[TheRealVille]

Democrats were practically gleeful Tuesday that they’d gained the upper hand on the payroll tax cut extension after House Republican leaders unexpectedly agreed to prolong the tax holiday without paying for it.

Sensing a strengthened position, Democrats indicated they would up the pressure on Republicans to ensure the rest of the $160 billion package – renewing unemployment insurance and avoiding a Medicare rate cut for doctors – passes before the programs expire at the end of this month.

“Let me be clear about what you saw yesterday,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Tuesday. “The Republicans called a full-scale retreat on the payroll tax cut.”

Added House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.): “My initial reaction is, the Republicans caved because they believed that the public believes that we ought to move forward on this.”

In a surprising about-face, House GOP leaders said Monday that if conference committee negotiations fail, they’ll push an extension of the payroll tax cut through the end of this year without offsetting the cost . The temporary 2 percent tax cut, which benefits 160 million Americans and costs about $100 billion to extent through the end of the year, would be separated from unemployment insurance and the so-called doc fix, Republicans leaders said.

The back-up plan could come to the House floor as early as Wednesday.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Democrats would back the standalone payroll tax cut extension. At the same time, she called on a House-Senate conference committee to reach a deal by Friday on unemployment benefits and the so-called “doc fix.”

If that doesn’t happen, Pelosi said GOP leaders should scrap the weeklong Presidents Day recess scheduled for next week.

Though House passage of a standalone payroll bill isn’t guaranteed, the Democrats’ expected backing dramatically boosts its prospects.

The real guesswork starts once it reaches the Senate.

Schumer didn’t say whether Senate Democrats would support just the payroll tax cut separated from the other two provisions. He said the caucus is not ruling “anything off the table” in terms getting the extension of unemployment insurance and the doc fix passed.

“In terms of revenues and in terms of mandatory cuts, there’s ample room to get these things done,” Schumer said, who also said renewing jobless benefits without paying for it was also an option.

Senate Democrats also hinted tax extenders such as a research and development tax credit and mass transit benefits could be included in the final deal.

But Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) cautioned that negotiators still have to resolve other sticking points like reforms to the unemployment insurance program proposed by Republicans. Those changes include a requirement that all recipients undergo a GED program in order to receive benefits, and allowing states to mandate drug screening.

“I don’t think it changes any of the other equations here other than the offset politics,” Cardin said.

Earlier Tuesday, President Barack Obama noted “hopeful signs” in Congress regarding passage of the extension, but still urged the public to pressure lawmakers.

“You can’t take anything for granted here in Washington,” Obama said Tuesday. “Until you see me sign this thing, you’ve got to keep on speaking up.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72854.html

[TheRealThing]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72854.html

The notion that cutting taxes is a good way to stimulate the economy is the stuff of Reaganomics. Remember the trickle down theory? Only the most absurd among liberal economists would now even offer a suggestion that the economics of the Reagan Administration were anything but awe inspiring. Not only did the American economy abruptly turn from 13.5% in 1980 (during the last year of the democratic Carter administration) to 1.9% a scant 6 years later in 1986.

Reagan drug reluctant democrats, who were arguing just like they are now that their policies just needed more time for Americans to fully realize their benefit, along with him down the trickle-down prirose path. Not only did we see the two total polar opposites, of economic workings in the form of bust (Carter) and boom (Reagan) we saw both happen inside of a decade. Light speed for that kind of a turnaround by all expert accounts.

Now, we have the Democrats, quoting Reagan and touting their alignment with him while running for office or making a political case for themselves to their voting base. We have articles such as the one posted by RV in this thread where Obama is trying to make political hay by taking a political position which, has been Republican by definition for lo, these last three plus decades of Washington politics as usual. Again, proving my case that Democrats will do anything, including take Republican positions on the issues, to stay in power. I mean, if I didn't know better, I'd think the idea of spuring the economy by tax cuts was democratic in origin. This whole deal is shell game of course, in that the thing that seperates Obama in the case of the tax cuts he calls for, from his self declared hero in the person of Ronald Reagan, is the fact that Reagan gave tax breaks to the top level tax payer so they would invest more and thus, allow money to trickle down to the hourly folks. All Obama is doing with this is buying votes, the Republicans are okay with it because it is one small baby step in the direction they want to go.

LINK----http://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle-down-economics.htmhttp://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle-down-economics.htm

When you think about it, the two positions are in tremendous contrast. Omama wants to suck the rich dry with ever increasing taxes and entitlement It's almost all he talks about, 'the pay their fair share argument.' Which, if parroted by the main stream media and members of his administration enough times will stick in the minds of their base, exactly like the slams against Sarah Palin did when she ran for office with McCain.

[TheRealVille]

The notion that cutting taxes is a good way to stimulate the economy is the stuff of Reaganomics. Remember the trickle down theory? Only the most absurd among liberal economists would now even offer a suggestion that the economics of the Reagan Administration were anything but awe inspiring. Not only did the American economy abruptly turn from 13.5% in 1980 (during the last year of the democratic Carter administration) to 1.9% a scant 6 years later in 1986.

Reagan drug reluctant democrats, who were arguing just like they are now that their policies just needed more time for Americans to fully realize their benefit, along with him down the trickle-down prirose path. Not only did we see the two total polar opposites, of economic workings in the form of bust (Carter) and boom (Reagan) we saw both happen inside of a decade. Light speed for that kind of a turnaround by all expert accounts.

Now, we have the Democrats, quoting Reagan and touting their alignment with him while running for office or making a political case for themselves to their voting base. We have articles such as the one posted by RV in this thread where Obama is trying to make political hay by taking a political position which, has been Republican by definition for lo, these last three plus decades of Washington politics as usual. Again, proving my case that Democrats will do anything, including take Republican positions on the issues, to stay in power. I mean, if I didn't know better, I'd think the idea of spuring the economy by tax cuts was democratic in origin. This whole deal is shell game of course, in that the thing that seperates Obama in the case of the tax cuts he calls for, from his self declared hero in the person of Ronald Reagan, is the fact that Reagan gave tax breaks to the top level tax payer so they would invest more and thus, allow money to trickle down to the hourly folks. All Obama is doing with this is buying votes, the Republicans are okay with it because it is one small baby step in the direction they want to go.

LINK----http://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle-down-economics.htmhttp://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle-down-economics.htm

When you think about it, the two positions are in tremendous contrast. Omama wants to suck the rich dry with ever increasing taxes and entitlement It's almost all he talks about, 'the pay their fair share argument.' Which, if parroted by the main stream media and members of his administration enough times will stick in the minds of their base, exactly like the slams against Sarah Palin did when she ran for office with McCain.

Of course, I just found the article and thought it might spur talks, but as you know as a union man, times were very tough for the union worker during Reagan's stay in the white house. I know many union guys that couldn't buy a job in those years. Some nearly starved out, including my dad, and his dad. I remember Reagan well.

[TheRealVille]

The notion that cutting taxes is a good way to stimulate the economy is the stuff of Reaganomics. Remember the trickle down theory? Only the most absurd among liberal economists would now even offer a suggestion that the economics of the Reagan Administration were anything but awe inspiring. Not only did the American economy abruptly turn from 13.5% in 1980 (during the last year of the democratic Carter administration) to 1.9% a scant 6 years later in 1986.

Reagan drug reluctant democrats, who were arguing just like they are now that their policies just needed more time for Americans to fully realize their benefit, along with him down the trickle-down prirose path. Not only did we see the two total polar opposites, of economic workings in the form of bust (Carter) and boom (Reagan) we saw both happen inside of a decade. Light speed for that kind of a turnaround by all expert accounts.

Now, we have the Democrats, quoting Reagan and touting their alignment with him while running for office or making a political case for themselves to their voting base. We have articles such as the one posted by RV in this thread where Obama is trying to make political hay by taking a political position which, has been Republican by definition for lo, these last three plus decades of Washington politics as usual. Again, proving my case that Democrats will do anything, including take Republican positions on the issues, to stay in power. I mean, if I didn't know better, I'd think the idea of spuring the economy by tax cuts was democratic in origin. This whole deal is shell game of course, in that the thing that seperates Obama in the case of the tax cuts he calls for, from his self declared hero in the person of Ronald Reagan, is the fact that Reagan gave tax breaks to the top level tax payer so they would invest more and thus, allow money to trickle down to the hourly folks. All Obama is doing with this is buying votes, the Republicans are okay with it because it is one small baby step in the direction they want to go.

LINK----http://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle-down-economics.htmhttp://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle-down-economics.htm

When you think about it, the two positions are in tremendous contrast. Omama wants to suck the rich dry with ever increasing taxes and entitlement It's almost all he talks about, 'the pay their fair share argument.' Which, if parroted by the main stream media and members of his administration enough times will stick in the minds of their base, exactly like the slams against Sarah Palin did when she ran for office with McCain.

Of course, I just found the article and thought it might spur talks, but as you know as a union man, times were very tough for the union worker during Reagan's stay in the white house. I know many union guys that couldn't buy a job in those years. Some nearly starved out, including my dad, and his dad. I remember Reagan well. The fact that he single handedly brought the union to it's knees, and causing my family to almost go bankrupt is enough for me to hate him. Surely you remember the Reagan days for the construction industry? I know he was the conservative god, but he was the working man's enemy, especially our kind. Speaking of those years, construction and coal were at a very high level in EKY during the Carter years. It was a boon.

[TheRealThing]

Sorry about that link, it got cold and I couldn't paste it in, if I get it figured out I'll post it a little later

[TheRealThing]

Of course, I just found the article and thought it might spur talks, but as you know as a union man, times were very tough for the union worker during Reagan's stay in the white house. I know many union guys that couldn't buy a job in those years. Some nearly starved out, including my dad, and his dad. I remember Reagan well.

Yeah, you know as well as I do that it always takes a few years for construction to catch up with a recovery. Everybody gets cold feet during a slow down, normally a lot of projects get cancelled, and things have to sort of redefine themselves when it comes to new projects after that. New projects need to be studied, finalized drawings have to come down, somebody has to come up with financing etc. Those were some lean years to be sure. I guess I must have been one of the lucky ones, I only had to endure a few bad years, I was noticing that fact recently while looking back over my social security records.

The way I remember it, he really ticked off the flight controller union, (you know how I feel about that kind of so called labor union). It wasn't just Reagan. Before he got there the union man got his teeth pulled when the courts handed down a ruling, about 1972? that we couldn't strike in a way that interfered with our employer's ability to make money. After that it was all informational picketing only.

[Hoot Gibson]

Yeah, you know as well as I do that it always takes a few years for construction to catch up with a recovery. Everybody gets cold feet during a slow down, normally a lot of projects get cancelled, and things have to sort of redefine themselves when it comes to new projects after that. New projects need to be studied, finalized drawings have to come down, somebody has to come up with financing etc. Those were some lean years to be sure. I guess I must have been one of the lucky ones, I only had to endure a few bad years, I was noticing that fact recently while looking back over my social security records.

The way I remember it, he really ticked off the flight controller union, (you know how I feel about that kind of so called labor union). It wasn't just Reagan. Before he got there the union man got his teeth pulled when the courts handed down a ruling, about 1972? that we couldn't strike in a way that interfered with our employer's ability to make money. After that it was all informational picketing only.

PATCO was prohibited by federal law from striking. Reagan warned them that he would enforce the law (back when presidents took their oaths of office seriously). They struck and they were fired. Reagan enjoyed strong support from blue collar workers. The economy was horrible from the Nixon presidency through the Carter years and early in Reagan's first term.

The term "misery index" became popular during the Carter years because of the sky high unemployment, interest, and inflation rates. By the time Reagan left office, all of those indexes had sharply dropped to their lowest rates in many years. I am sure that there were exceptions, but most working men who struggled to put food on the table during the Carter years fared much better under Reagan.

I remember my short time working in the UMWA very well. Because of illegal strikes and roving pickets, I was able to work about every other day. As a member of management, I worked at some great UMWA operations. At other union operations, I worked with some of the laziest and least productive workers that I have ever encountered anywhere. Sometimes union workers deserve to be fired just like other people who take no pride in their work. Reagan did his job, IMO. He was not anti-union and he had once been president of the Screen Actors Guild.

[TheRealVille]

PATCO was prohibited by federal law from striking. Reagan warned them that he would enforce the law (back when presidents took their oaths of office seriously). They struck and they were fired. Reagan enjoyed strong support from blue collar workers. The economy was horrible from the Nixon presidency through the Carter years and early in Reagan's first term.

The term "misery index" became popular during the Carter years because of the sky high unemployment, interest, and inflation rates. By the time Reagan left office, all of those indexes had sharply dropped to their lowest rates in many years. I am sure that there were exceptions, but most working men who struggled to put food on the table during the Carter years fared much better under Reagan.

I remember my short time working in the UMWA very well. Because of illegal strikes and roving pickets, I was able to work about every other day. As a member of management, I worked at some great UMWA operations. At other union operations, I worked with some of the laziest and least productive workers that I have ever encountered anywhere. Sometimes union workers deserve to be fired just like other people who take no pride in their work. Reagan did his job, IMO. He was not anti-union and he had once been president of the Screen Actors Guild.

The Carter years were a boon for construction and coal mining. My dad was involved in both at that time. As I said, the Reagan years were almost starvation for construction.

[Hoot Gibson]

The Carter years were a boon for construction and coal mining. My dad was involved in both at that time. As I said, the Reagan years were almost starvation for construction.

I lived through the Carter years, so save your fingers. You will not convince anybody who tried to buy a house during that time that construction was booming.

Coal was doing well when I entered college, but the job market hit rock bottom near the end of Carter's term. I had one job offer and was lucky. Many of my friends stayed in school because there were no mining engineering jobs available for them. The wildcat strikes of the mid 70s by the UMWA over health benefits under the contract to which the UMWA had agreed presented Massey and other non-union mining companies with a golden opportunity.

When Massey signed contracts to deliver coal to its customers, it met its commitments. The UMWA steadily lost its grip on the mining industry because the thugs that ran the union grew fat and greedy. One result was that non-union coal began pouring out of Mingo and Martin Counties in the 80s but that was the UMWA's doing, not Reagan's.

[TheRealVille]

I lived through the Carter years, so save your fingers. You will not convince anybody who tried to buy a house during that time that construction was booming.

Coal was doing well when I entered college, but the job market hit rock bottom near the end of Carter's term. I had one job offer and was lucky. Many of my friends stayed in school because there were no mining engineering jobs available for them. The wildcat strikes of the mid 70s by the UMWA over health benefits under the contract to which the UMWA had agreed presented Massey and other non-union mining companies with a golden opportunity.

When Massey signed contracts to deliver coal to its customers, it met its commitments. The UMWA steadily lost its grip on the mining industry because the thugs that ran the union grew fat and greedy. One result was that non-union coal began pouring out of Mingo and Martin Counties in the 80s but that was the UMWA's doing, not Reagan's.

I guess my dad didn't make quite a bit of money with his coal trucks during the mid to late 70's? I'll answer that for you, he hauled all he could stand. Don't worry about my fingers, just ask TRT, the 70's, especially the late 70's were good times for union construction. It was all through the 80's, especially after 82, that construction went to hell, and that's fact.

One more thing, you might have lived through the Carter years, but I doubt you worked through them. I will go out on a limb and guess you are not more than 5-6 years older than me, at the very most. Probably more like 3-4 years.

[Hoot Gibson]

I guess my dad didn't make quite a bit of money with his coal trucks during the mid to late 70's? I'll answer that for you, he hauled all he could stand. Don't worry about my fingers, just ask TRT, the 70's, especially the late 70's were good times for union construction. It was all through the 80's, especially after 82, that construction went to hell, and that's fact.

I can't dispute your account of your father's business or lack thereof because I don't make claims without facts to back them up.

However, I worked all over eastern Kentucky and southern West Virginia during the Carter and Reagan years, and while your father may have done well with his trucks, the Carter years and the first couple years of Reagan's presidency were not good ones for the coal industry as a whole. The UMWA was its own worst enemy in during that time and customers wisely signed an increasing number of contracts with companies that could deliver the coal that they promised. Not only that, union companies began switching to small contract mining companies to reduce their ties to the UMWA.

Because of the volatility of the coal market at that time, some small non-union operators that could operate on a shoe string budget and activate and idle small mines quickly made fortunes by being able to react quickly to the market - something that the big union mines could not do. When the UMWA interrupted the flow of coal, small contract mines increased their production to fill the void. Companies like Massey began opening larger and larger operations, such as the Marrowbone complex in Mingo County and Martin County Coal in Martin County. Massey prospered because companies employing union miners were unreliable suppliers.

You can keep blaming Reagan for the demise of the UMWA if you want but those of us who were working in the coal industry at that time know better. The UMWA, under the idiotic "leadership" of men like Sam Church, Cecil Roberts, and Richard Trumka paved their own road to decline.

[TheRealVille]

I can't dispute your account of your father's business or lack thereof because I don't make claims without facts to back them up.

However, I worked all over eastern Kentucky and southern West Virginia during the Carter and Reagan years, and while your father may have done well with his trucks, the Carter years and the first couple years of Reagan's presidency were not good ones for the coal industry as a whole. The UMWA was its own worst enemy in during that time and customers wisely signed an increasing number of contracts with companies that could deliver the coal that they promised. Not only that, union companies began switching to small contract mining companies to reduce their ties to the UMWA.

Because of the volatility of the coal market at that time, some small non-union operators that could operate on a shoe string budget and activate and idle small mines quickly made fortunes by being able to react quickly to the market - something that the big union mines could not do. When the UMWA interrupted the flow of coal, small contract mines increased their production to fill the void. Companies like Massey began opening larger and larger operations, such as the Marrowbone complex in Mingo County and Martin County Coal in Martin County. Massey prospered because companies employing union miners were unreliable suppliers.

You can keep blaming Reagan for the demise of the UMWA if you want but those of us who were working in the coal industry at that time know better. The UMWA, under the idiotic "leadership" of men like Sam Church, Cecil Roberts, and Richard Trumka paved their own road to decline.

I've never blamed Reagan for the demise of the UMWA, and you know I haven't said as much. More twisting? I don't deal with the UMWA and know nothing about them. My dad worked for Wolverine Coal, and I know nothing of them, other than my dad made a lot of money hauling their coal. As I have said many times, I work union construction, and that's all I address union wise. I don't what Reagan caused, but starvation years came about for us when he took office, and all the way through his years in office.

[Hoot Gibson]

I've never blamed Reagan for the demise of the UMWA, and you know I haven't said as much. More twisting? I don't deal with the UMWA and know nothing about them. My dad worked for Wolverine Coal, and I know nothing of them, other than my dad made a lot of money hauling their coal. As I have said many times, I work union construction, and that's all I address union wise. I don't what Reagan caused, but starvation years came about for us when he took office, and all the way through his years in office.

Was it somebody else who said that, "times were very tough for the union worker during Reagan's stay in the white house?" If you meant to restrict that statement to construction, then I misunderstood. Your statement that the coal industry grew weaker after 1982, which is not true, added to my confusion.

BTW, Wolverine was owned by Cleveland Cliffs back then and it was a sister company to Turner Elkhorn Mining, which operated in Floyd County. By the time I became familiar with Wolverine, most of their reserves had been depleted. That is why their production dropped during the period that you mentioned. The quality of most of the reserves that were left in Magoffin County by the end of Reagan's second term were not very good. Magoffin County Coal was probably the leading producer during that time. There were some reserves left on the property that Wolverine controlled after the mid-80s but they were too costly to mine for the most part. Coincidentally, a friend of mine recently went to work for the Cliffs.

The decline in mining in Magoffin County had nothing to do with Reagan - and I am not saying that you claimed otherwise - I just thought you might be interested in the history of coal production in Magoffin County during that time period since your father worked in that area and you were probably too young to remember some of the details.

[TheRealVille]

Was it somebody else who said that, "times were very tough for the union worker during Reagan's stay in the white house?" If you meant to restrict that statement to construction, then I misunderstood. Your statement that the coal industry grew weaker after 1982, which is not true, added to my confusion.

BTW, Wolverine was owned by Cleveland Cliffs back then and it was a sister company to Turner Elkhorn Mining, which operated in Floyd County. By the time I became familiar with Wolverine, most of their reserves had been depleted. That is why their production dropped during the period that you mentioned. The quality of most of the reserves that were left in Magoffin County by the end of Reagan's second term were not very good. Magoffin County Coal was probably the leading producer during that time. There were some reserves left on the property that Wolverine controlled after the mid-80s but they were too costly to mine for the most part. Coincidentally, a friend of mine recently went to work for the Cliffs.

The decline in mining in Magoffin County had nothing to do with Reagan - and I am not saying that you claimed otherwise - I just thought you might be interested in the history of coal production in Magoffin County during that time period since your father worked in that area and you were probably too young to remember some of the details.

See, I never said any of that. I said that the construction industry pretty much died in 82. I said times were tough for construction all through the Reagan years. I'm not going to write the post, then read them to you. I made it very plain what I was saying. Also, as I have said many times before, and have said it a couple of times in the last two days, if you ever hear me talk about unions, it is always concerning my end of it, the construction industry.

As to the last two paragraphs you wrote, please revert to my paragragh above. I never once said coal did good or bad in the 80's, I was talking about construction. I said my dad made his money in coal from mid to late 70's. BTW, I was in high school in the late 70's.

[Hoot Gibson]

See, I never said any of that. I said that the construction industry pretty much died in 82. I said times were tough for construction all through the Reagan years. I'm not going to write the post, then read them to you. I made it very plain what I was saying. Also, as I have said many times before, and have said it a couple of times in the last two days, if you ever hear me talk about unions, it is always concerning my end of it, the construction industry.

As to the last two paragraphs you wrote, please revert to my paragragh above. I never once said coal did good or bad in the 80's, I was talking about construction. I said my dad made his money in coal from mid to late 70's. BTW, I was in high school in the late 70's.

If I misinterpreted what you said about coal, it was not intentional - but the late 70s and early 80s was not a good time for the mining industry as a whole. I understand why you might remember it that way if you lived in Magoffin County at the time or based your statement on Woverine's fortunes during the 80s. They mined very little coal after 1985.

Jimmy Carter probably does deserve some credit for the high coal prices during part of his presidency. The OPEC oil embargo and the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis, which were a product of Carter's bungled foreign policy initiatives, drove crude oil and gasoline prices to all time highs. That prompted all of the big oil companies to buy up coal companies, so a lot of small operators got rich. Companies were also panicked into leasing oil shale reserves in the state. With Carter trying to convince everybody that we were on the verge of running out of oil, everybody wanted to control coal reserves in case the coal liquifaction plants became a market for coal production.

In other words, Carter's incompetence did help the coal industry in eastern Kentucky but by the end of 1980, jobs in the coal industry had already grown scarce. As Reagan's policies, including deregulation of domestic oil production, turned around the economy, gasoline prices plummeted and synfuel pilot plants were mothballed.

[TheRealThing]

I built my first new home in 1976. Prior to the day I stopped by the lending institution of choice the biggest thing I had ever bought was a Harley. Without even checking my credit the guy across the desk said "start whenever you want", we shook hands and I skipped out of there. By the time 1979 rolled around the fixed interest rate had jumped to 10.5% and variable interest rates raised so sharply people we loosing their homes in droves. The once attractive, but risky, variable rate loans doubled many folks payment and they just couldn't afford to stay in their homes. BTW, back in those days, if you lost your home, then you lost your home. Uncle Sam didn't swoop down and reacue you. I can't even wrap my head around the stuff that goes on these days. It isn't moral for the government to pay anybody's bills or save their house for them. Government doesn't work that way, well at least it didn't when sanity prevailed in the hallowed halls of congress.

Actually the housing boom started after WWII and continued to gain momentum until the golden days of US history, the 60's. If you didn't live during the 60's you really missed the very best IMO Getting the job of your dreams was litterally as simple as going down to Armco Steel or Ashland Oil and applying. Most of the time guys were hired on the spot. High paying jobs with great benefits and great retirements. The very day one got hired, he could have reasonably expected to qualify for a new car and a home.

The momentum of those days carried into the 70's as far as home construction went. Then, a couple of years into the Carter Administration, with runaway inflation overshadowing the national economy housing starts began to fade and bottomed out at 902,000 a month in 1982. By the end of Reagan's second term new housing starts had climbed back to the high water mark of the late 60's averaging over 1,700,000 a month.

But, the real problem in our day is the absurd notion we can 'buy' ourself out of trouble. Johnson was wrong when he suggested America could eliminate poverty and need by buying it all up as the center piece of his "Great Society"
dream, and Obama is wrong for the same reasons. Hence, his predilection for fuzzy math. It's actually math rationalization. You know, if you want something bad enough you can rationalize on and on about it until you talk yourself into it. Like the guy who got all hung up on a new '64 Chevy Impala SS with a 409, dual quads and four on the floor. Everything was great until sometime around the 2nd payment that's when reality met the dream. Then it was the lay awake at night loan company syndrome. He couldn't afford the car and soon it was repossessed. The way I see it 2+2 is still four, but not in the oval office, where even the exact science of mathmatics is relative.

See, the liberal can get all soap opera and whimsical about social justice and get by at a strictly philosophica level, such as in a classroom at Occidental. But, put these nutso's out in the real world and, Lord help us, in the lead seat at the White House, where he has to start putting dollars into the picture, that's when the wheels start to come off. No matter how much Mr Odrama goes on and on about his dream of everything being green and nobody ever getting sick or hungry, that's life. If we try to buy the troubles of every man woman and child in this land we will start running a 16 trillioin dollar deficit. Oh that's right, ok then a 20 trillion dollar defict. Pretty soon the 10's of trillions in debt will start clicking by like the 1 trillion plus markers are now. One of two things will happen to we Americans very soon. Either we will find the courage to stop the madness, cut spending, (I'm talking of real cuts now, not just lessening the projected INCREASES in spending), rein in these runaway entitlements and let people earn their own way sink or swim, or, the man is going to come and repossess our '64 Chevy SS.

[TheRealThing]

Sorry about that link, it got cold and I couldn't paste it in, if I get it figured out I'll post it a little later

http://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle-d...nomics.htm