LOL... I think you have a selective reading disorder.. No that is not what I am saying at all. Go back and read with a mind not already made up that I am an enemy Dem.

I think you have basic english sentence disorder. Did you not see the question mark at the end of the sentence? You responded to a post in which Riot bemoaned the loss of 30-40% of the "average american's" investments. You wrote "I agree and.."

So I asked you a question and since you brought up the dotcom bubble referenced both mutual funds AND the dotcom bubble. If you and Riot would ever actually bother to answer questions instead of promoting my supposed narrowminded political biases.

"So what you are saying is that the trillions of dollars invested in mutual funds didnt benefit from the dot.com bubble?"

Odd way to phrase a question no? I may not have been an English major but that sure seems like a paraphrase to me...

To answer your question, Mutual funds prospered as they racked in their fees as did the hedge funds who trade both ways. How did Mom and Pop do if they did what mom and pop always do and entered the game in 1999.. Not so much...

Palin is a former politician and current entertainer. Pelosi is by far the most unpopular politician in the country. Even the dems hate Pelosi and blame her for the historic election collapse.

40 years is a very very very short amount of time.

It is fine for the old people and baby boomers, and that is really it.

When you spend 3 billion on a mis-guided cash for clunkers program a budget cut of 1 billion is an insult. How much will the Pelosi $250 per senior cost? :eek::zz::zz:

You missed the entire point. Or are simply avoiding it purposely with a straw man regarding the investment world, which is not the topic.

Currently Social Security funds are not in "risk involved" investments. To privatize social security would put them there. The private sector lost nearly half their investments when Wall Street crashed. Thank goodness that wasn't their Social Security funds, privatized by Bush.

You should be scared when the GOP has been blocking normal business for our country for two years, just to try and damage Obama, so they can try and win back the Presidency in 2012.

Routine government business and funding, blocked, treaties in effect since Reagan (hell a treaty Reagan and the GOP created and supported!) blocked .... it's a miracle that Pelosi-Reid-Obama got accomplished as much as they did, considering they needed to overcome the excessive filibuster vote requirement, not the Constitutional majority vote requirement in the Senate, virtually every time something was passed.

BTW, this is a pretty funny website (just insert the f word in the URL if it won't click through): http://www.whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/

You might stick to the actual discussion instead of insisting on only debating with your straw man friends.

We disagree, I guess. The Dems love Pelosi, and installed her right back into her leadership position. And from what I've seen, they mostly blame Obama not messaging correctly for the loss of House seats

Still don't understand how this could be called "historic collapse"? when the GOP did not win back the Senate (first time in history that happened, that was a historic loss for the GOP), and the Dems loss less seats this time than the last two changeovers elections?

Have you seen what that idiot backsliding liar John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham were saying on the Sunday talk shows about their still trying to block DADT? Morons.

You don't keep up with current political news, do you? And yes, cutting 1 billion out of the deficit is a very good thing, even if you didn't personally like a line item in last year's budget. BTW, have you seen the success of the government bailout of the auto industry? The taxpayers are making back their money on that one, and look at the industry saved, and the numbers of jobs saved (No, Dems cannot message worth a darn)

And we can cut 700 billion more out of the budget over the next 10 years, if the GOP would stop insisting that their corporate donation friends, the top 2% of earners (millionaires and billionaires) in the US, get an extra tax cut over and above the tax cut on income $250K or less get. I thought the GOP was in favor of lowering the deficit and fiscal responsibility? No?

Here's 'the' Austan Goolsby explaining it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and...plains-tax-cut

BTW, Obama announced a 2-yr freeze on federal salaries today (except military) - that's 1.3 billion saved over 2 years.

It's beyond obvious what we have to get rid of, in order to cut our deficit in the future:

I started a thread to ask a few simple questions about the views of the boards participants (democrats in particular) on the strategy employed now by the Democrats and whether you are comfortable with party leadership which now considers Obama to be center-right?

I have not even seen one attempt to answer those questions.

I asked JMS if he thought that mutual funds (and in turn those who are invested in them) benefitted from the dotcom bubble.

He failed to answer and wants to move the conversation to the fees chargedd by funds.

But I am the person who is avoiding topics or creating "strawmen"?

So it is ok to make a blanket statement that Wall Street cost the average investor 30-40% but I have to break financial sectors down?

And who talked about SS finds other than you?

Yes because the GOP is evil and the Democrats are all faithful public servants that always have the common good at heart...

Your refusal to answer my questions is really quite telling.

LOl

The GOP is doomed and full of tea party loving idiots and yet they still managed to pick up the house? That is historic when a party that is supposedly on the same path to destruction as the Whigs can do so well.

And Pelosi is hardly "loved" by all the Democrats. Here is a poll taken less than 2 weeks ago in which 47% of Democrats say they prefer someone other than Pelosi as minority leader.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-house-leader/

:tro::tro::tro: When in doubt, just start flingin' random contentions out!

Perhaps someone could explain what is so random about what i asked? Why are you so afraid to answer the questions? They arent that tricky.

:zz: I haven't refused. I answered it in my first post on this thread.

We've answered the question. I'll say it again. The GOP will not come to the center through negotiation. You seem to think a less Liberal Democratic Leader in the House would help the Democrats to negotiate with the GOP. That is a false assumption, because the GOP doesn't negotiate. They are forced (and shamed) into doing things. What the President needs to do (to help his own party) is have votes taken on issues that the majority of voting Americans disagree with the GOP on. That's the only way to get the GOP to "deal." If he does try to negotiate with the GOP, it will be him giving in to them. They will give him zip. So, this "negotiation" should only be done on issues where the Majority of American Voters are against the Democrats. This tax extention stuff is not one of those issues. He needs to make the GOP vote against extending the Middle Class tax break.

If you believe in the producer of the graph who is unfortunately for you is tilted far left.

How about we use the Office of Managment and Budget's 2009 graph



Ten Bi-Partisan Ideas and or Cuts
1)We need to return to is Bush's last budget of $3.1 Trillion. Current 2011 Budget $3.8 Trillion Savings $700 Billion Since Dems were so appauled at W's spending surely they can function on the same. Suffer Rating 0/10

2)Moratorium on all bailouts Savings $150 billion minimum Suffer Rating 0/10 in fact a Good Feeling Rating of 2/10 for those who paid their mortgages and didn't fudge their loan apps.

3)50% Cut in Discretionary Spending Savings $218 Billion Suffer Rating 6/10 but most everyone suffering will be a bloated Gov. worker with a fat pension. Answer Privatize everything from the TSA to the past retirement marshalls guarding Fed Court Houses. Move Gov offices to low rent areas of cities and towns. Frees up more expensive locations for private businesses and thus property and business taxes while providing action and security as a by-product of moving to the hood. Thus Good Feeling Rating of 6/10 for the non-government employee.

4)2% Cut in Mandatory Spending Savings $12 Billion Government furlough days, reduction in pensions and benefits and privatizing all menial jobs easy. Suffer Rating 2/10 for Government Workers. However a 2/10 Good Feeling Rating by Non-Government employees

5)10% Cut in Medicare/Caid Savings $68 Billion There's allegedly 10% fraud going on right now. Find it and punish those responsible. Good Feeling Rating 10/10

6)2% Cut in Social Security Savings $13 Billion Find the dead people's relatives who are collecting checks and recoup the money from them. Good Feeling Rating 10/10

7)Defense should be and is the number one focus of the Government and remains the same. Some things are priceless.

8)Deport illegal immigrants Savings $50 Billion minimum in addition to providing legal Americans jobs reducing school class size, crime and drug trafficing not to mention gangs and possible homeland security threats. Good Feeling Rating AMERICAN 9/10.

9) DNA test every baby born to affirm parents are correct as listed on a birth certificate. This will prevent any law suits and thus time and money in the future. Parents will be required to provide proof of insurance and citizenship before being admitted to a hospital. Nearby day-nurse facilities and volunteer doctors will be available for those w/o ( Being bi-partisan).

10) Re-evaluate the National Guard and Army Reserve's activities. Instead of doing things like 7 hour caravans, take for granted these mostly young soilders can stay awake and remain seated in a Humvee, and have them clear and clean Public Housing buildings, and run their caravans thru inner cities providing a more realistic environment and providing a bit of security as a side beni. (Don't know many gang bangers that would do a driveby while the Army was in the hood)

There ya go. Ten virtualy painless moves that would save $1.2 trillion a year minus some DNA tests and have the National Debt paid off in no time with plenty of benefits along the way!

No you dole out some half baked analysis.

Do you or do you not agree that the Democratic party shifting more to the left AND becoming the new party of no with the stated goal of preventing the Democratic President from compromising on issues is a good thing for that party?

Do you believe that the democratic party becoming more attached to its radical leaning side is a positive thing?

Yes or no are acceptable answers

So you are of the belief that political gain trumps all?

Well, your Senior Senator from Kentucky said job 1 (for him) is to defeat Obama in 2012. So, it not like we don't know where we stand.

Where do you get this more from? Same people involved here. WTF? The premise is simply not factual.

You are saying the Congressional Budget Office is passing on false information? Please, do give us your figures.

Why do we want to compare a deficit graph to an annual budget allocation graph? They are two different things. Apples and oranges.

My opinion is no less half baked than your own :D

I answered all that in my post. Seriously, if you can't understand any political discussion more nuanced than yes or no answers, I don't see the point of you jumping into political discussions.

But if you only do yes or no, how about this?

Do you or do you not agree that the Republican party shifting more to the right AND becoming the party of no (and they've actually done it for 2 years - simply filibustered to block even debate on issues)with the stated public goal of preventing the Democratic President from gaining re-election a good thing for that party?

Do you believe that the Republican party becoming more attached to its radical leaning side is a positive thing?

Yes or no are acceptable answers

Why is it so hard for some to ever actually answer a question directed at them? Like i said before, yes or no would suffice.

If I asked a question on another topic it would seem silly to respond like is done in these threads.

example

Me: Do you think the Yankees should give Jeter what he is asking for considering what he has meant to the team over the last decade

You: Steve Garvey should be in the hall of Fame. You know what that means don't you?

Quote from the original link

Pelosi will lead Democrats "in pulling on the president's shirttails to make sure that he doesn't move from center-right to far-right," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a co-chair of the liberal Progressive Caucus in the House


Anyone who believes that the President is center-right is seeing the world through very far left colored glasses. The Progressive Caucus is the far left of the party and when they are speaking for you as the minority leader, well you dont have to be a math whiz to add 2 and 2 together.

No you didnt answer the question. Saying you answered the question when you clearly didnt is another form of avoiding a question.

You cant ask a 2 part question and ask for a yes or no answer.

I dont agree that the GOP has shifted further right the last 2 years, where they are now is about where they have been.
I dont agree that the stated goal of the last 2 years of GOP political tactics were to prevent the reelection of the President.
I don't believe the GOP is becoming more attached to its radical side.

No.



However, your Senior Senator has made getting Obama beat in 2012 his main goal. So, we know his goal is to simply obstruct (again.) We have no expectation of compromise. These are ideologues that don't value compromise.

She's talking about his position while compromising. 2 weeks ago, he was considering extending the tax break for the rich (a far Right position.). If he extends any of that tax break for them(at all,) guess what? That's Center-Right.

I do believe the GOP is more right than two years ago with the tea party element.

I also think the Dems are shifting more to the left.

There are very few people in the middle anymore.... they place they SHOULD be.

Then I can only assume you don't have the ability to read.

It's your question :D

If you read the fine print your graph is based on analysis done by CBPP.org using CBO numbers. But you knew that.

I asked my son who whas home for break from fsu what he thought of the prez..he said ' im not sure what hes doing..besides trying to get re elected' 'I was wrong in buying into hope and change. nothing gets done in big government.so why bother getting all fired up on issues that go nowhere'? 'a bigger government is not the answer'. I pointed out that on 90 perc of the issues hes lied as far as implementation of policy. troops still in war, guantanamo still open..ect..

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEfFED GOVT HAS TO BAIL OUT CALIFORNIA?

Your son is wise beyone his years. He nailed it. All parties, working on getting re elected or setting themselves up for a windfall in the private sector. Nothing changes except they don't even try to concel it anymore.