succession, every Cabinet secretary and the top leaders of the House and Senate are afforded levels of security and protection beyond the norm.

The same applies for the Joint Chiefs and top military officials and members of Congress on official business when traveling abroad.

I have no problem with those folks having that level of security when conducting the nation's business.

Me neither, but did they have to spend $200 million on new jets? Was there something wrong with the existing ones? Or their bulletproof limos for more local trips?

Personally, if I saw a Congressman on a regular flight with his fair share of security, I would have much more respect for him. And how many whack jobs are aiming at Congressmen? And how are they going to get past security to whack them on a public flight? IMHO, I don't think it's about security, I feel it's about entitlement, which pisses me off.

Can't get more secure than riding in the back of an Air Force C-130 (with nominal temperature control and requiring the use of ear plugs :D).

IMO, this is marginally more of an issue than bitching about the cost to taxpayers of the Obama's taking a weekend trip to NYC...but not by much.

In both cases, the Secret Service has alot to say about minimum security levels for such officials.

Many Congress people ride to and from work each day and few have any security. The need for custom jets is not warranted. Esp in this time of spend, spend, spend. They need to take a back seat to their own needs.

Members of Congress have no authorization to use these jets for commuting to and from work, but solely when acting on Congressional business, particularly when traveling abroad.

The exception is Pelosi, who is second in line to the presidency...scary, huh?