He links to Paul Krugman babbling on about watermelons and uses it to refute a quote that was dealing with oranges. Watermelons / oranges ….. well neither one is a dog collar so they must be the same.

Hey, my neighbor has a two door car. You have a neighbor so he must have a two door car too! And if he doesn’t if must be because of global warming or maybe his aunt’s donkey is about to hurl.

Passing Gas is so alive with intellect that it just makes your fleas have kittens and impress you with his skill as a rocket surgeon.

“Call it a teachable moment.”

Your links are pathetic. If your troll assignment is to rattle the knuckle-draggers here, you need to post well above your ability level.

I AM MATH! ENEMY OF PROGRESSIVE ECONOMICS!

And just wait until the EPA outlaws fracking and the Justice Department starts suing companies en masse for not hiring as many minorities as the bureaucrats think they should have.

Add up massive Government regulation + massively increased taxes + the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs due to sequestration and whatever you get does not add up to a vibrant, growing economy.

The USSR collapsed when its economy could no longer support its military, the USA will collapse because its economy cannot support its social spending.

“Now, there’s a straightforward argument for why the fiscal cliff is bad but long-term deficit reduction is good — namely, that you really don’t want to cut deficits when the economy is depressed and you’re in a liquidity trap, so that monetary expansion can’t offset fiscal contraction. As Keynes said, the boom, not the slump, is the time for austerity. But the deficit hawks can’t make that argument, because they have in fact been arguing for austerity now now now.

So they’re left making a mostly incoherent case: it’s too abrupt (why?), it’s the wrong kind of deficit reduction (???)…,”

1. Obama will veto anything that extends the tax “cuts” on the rich.

2. Obama will not lift the sequester (big, dumb) spending cuts without finding equivalent savings elsewhere.

3. Gridlock leads to automatic expiration of Bush “tax cuts and the sequestration which is “anathema” to Republicans.

4. The big, dumb sequestration cuts are progressive in nature in that the military gets a big hit but Medicare and Social Security do not.

5. This would be bad for the economy, but it also effectively ends our deficits.

6. Republicans absolutely can not let it happen; therefore they have to make a deal.

7. Such deal would include infrastructure investment, tax reform, American Jobs Act, tax credits for hiring, climate change, and blah, blah, blah.

If # 1 is true, then everything else is moot. This is because if Obama does not get the Bush “tax cuts” killed, he will not cooperate on anything else. That is implicit in the understanding that #1 is the key to what follows.

Obama can not lift the sequester. It is law. He can demand away, but he has no power. So that takes care of #2.

Gridlock does lead to the expiration of the Bush “tax cuts” and the rules laid out in sequestration. So, #3 is true. But, is it anathema to Republicans?

Obama thinks he can blame the economic effects of #3 on the Republicans, but how? He got his tax without a veto and he trashed the military and Social Security and Medicare were shielded. What is he blaming on the Republicans? They made him follow the law? They made him allow the Bush “tax cuts” expire? They are to blame that the military got decimated? How? By not fighting Obama? I need help on this one.

The clever Democrats believe as #4 indicates that the sequestration cuts are their actual friend and very Progressive. Fine. I agree. Why are Republicans to blame for their agenda?

However, this course will be “bad for the economy.” Oh, yes indeed it will. Depression bad. Doing what the Progressives want to do is Depression Bad in terms of the cost to America. So, the Republicans are to blame for letting the Democrats do what they demand to do?

Where I get really confused is this idea that at this point of economic depression we find that it also effectively ends our deficits. Really? Tax revenues rise in a depression and all the jobs lost in the military and military procurement and community service around closed based will not cost a dime in unemployment and depressed economy? Wow!

Republicans absolutely can not let it happen. I guess that is because they will lose the Presidency? And they lost it for letting the guy who won the Presidency have it his way?

What I treasure in #7 is this quaint notion that Obama would suddenly get all the pie-in-the-sky statist, socialist dreams come true as a result of Republicans letting sequestration happen. Is that during the depression economy or after the country is wandering around stunned?

I would love to avoid this whole baptism by fire exercise where Obama and his drool-cup Utopian camp-followers and pure whores get their butts burned along with the butts of honest and honorable and good people. But the lazy and stupid in this country asked for four more years of this *hit Parade of Marxist pablum and malfeasance, so it appears that getting the crash over and done with is our best option.

I’ve called this the GOP’s dual-trigger nightmare. It’s bad for the economy, but it also effectively ends our deficits with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts more progressive than anything any Democrat has dared propose. Republicans absolutely can’t let it happen. But the only way they can stop it from happening is to make a deal.

Which is, of course, why the Obama Party and Barack Obama himself are screaming and shrieking so loudly to stop it.

Which means that they won’t reduce the deficit.

Or which means that they will break their promise to lower taxes and keep spending high.

Republicans know the obvious: Obama and the Obama Party purchased this election with goodies and promises that they cannot possibly finance or keep.

Therefore, people will get to see what is obvious: Obama lied.

“If the Obama administration were to really lay out their plans, they would go something like this. In November, President Obama will reiterate, clearly and firmly, that he will veto any attempts to extend the high-income tax cuts or lift the big, dumb spending cuts without finding equivalent savings elsewhere. …

That veto threat is the center of the Obama administration’s second-term strategizing. The Obama administration believes – and, just as importantly, they believe Republicans believe — that they’ve got the leverage here. The Republican position on taxes is less popular than the Democratic position. The outcome of gridlock is much higher taxes, which is more anathema to Republicans and arguably cheering to Democrats. The big, dumb spending cuts, despite being poorly timed and inanely constructed, are very progressive in their effect, falling heavily on military spending while exempting Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare beneficiaries.

I’ve called this the GOP’s dual-trigger nightmare. It’s bad for the economy, but it also effectively ends our deficits with a mix of tax increases and spending cuts more progressive than anything any Democrat has dared propose. Republicans absolutely can’t let it happen. But the only way they can stop it from happening is to make a deal.

The administration hopes this deal will include more than just deficit reduction. They also see it as a vehicle for infrastructure investment and tax reform. They think there’s some chance that parts of the American Jobs Act, like the hiring tax credits, could sneak through the door, too. There’s even talk of using it to address climate change, though everyone agrees that’s unlikely. Whatever ends up in the final deal, there’s little doubt that it will be a big deal, and it’s likely to come together fairly quickly in the first year. The White House — and the expiring tax and spending provisions — won’t give Republicans any other choice.

…To put it plainly, in 2008, the Obama campaign hoped Republicans would work with them. In 2012, they have a plan. Their plan stands a good chance of working. But it doesn’t sound as good as hope does in a speech. That’s why you’re not hearing much about it.”

In a way, Obama’s reelection mirrored Bush’s reelection in 2004. Didn’t we see the parallel’s?

What I can see is more disappointment from Obama’s second term. The recession will continue. More years of dispair. Will it be a cultural war election in 2016 or is it the economy stupid election? It should be both.

By not providing any details, voters were left to fill in the blanks for just what they thought the plan should be and of course their own “should be” plan was going to win the day because it is the plan they would choose.

Obama is a master at being vague and saying absolutely nothing but convincing people he said everything perfectly.

Perhaps it really was his personal appeal.

That’s it?

No mention of his race?

Don’t you recall that if Romeny said something like piano that Chris Matthews and a legion of drool cup camp followers would be yelling it is a racist slur code word for white men in black face minstrel men acting out shucking and jiving?

A bazzillion of his votes were for giving the black man, who really has been trying, another chance. Another bazzillion of his votes were cast by black people who allegedly gave him 100% of the votes the precinct. Add that to the party base, the pandered to hordes and the dependent on government crowd and where is the mystery?

There is never any nod to the Alinsky tactics on this site. Fine. But it would be interesting to discuss if and how Axelrod strayed from them. They are as cynical and dirty as you can get and they wiped out Herman Cain and Mitt Romney.

Right now, Obama could be trapped up to his ears in Benghazigate and he could not be impeached, because America does not think it is fair to hit the black boy-President.

Perhaps it really was his personal appeal.

The man is half white. Nobody cares a thing about the “appeal” of the white half.

Admittedly, even now, I can’t recall much about Romney’s 6-point plan, let alone the 59-point version.

We might mock the D reliance on talking points, but if you put them all together, poof, you have a 6 point plan.

We wouldn’t be first to be fooled, and saying our Constitution prevents this is shortsighted. It means nothing when unscrupulous people are in power who see that document as meaning nothing (it’s fluid, remember?), and will frankly disregard it altogether at the first opportunity.

I think we are going to find out exactly what his plan and definition of fundamental change and flexibility is.

I cringed when I saw the report of the college students cheering for Socialism/Communism as the election resuts were announced in Obama’s favor.

In just the week since the election, he has —

1. Shut down over a million acres in the west to oil and gas development.

2. Reopened gun control talks at the UN.

3. Unleashed the “Justice” Department to sue companies he thinks don’t employ enough minorities.

Do you think this wasn’t his plan all along?