Today on Blogcritics
Home » Air America Files Bankruptcy, Can Libs Handle Money?

Air America Files Bankruptcy, Can Libs Handle Money?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The folks at Air America, after denying it for the last month, have filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11. AA is a radio network which was supposed to be the liberal answer to conservative talk. They were the ones who would compete with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and G. Gordon Liddy.

Unfortunately, the idea never caught on among the liberal community and AA did not get listeners. Rush probably has more listeners in a half hour than AA has all week. There have been hints of impropriety and suggestions that money was not spent correctly and this bankruptcy filing confirms their dire situation.

The network employs people like Al Franken who think that they know everything. Franken probably should have stayed on TV doing his comedy bits though I never found him funny top begin with. In any event, Franken would have done better on TV than with the comedy that has become his venture into talk radio. I have never heard Franken's show (and neither have very many others apparently) but I have heard him do interviews.

He constantly tells us how liberals have a better idea and are more fiscally responsible. We are reminded of the evil of George Bush because Franken hates the President and goes out of his way to insult him along with most other conservatives (though I would argue that Bush is not a conservative).

So, Franken has been telling us all along how the donks have the plan. This must be the same plan that they all talk about but never expand upon. I want to know, if the donks are so good at managing things, how it is that Air Amerika is bankrupt. They have about 4 million in assets and owe about 21 million. This is very similar to the way the liberals in Congress run things. They keep acting like there is an endless pot of money.

The difference is that Congress can, and when Democrats are in charge does, raise our taxes to generate more revenue. AA is stuck with what they have but if they had access to involuntary contributors, they too would extort as much as they needed to stay in business. The Democrats love to raise taxes and they act as if it is the only way to get things done. They truly believe that they know better what to do with your money than you do.

If the Democrats can claim that Republicans are soft on national security (a lie if ever there was one) and then make the claim they can not even protect children (in light of the Foley scandal) then it is reasonable to say that Democrats are not good with money as evidenced by the way Air Amerika handled its finances. After all, AA espouses liberal philosophies and the way they ran the station into the ground is indicative of how donks handle money.

Powered by

About Big Dog

  • http://www.dailykos.com/user/souldrift JP

    What a load of crap. Given this paragraph: “If the Democrats can claim that Republicans are soft on national security (a lie if ever there was one) and then make the claim they can not even protect children (in light of the Foley scandal) then it is reasonable to say that Democrats are not good with money as evidenced by the way Air Amerika handled its finances.”

    So I can then say that Republicans are lying sacks of crap, as evidenced by the way “Fox News” handles the truth.

    Coming from a Democrat, I’d say Air America was a flawed concept from the beginning–rather than developing a “network,” they should have strived to produce at least ONE show with the entertainment value of a Hannity or Rush. Just one! Then try syndicating it and building an audience. Don’t try to fill an entire day with mediocre talent and wonder why the audience stays small.

    However, that doesn’t implicate anyone except the brains behind AA.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I think that the financial failure of Air America is very telling in the sense that it makes us aware that some on the left are not very good businessmen and if you want the government run like a business they aren’t the ones to put in power.

    But the article does sort of gloss over the fact that AA isn’t going off the air because of this bankruptcy and that they’ve been bailed out yet again by a wealthy leftist – in this case a dotcommer with too much money and too little sense.

    Dave

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “This is very similar to the way the liberals in Congress run things. They keep acting like there is an endless pot of money”

    Wait, liberals run congress? See, all this time I thought it was those Republicans acting like there’s an endless pot of money.

    Oh, wait a sec, that is what’s happening.

    What a craptastic article.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Scott,
    The article is about liberals saying they should be in charge (Frankin et al). The sentence means when they are in charge this is how they run things (based on assertions from the libs that they should be in charge).

    Try to keep up and if you are having trouble, let one of the hall monitors know…..

    It is also helpful to use the entire context when quoting. Do you work for CBS or ABC?

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    Oh, so your article is built upon a false dichotomy. Wow, thanks for clearing that up. I can see how you have your own radio show. Do you broadcast out of your mom’s basement?

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    I do not believe the article meets the definition of a false dichotomy, but maybe it does by your definition. The article is based upon reference to the past, as in those who fail to recognize history are doomed to repeat its failures.

    No, I do not broadcast out of my mom’s basement. I am a Conservative, I do not sponge off others (and she is dead), I work for and own my own things.

    I broadcast from a studio in my home through the station in California.

    Wide Awakes Radio.

  • Sylvia Muffaleto

    Wow, you couldn’t even get passed the subhead without looking like a pathetic partisan hack. Congrats on tying the record.

    “If liberals can’t run a radio network without going bankrupt, how can we expect them to run a government?”

    Are you saying no conservative has ever filed Chapter 11? If they have, then I guess we can’t expect them to run a government either according to your, for lack of a better word, thinking. Google Enron to learn about the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history at the time.

    Another illustration of your juvenile, simplistic thinking is that you don’t name any of the liberals who ran AA that are now running for Congress. Then you might have had a point. If they aren’t the same people, then this whole article is moot.

    “Republicans are soft on national security”

    Five years after 9/11 without securing borders does make them soft. But if you think a fence that’s as a third as long as it needs to be and isn’t properly funded is how to get the job done, then that explains why you are interning at Wide Awakkkes Radio.

  • Nancy

    BD, unlike some conservatives, most liberals prefer to listen to programming other than something that just preaches to the converted. Libs don’t WANT to hear their own prejudices canted back at them. They already KNOW Bush is an ignorant, arrogant jerk, they don’t need some fat pillsbury doughboy with a foul mouth to constantly reassure them that their opinions are the correct and only opinions worth listening to. They want to hear new information, other opinions – yeah, even opposing opinions; unlike some conservatives, most liberals don’t fear their souls will be contaminated by hearing something they don’t agree with. They don’t need to have some partisan party hack shepherding their thoughts & ensuring they only think in lockstep with whatever the Party determines they should think. So, in addition to the general lackluster quality of the programs, I’m not surprised that a “liberal” radio network didn’t pan out: liberals don’t need one, unlike some conservatives.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Oy, Lord have mercy. Folks, not only is it silly pretend that Air America’s failure had anything to do with its politics–either on the air or off–but it’s silly to even pretend that they’re related.

    Including you, Nancy. Come on!

    I can think of nothing more nonpartisan than the tendency to get in over your head in a business venture.

    So these big general platitudes, e.g. “Liberals can’t handle business,” are absolutely useless exaggerations. That “some on the left are not very good businessmen” is better, because it’s true (just as some on the right are not very good businessmen), but still a gross oversimplification.

    There are obviously plenty of very good liberal businesspeople (George Soros, Oprah Winfrey). There are even a few very good liberal radio businesspeople (Howard Stern, Neil Rogers).
    How about, this particular group of people did not know how the radio business worked? They didn’t understand the medium, didn’t understand what a good radio personality did, didn’t understand what made a good talk-radio program, and started off on EXTREMELY shaky financial ground. Despite what you may want to read into this situation, it really doesn’t tell us anything more profound than that.

    Bringing in someone who DOES know radio could make every bit of difference in the world. For those of you who know anything about the biz, there has been a rumor for a while now that Randy Michaels has amibitions for a startup left-wing radio network. And if that happens, you’ve got the potential for some formidable competition there, buster.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    As someone who’s actually listened to AA a fair amount I can tell you there’s only one thing which has caused its problems – inability to attract advertisers. When you can listen to a whole hour at drive time and get nothing but PSAs during the breaks, the network is in serious, serious trouble.

    You can argue over why no one wants to advertise on AA, but I doubt very much that it’s just their ideology. It’s more likely to be their inability to break into crowded markets where there’s established competition.

    Dave

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    You can argue over why no one wants to advertise on AA, but I doubt very much that it’s just their ideology.

    I will argue what I’ve always argued: it’s because AA is bad radio. Advertisers are drawn by ratings, and nobody wants to spend money for radio that nobody listens to. And nobody listens to it because it’s unlistenable.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Kinda silly, isn’t it? I mean to equate the success or failure of a whole group of people on a few who happen to have some of the same beliefs or belong to the same “club.”

    It is just as silly to say that the “Culture of Corruption” is a Republican owned problem. As Mr. West pointed out, it would be better to say that there are some corrupt Republicans just as there are some corrupt Democrats. Instead of saying that one person being a pervert means that all members are perverts and can not protect children (another gross over generalization) it would be far better to say that a few Republicans have participated in perverted sexual practices just as some Democrats have done.

    The polarization of groups is actually quite funny. Except for the history of AA and the taxes issue, the part about AA’s failure indicating that all donks are bad with money was quite tongue in cheek designed to demonstrate how silly it is to judge a whole group based on the actions of a few.

    Thanks for chiming in and helping. If I had made this statement and discussed perverts in Congress without your comments first, I would have been accused of condoning the behavior of a pervert named Foley.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Why not file it under satire, then? Just curious.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    I looked for something appropriate and did not see satire. Obviously, I missed it.

    Note to self: Pay more attention…

    Uh oh, now all Conservatives do not pay attention. LOL

  • Baronius

    JP says ‘Air America was a flawed concept from the beginning–rather than developing a “network,” they should have strived to produce at least ONE show with the entertainment value of a Hannity or Rush. Just one! Then try syndicating it and building an audience.’

    What JP is describing is the free market. Individual agents competing, with the cream rising to the top. The equivalent thinking within government is called federalism.

    AA followed a top-down approach. They knew what was best for us, so they gave it to us. This is an authoritarian mindset. I guarantee you, when Air America is packing up their desks, they’ll be saying to themselves, “if the people were too stupid to listen to us, it’s their loss”. You can never teach an elitist. So ultimately, the problem with AA’s business plan was a flawed ideology.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Since they were formed to influence an election then it is safe to say they had no business plan.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    I seem to recall a Blogcritics contributor a while back who would post about once a week telling us how great AA was doing, and how poorly Rush et al were doing.

    I still wonder if he was a paid shill, a pathetic dupe, or just a liar…

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    It was actually a clever article, Big Dog, and a pretty subtle and effective piece of satire. All too effective, obviously, since you got people to both echo it and throw it back at you. Well played, sir!

    Of course, I’m safe in complimenting you on it since Sylvia (#7) and I are the only ones who actually called you on it, but pretty clearly the point is made. :-)

    Sylvia did make a fair point in her last paragraph, but we’ll save that one for another day.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “started off on EXTREMELY shaky financial ground.”

    Not true. AA had plenty of startup money, as well as numerous rich “donors” (such as host Albert Einstein Frankenstein** himself!). And let’s not even get into the millions of dollars worth of “free media” a fawning MSM has given them over the years…

    **Yes, that is the name he was born with…no wonder he changed it!

  • Baronius

    So he went into comedy writing with the birth name of Albert Einstein Frankenstein, and he changed it? I dunno. The first 18 years of life must have been miserable, but once he got old enough to have it legally changed, why would he?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Apparently, the elites at Harvard (where he went to college) mocked him so horribly, he decided to change his own family name…

  • JR

    Dave Nalle: I think that the financial failure of Air America is very telling in the sense that it makes us aware that some on the left are not very good businessmen and if you want the government run like a business they aren’t the ones to put in power.

    Wait, was it the Left who wanted the government to run like a business? I thought that was Bush’s pitch.

    Hmmm, how did he do in business?…

  • http://wisdomandmurder.com Lisa McKay

    RJ, a credible citation for that, if you please. Sounds like bullshit to me.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Oh, crap. Upon further review, my “source” for this bit of info doesn’t look very credible…mea culpa…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    I guess his real name isn’t “Albert Einstein Frankenstein” but instead “Alan Stuart Franken” … :-/

  • http://wisdomandmurder.com Lisa McKay

    Yeah, I kinda thought so. I didn’t think you were that gullible :-)

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    I was duped! Just like people who tuned in to the last episode of Seinfeld! :-/

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    But actor Albert Brooks’ real name is Albert Einstein. Maybe that’s what you were thinking.

    (No it wasn’t.)

  • http://hengineer.blogspot.com Henry

    BG from RWS Commenting fame?

    Interesting, if a bit flammatory article. As the world wears on, I find my own views (slightly conservative) sharpening in focus more towards being libertarian. Politicians tend to be corrupt, and I wouldn’t career politicians to handle money. One of the reasons I supported (and voted for) Arnold for California Governor was because he was an outsider, a successful entreprenur (sp?, too lazy to check) who built himself after emigrating from Austria.

  • http://www.iamcorrect.com lono

    Wow,

    This piece is 12 kinds of retarded. first off, it never talks about Air America and their finances, which I would like to know about. Instead, this is cut rate hack job on how much the writer hates Democrats. Normally, this wouldn’t be a big deal if the piece were called ‘Democrats are a bunch of dummies’.

    Actually, Air America is not filled with hate. Nor is Air America filled with apologists. In fact, looking at the numbers in America now – 67% disapprove of the President and 25% believe he was involved in 9/11 tells me that Air America is closer to the heartland than you think.

    This piece is about Scadenfrueden, and how you revel in the failure of your perceived enemies. Don’t you think the left should have a voice? Wouldn’t that make America a stronger place?

    Please go back and change your title to ‘I am a half wit who hate Democrats’ so we can further discuss. I ain’t harshin’ on you, bro – for I am a half wit who hates Republicans. Thing is, I don’t pretend otherwise.

    What Air America doesn’t have the ability to doo. , like my family, is raise our debt ceiling and print more money when we get ourselves into the shitter on finances.

    peace out, and Vote in November!

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Lono,
    Take your medication, a deep breath and then read comment #12.

    Remember, the medication only works if you take it..

  • JustOneMan

    This is not a matter of politics…people just will not tune in to boring talk radio shows…simple…the right wing talkers just are more likeable and more entertaining personalities…forget politics the ratings prove it!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I will argue what I’ve always argued: it’s because AA is bad radio. Advertisers are drawn by ratings, and nobody wants to spend money for radio that nobody listens to. And nobody listens to it because it’s unlistenable.

    I think some of it is listenable. Randy Rhodes is strident and obnoxious, but entertaining. Some of their other shows are at least adequate. Franken is a terrible bore and Springer was awful, though. I notice that the first thing they did when they hit financial rapids was to fire Springer – best move they’ve made.

    Dave

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    numerous rich “donors” (such as host Albert Einstein Frankenstein** himself!)

    At this very moment, Franken is drawing a two-million-dollar salary from the bankrupt company. He may have donated some money, but he ain’t donating his time…and he’s sucking his money back out, too.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    I think some of it is listenable. Randy Rhodes is strident and obnoxious, but entertaining.

    I never found her entertaining. But if you replace “strident” with “shrill,” and “obnoxious” with “insufferable,” then we might be in agreement. Malloy, I DID find entertaining, although he bypassed “strident and obnoxious” and barreled right into the land of Goddamn Insane (which isn’t so bad…Michael Savage was probably getting lonely in Goddamn Insane). Marc Maron, now THAT was a man with real radio potential and they canned his ass early on.

    Really, THAT’s the whole problem. AAR treated Maron and Malloy absolutely miserably, yet they let the hopelessly incompetent Al Franken continue to be the face of Air America (and bleed them dry) for some reason. They just don’t have a clue how radio works!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Simple enough. Franken and Springer were celebrities and therefore they were under the impression they would somehow magically generate listeners and revenue. They just overlooked the part about them sucking.

    Dave

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Folks, your president ran several businesses into the ground before getting into one where he could soak the taxpayer every time he blew the stash (which has been several).

    Business sense is not a political property tied to ideology.

    That is what makes the premise of this article bullshit.

    To make a business work, you need to understand that business. Ask the fellow who started Minnesota Public Radio, Bill Klinger. That man is an empire builder. He started with KSJN operating out of St. John’s University in Minnesota, and now has American Public Radio, and a host of for profit firms as well. And he has made quite a few people rich in the process, Garrison Keillor, for one…

    And his capitalization came from begging – that IS what a public radio fun-raising drive is, you know.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Ruvy, um…did you read the comments before you responded?

  • Bliffle

    “Can Libs Handle Money?” No. we see the proof in Air America.

    “Can Conservativess Handle Money?” No. We see the proof in Bushco.

    “Can Bliffle Handle Money?” No. He’s modified his business practices in favor of irresponsibility and shady practices. Had to do it to keep up with the competition. It’s a form of Greshams law: irresponsible operators drive out responsible operators.

    That’s the modern world, folks. If you keep your promises, do everything to make sure others aren’t hurt by your failures, fulfill all your contracts and don’t chisel, people you think you a fool and cheat you. And you’ll go broke. Al Franken isn’t going to throw his savings into Air America and GWB won’t be hurt when he leaves office with horrendous national debt and an ongoing disaster in foreign affairs. He’ll retain his wealth and have a good life. So will I. And the hell with the suckers we leave behind.

  • Mohjho

    The Republicans have proven beyond any doubt that they can’t run any government; Iraq, Afganistan, or U.S. of A. Who the hell cares about Air America. Never listen to it.

    Welcome to Newts ‘Contract with America’, you signed it, now you get to live with it.

    Fools

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Mohjho, I have to point out that it’s just this particular group of Republicans who have been bunglers, not the party as a whole. And these are not the same people who brought us the contract with America, which when it was being followed actually did things like produce balanced budgets. Where the hell do you think the Clinton-era surpluses came from? Certainly not from anything Clinton did.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    Dave sez…
    *Mohjho, I have to point out that it’s just this particular group of Republicans who have been bunglers, not the party as a whole.*

    absolutely correct, as long as you add it was done with the complicity of the rest fo the GOP party and structure

    now, this very same Point shows the fallacy of the original Post…

    only a small sub-set of “liberals” ahve shown in this particular instance to have been not economically viable without restructuring (like..oh, just about all the airlines..and how many other corps that restructure under bankruptcy over the years?)

    and thus, to try and tar any entire “grouping” by the misdeeds of a small sub-set, is incorrect by it’s very tenets in the face of Reason

    (as for where the Surpluses came from, etc.. this is debateable, but no one person is usually Responsible for a *boom*, however, ithas been shown that a very small group CAN engender a *bust*)

    but i digress…

    Excelsior?

  • Bliffle

    “I have to point out that it’s just this particular group of Republicans who have been bunglers, not the party as a whole.”

    In a pinch, any excuse will do.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    (as for where the Surpluses came from, etc.. this is debateable, but no one person is usually Responsible for a *boom*, however, ithas been shown that a very small group CAN engender a *bust*)

    Which raises the issue of why, if the current GOP leadership is so incompetent in every way, we’re having a boom rather than a bust, at least in the eyes of every sensible analyst (which means I’m excluding Lou Dobbs).

    IMO the economy operates largely independent of what government does, except that big, obvious moves like raising or lowering taxes can make a small difference. The Clinton boom is more the result of the tech sector than anything Clinton or Congress did, and our current boomlet is likely the result of a second wave of the techn boom.

    Dave

  • Mark in Canada

    Interesting….I stumbled on this blog fest through a search for articles on and about Harry Stein, and found this pissing match between the left and right of America.

    Lets give this a go from an outsider’s point of view. Being Canadian, I find American poltics rather fun, since I don’t seem to have a dog in this hunt. Bush is a bit too right for me, and John Kerry was/is…well as boring as AlGore and as dumb as the left thinks Bush is. I find the argument that AA proves the left to not being to handle money a bit of a stretch. It sure does make them lousy radio however. Rush, Liddy and Hannity are all good to listen to, even if you don’t agree. Iam a trucker, and have been all over the excited states, and heard them all. AA sounded like bad public radio. The whole concept was stupid, and was politically motivated. There was nothing in this for anyone who wanted to debate, since there is no debate left on the left. You guys call the right stupid and ignorant, and it sounds childish, just like when Rush does it. The only difference is, Rush provides some entertainment value, and lets face it, he will debate, sometimes to a loss his point of view( not that he changes his mind, but no one on the left changes theirs either). Believe me, Leftwing media is boring, which explains why the CBC is dying up here. Entertain your listener, and let him decide his point of view, and maybe you might be fun. Now, have a good debate my American friends……because name calling is boring.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    well Dave..

    as to our our sidebar…

    one can also say that there are times when Policy can aid or hinder a sector into a boom…

    just a Thought

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Gonzo, let’s find an example of a government policy which was enough to start or stop a boom. The depression was started by business overproduction and overextension of credit. It was ended by wartime spending in WW2. So I can see an argument for a whopping great world war which would cost 10 trillion dollars in todays money having a pretty real impact. Short of that I’m skeptical.

    DAve

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    housing and federal interest rates is the first thing to mind…

    others will occur if you ponder a bit…

    /end hijack

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Sylvia in #7 said:
    Five years after 9/11 without securing borders does make them soft. But if you think a fence that’s as a third as long as it needs to be and isn’t properly funded is how to get the job done, then that explains why you are interning at Wide Awakkkes Radio.

    Perhaps if you actually listened to my show or read my blog you would know that I have been extremely critical on the border and the short fence. I have been a very loud voice on this and if you read other articles you can see how many leftists called me a racist for my position. I also know that ILLEGAL immigration has been a problem for decades but the focus for correcting it has only been thrown upon this administration.

    You would know that I said that if we will only build a fence 1/3 the size it needs to be the next time an earmark is put in for a bridge or a road it needs to only fund enough to build 1/3 of that project.

    I am not an intern, I have the show, try listening and you might actually know what you are talking about before you post.

  • BriMan

    So what I get from the RW on this is that the people who run AA shouldnt run the gov’t!!!?

    I dont think any are running for office and…

    the RW has bankrupted the richest nation on earth – hardly a fair comparison I’d say!!

  • BriMan

    Via Big Dog “I also know that ILLEGAL immigration has been a problem for decades but the focus for correcting it has only been thrown upon this administration.”

    And whose fault is that? – the Rep’s marched this issue out in the open hoping to distract Joe-Sixpack from his economic misery pre-election. That it has blown up in their face is just simple justice.

    Your quaint and repetitive diatribes “no plan blah blah”, “endless pot of money blah blah”, “love to raise taxes blah blah” is stale and unimaginative. You need new material. This just proves you arent listening or paying attention to any sound but your own echo.

  • http://www.iamcorrect.com lono

    Big Dog, #12 indicates this was satire. If so, I totally and completely missed the boat. It is election season, and I get super fired up and into militant Dem role.

    forgive me.

    PS – the GOP ‘culture of corruption’ sounds about right to me. it isn’t that there are weasel rat bastards in congress, of course there are. What disgusts the voters is that no one would stand up to DeLay, Foley, Hastart, Ney.

    If you guys would out them, instead of us, you wouldn’t look so soft. Rememeber when Colorado Republican Joel Hefley censured Tom deLay when he (Hefley) was on the ethics panel? Rememember what deLay did? he got Hefley (a Republican) kicked off the ethics committe, then worked to have the rules re-written to absolve him as his trial approached.

    point being, we all know deLay is a douchebag. What kills me is that no one stood up and said “hey Tom, you can’t do that.”

  • Arch Conservative

    “PS – the GOP ‘culture of corruption’ sounds about right to me. it isn’t that there are weasel rat bastards in congress, of course there are. What disgusts the voters is that no one would stand up to DeLay, Foley, Hastart, Ney.”

    Lono correct me if I’m wrong but Delay resigned from Congress, Foley resigned, and it hasn’t been proven that HAstert knew anything about Foley.

    Compare this with the Dems……….Mel Reynolds was actually convicted having sex with a teenage page and he stayed in Congress as a Dem. William Jeeferson had 90K in bribe money in his freezer and he stayed in congress as a dem, cynthia mcckinney assaults a police officer, cries racism and gets off scott free, harry reid had all kinds of shady land deals and no one questions him, hillary clinton has certainly committed campaign finance fraud numerous times and she’s a left wing idol.

    So when you go taalking about “culture of corruption don’t forget to mention all those good liberals who are knee deep in it!

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    BriMan, you can call it what you like and I really don’t care. I would like you to explain how it is that the Republicans brought immigration to the front to hide the economy when we have an extremely strong economy.

    Why would we want to hide it. All economic numbers are as good or better than Clinton’s and you guys thought life was wonderful when he was in charge.

    Perhaps your welfare checks have not gotten any bigger (the generic your) but more people are working, unemployment is low and inflation is low. Revenue to the treasury is at record levels and we have so much money the Congress keeps wasting it on junk.

    If you are going to spout off then at least pick something that either you know about or have read about and stop parroting the stupidity of the Democratic party.

  • zingzing

    wait, wait. you’re not serious? this article’s comment section devolved into “well, your party is as bad as my party!” bullshit?!

    no!

    who the fuck’d thought?

  • Mark Saleski

    (re #55)and you’re suprised at this? the blogcritics politics section should be renamed “BC Politics Monkey Poo Fling”

  • zingzing

    oh, no, not surprised. just getting sick of it. comments like #54 have absolutely nothing to do with the post, and it’s the fucking author who wrote the damn thing! sigh. big sigh.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “If you are going to spout off then at least pick something that either you know about or have read about and stop parroting the stupidity of the Democratic party”

    Oh, the irony

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Like I would parrot the Democratic party?

    Economic numbers are real and can be seen. Try looking….

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Zing, regardless of where the comments go, one has to answer them.

    Don’t blame the author, blame the fuc**ing commenters like you, for instance.

    Perhaps if people actually read the comments before over reacting…

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    Big Dog sez…
    *Economic numbers are real and can be seen.*

    well, they can also be manipulated as any data can, by not taking into accoutn all the pertinent Variables…and cherry picking what you like

    as regards professional analysis of the data, it can vary as diversely as any other “fuzzy subject”.. ask 10 experts and get 11 answers and interpertations of the same objective data

    but that doesn’t fit onto a bumper sticker, or inside the 48 seconds of AM talk time between commercials…

    but i digress

    Excelsior?

  • zingzing

    big d.: “Don’t blame the author, blame the fuc**ing commenters like you, for instance.

    Perhaps if people actually read the comments before over reacting…”

    uh huh. ok. like me, eh? i was just trying to get people back on some sort of target rather than this general dems vs reps bullshit we always go through. it goes nowhere, and you fucking know it. you just know what fucking side i’m on, generally. you have no clue how i land on this one. but i say, “let’s get back on target,” (in some form,) and you jump all over me. what the fuck ever. blow me.

  • zingzing

    and learn the definition of irony.

    and wonder why it’s been a day since anyone mentioned air america on this thread.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Zing, I have to agree, you were trying to get it back on target. These always go OT, it is the nature of the beast. I won’t blow you that would make me eligible for a job as a Congressman with a page. Perhaps the snarky comment about the author…

    I know the definition of irony, I also know sarcasm, as in me saying Like I would parrot the Democratic party.

  • zingzing

    snarky, yes. if you know sarcasm, you also know that i don’t want a blowjob. at least from you.

    sarcasm doesn’t always come through on the internet and you didn’t respond to the “ironic” content of your own original statement. of course, if you had, it would have been off-topic.

    like all this has been.

    fuck it.

    later.

  • BriMan

    Big Dog – one man’s booming economy versus 50 others where it isnt.

    I have looked at the numbers. I have also researched where the numbers come from and what they really mean. The current administration loves statistics that make them look good but stats dont apply to individual people and the majority of individuals are not better off than they were 6 or 8 years ago.

    You may have heard the analogy before but Bush likes to use the average income stat (that the average income is up). Meaning that Bill Gates and I have an average income of several billion. Or if I had one foot in a tub of ice and another in a pot of boiling water – on average I am comfortable. Averages dont mean crap – the rich can get richer and the poor poorer and the average can go up (as in fact it has).

    More people are in poverty, uninsured and having to declare bankruptcy than ever before. The Republican’s solution? Limit who can declare bankruptcy!

    Your booming economy theory is bunk. There isnt any serious independent data to back it up – just stats of questionable source and veracity. You keep talking about it but that dont make it so.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Sorry, BriMan, you’re just wrong, and you’re not as familiar with the numbers as you seem to think.

    More people are in poverty,

    Wrong. Actually, the number in poverty has remained pretty much stable and personal income has been slowly and steadily rising for the past year, even after adjusting for inflation. So the poor are about as numerous and they are slightly less poor.

    uninsured

    Wrong. The fact is that although the number of uninsured has gone up by a fraction of a percentage point every year for decades, this is only true because the population has grown. The actual percentage of the population without insurance has remained stable for decades at about 16% when you count in Medicaid, and in fact the percentage of the population covered by private insurance has been steadily increasing, up about 5% over the last 20 years.

    having to declare bankruptcy than ever before.

    Wrong. After an initial burst before the change in the laws, bankruptcy filings have been consistently down. In fact, they were down dramatically in the first and second quarters of this year to the tune of 70%.

    Your booming economy theory is bunk.

    Wrong. The truth is that the constant talking down of the economy from the left is easy to expose as a bunch of lies. All you have to do is go looking for the facts.

    There isnt any serious independent data to back it up – just stats of questionable source and veracity

    Except for all the data I cited above from reliable, neutral sources.

    . You keep talking about it but that dont make it so.

    So true. But it seems like you and others on the left think that if you keep saying the economy is in bad shape people will believe you. Thankfully the reality is obvious to anyone with half a lick of sense.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    Hey Briman………

    Don’t you just hate it when you get bitch slapped with the facts?

    Why don’t you take your gloom and doom, commie, class warfare, propaganda, roll it up into a big spliff and smoke it with Nancy!

  • http://www.iamcorrect.com Lono

    Arch Conservative (comment #53) said:

    unless I am wrong, DeLay stepped down –

    you ARE wrong. DeLay quit because of the indictments. DeLay stepped down because of the law (ironically written by Republicans to out immoral Dems) said you can’t hold a leadership post if you are under indictment. DeLay was forced out, and still has admitted no wrong doing. Have you seen his mug shot? What a glib motherfucker. He has less remorse than Duke Cuningham.

    Hang them all!

    ok… deep breath. Cool down, Lono… but away the kool aid. Sorry guys, I told you get super rabid during election season. My intorance boils to the surface. I’ll be a nicer person in a few months. How much nicer depends on the election.

    Peace! Vote in November

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I seem to recall a Blogcritics contributor a while back who would post about once a week telling us how great AA was doing, and how poorly Rush et al were doing.

    I still wonder if he was a paid shill, a pathetic dupe, or just a liar…

    The author of those pieces was Balletshooz, who stopped posting or commenting on BC almost exactly a year ago and then his own blog and his contributions to DailyKos and BNN stopped shortly thereafter.

    Dave

  • MCH

    “The author of those pieces was Balletshooz, who stopped posting or commenting on BC almost exactly a year ago and then his own blog and his contributions to DailyKos and BNN stopped shortly thereafter.”

    Whoa…doing a little cyber-stalking there, Nalle?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    No, MCHm it’s called research so I can answer a question intelligently. You might want to try it sometime.

    Dave

  • BriMan

    Dave – I will give you cold hard #’s now and the sources later (I have to be somewhere in 30 minutes) but the number of people in poverty has risen from 39 mil to 45 mil while Bush has been in office. Your chart on personal income isnt relevant to that argument because your chart reflects averages – I have already talked about averages and how they are misleading. Income is up for the top dozen or so % of wage earners – that skews the average upwards but doesnt reflect reality for the rest (the majority) of people.

    Your own uninsured #’s show a decrease in the total % of people who are insured of 1.3% since Bush took office. While the number may not be astronomical, it is a disturbing trend in a country that has a smoldering healthcare crisis. It also proves my statement.

    Again you made my point for me – limit who can file bankruptcy instead of addressing the causes of bankruptcy (#’s of uninsured, low min. wages, usurious lending practices, for instance). Spin it all you want – RW economic policy is only good for the sorta to very rich.

    Bitch-slapped indeed. Even your own numbers prove me out. Collective heads up arses – all o ewe.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Again you made my point for me – limit who can file bankruptcy instead of addressing the causes of bankruptcy (#’s of uninsured, low min. wages, usurious lending practices, for instance). Spin it all you want – RW economic policy is only good for the sorta to very rich.

    The other reasons, living above one’s means. You know, the expensive car, cell phone, 200 dollar kicks and matching outfit. Fast food, big screen TV, and on and on. People’s obsession with having everything right now helps them into bankruptcy.

    I have seen too many people come into the ER and claim they could not afford their medication that costs $90 a month but they could afford to smoke a $3 pack of cigarettes every day. It is a matter of priority. These folks pay little or nothing in taxes and have many benefits available to them. A minimum wage earner can put money away, it just means not having a cell phone, giving up the smokes and booze, the big car and TV. And if people do not want to be minimum wage earners all their lives tell them to stay in school and get a marketable skill.

    Personal responsibility will make people better off. Not government handouts of things that are not Constitutional guarantees or rights (ie Health insurance, high wages for low skill jobs)

  • Zedd

    Dave:

    You can’t be serious. Save your dignity and recant. This really puts in question your ability to reason.

    Are you saying that every business venture that has been attempted by a Republican has succeeded?

    Are you saying that the success of a business has a direct correlation with a person’s political affiliation?

    Are you saying that AA was run by all of the liberals of America? Or was it just a group of liberals.

    Are you saying that conservatives have managed the national budget better than liberals? (Think really hard on this one)

    I have been called a liberal and I didn’t like AA. I thought it sounded too much like the embarrassing and base, Rush stuff. Most “liberals” are accustomed to getting their info from NPR. AA was just cheap and low brow, and just way too close to conservative media. Franken sounded like he was on drugs….. Oh like Rush. There were too many conspiracy theorists like you coo coo conservatives. It was just unintelligent, angry, and a little NASCAR, like conservative radio for my taste. I guess they were trying to get the Bubbas…. They needed more time for that. Also, the ads sucked..

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Zedd,
    Take a Valium and read comments 12 through 20 or so….

  • BriMan

    Big Dog – so personal responsibility is your solution to every problem that plagues America?

    Then why have a war on drugs? Why regulate alcohol? Why shouldnt America stay home and mind her own business? Why do we need police and fire departments and why the hell should I pay for them if I am not a criminal or I dont play with matches?

    Your personal responsibility argument only addresses a minor cause of bankruptcy issues. Our society is full of predatory lending, bad food, poorly-regulated substances, over-marketed, must-have items. It is called free market – you know that thing you worship so dearly on this very website. And while we allow that free market complete access to our children and our lives, we are not supposed to put protective measures in place for those who fall victim to these unholy forces thru both sheer inundation and human frailty?

    Medical problems are the leading source of bankruptcy in this country. I have never been addicted, dont eat fast-food, rarely imbibe and I still got leukemia. Dont fuckin’ preach to me about personal responsibility. When Rocketdyne and Boeing and the defense industry are allowed to pollute unabated in my backyard and with the help of my Republican representative, the only personal thing I can do is run his ass out of town and hope he takes some of you like-minded sycophants with him.

    And I swear if I ever see you print another thing on the free market and personal responsibility, I will start posting no-bid contracts one-at-a-time until you wish you had never seen my name.

    Bush-leaguer—

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Perhaps medical problems are the leading source of bankruptcy because there are so many lawsuites that people can not afford insurance. It is not my job nor is it my respnsibility to pay for any one else’s health care.

    You got leukemia, sucks to be you, but people get sick every day. The fact is we eventually die and getting sick is sometimes part of that process. As a health care professional I know that having health insurance does not stop disease. If we want to stop bankruptcy then maybe we can stop all the lawsuits that cause health care costs to go up. I think we should allow people to form conglamorates so they can buy health care cheaper but I should not be paying for them, I pay for my own.

    I know you would like to pass off personal responsibility but the fact is people lack it. I don’t really give a rat’s ass if they are innundated with ads, sales tactics etc. You know what you can and can not afford so if you live above your means, shame on you.

    It is a free market but people are not required to paticipate in it if they are unable to do so. Perhaps the only reason so many poor people get in trouble is because we call it a “FREE” market.

    As for your threats, save them, you don’t have the ass to affect me and I don’t care how many no bid contracts (which are not all bad by the way) you post, it is after all a free world. They do not bother me so post away.

    When people give up the luxuries and live on the bare minimum then they can complain to me about what they do not have. I am tired of seeing people with every new gadget in the world complaining that they can’t afford health care or to put money away. Once again, it is personal responsibility.

    Did I say it enough for you yet??

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Dave – I will give you cold hard #’s now and the sources later (I have to be somewhere in 30 minutes) but the number of people in poverty has risen from 39 mil to 45 mil while Bush has been in office. Your chart on personal income isnt relevant to that argument because your chart reflects averages – I have already talked about averages and how they are misleading. Income is up for the top dozen or so % of wage earners – that skews the average upwards but doesnt reflect reality for the rest (the majority) of people.

    Show me a source, BriMan, because no numbers I’ve seen anywhere on poverty support your contention.

    Your own uninsured #’s show a decrease in the total % of people who are insured of 1.3% since Bush took office. While the number may not be astronomical, it is a disturbing trend in a country that has a smoldering healthcare crisis. It also proves my statement.

    No, they don’t show that. Look at the link. It shows a 2.9% increase in those covered by all forms of insurance and a .5% decrease which applies only to those covered by private insurance. And that tiny decrease is only the result of a substantial spike in insurance coverage in 1999 and 2000, likely because of the tech boom. The overall trend going back two decades remains a gradual increase and Bush’s years fit in that pattern.

    Again you made my point for me – limit who can file bankruptcy instead of addressing the causes of bankruptcy (#’s of uninsured, low min. wages, usurious lending practices, for instance). Spin it all you want – RW economic policy is only good for the sorta to very rich.

    Except that the new bankruptcy law does NOT limit who can file bankruptcy, it just channels them into specific types of bankruptcy based on what assets they have. It may discourage those who don’t really need to file bankruptcy and are doing it for convenience from doing so, but it does NOT stop the truly destitute from getting full protection.

    Dave

  • Zedd

    Nancy:

    I cant agree with you more. I was turned off to AA. I must admit that at first was happy to hear ANYONE at that time say ANYTHING negative about the war or Bush because at that time the news media was caught up in “counting down to bagdad” and “freedom on the march” sloggans. I thought I was in the Twilight Zone. It made me feel like “wheeew I’m not the only one….”

    But as i listened, I thought geez this is not thought provoking AT ALL. Yes I agreed with a lot of what they said but a lot of it was just emotional spewing. Its just as low brow and unchallanging as the conservative talk radio shows.

    Thank goodness for NPR, and BBC!!!

  • Zedd

    Dave Nalle #10:

    Agreed.

  • BriMan

    Dave – here are some of the links I promised. The Census data is choppy and you have to go to separate pages for separate years so I didnt provide all of those links but they are easy to get to if you want to see them all.

    What I did provide is a snapshot showing that the trend in recent years for poverty, wages, and numbers of uninsured are all going the wrong direction. I showed that the small growth in real wages from ’04 to ’05 is, according to the experts at the Census Bureau, from people taking on a second or third jobs and from others deriving additional investment income (skewing the averages as I explained in an earlier post).

    The 39 – 45 million figure I listed earlier came from a source that I cant find in my pile of literature on my messy desk. The numbers vary because the definition of poverty varies – with the current definition having changed in the last 6 years. It is the trend though that is inarguable if you believe the US Census #’s.

    From WUNC Radio reporting on Census data: The latest government figures show poverty is still on the rise. According to the Census Bureau about 36-million Americans are living in poverty. David Brady, assistant professor of Sociology at Duke University, says the official estimates are low. He says a more accurate formula would reveal that an additional 10-million Americans are officially poor. Host Frank Stasio speaks with him about poverty in America.

    Census data: There were 37.0 million people in poverty (12.7 percent) in 2004, up from 35.9 million (12.5 percent) in 2003.

    Continued below….

  • BriMan

    Continued from above….

    Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: Since 2000 — the last year before unemployment began to rise — the number of people in poverty has risen by 4.3 million, median income has fallen by $1,535, after adjustment for inflation, and the number of people with no health insurance has increased by 5.2 million.

    By contrast, the increase in the number of uninsured occurred entirely among working-age adults — those between the ages of 18 and 64. Both the number and the percentage of people aged 18 to 64 who were uninsured hit the highest levels on record. Some 36.3 million people — 20.2 percent of all people in this age group — were uninsured in 2003.

    “The year 2003 marked the third straight year that living standards have deteriorated,” Center executive director Robert Greenstein observed, “with poverty increasing, the number of uninsured climbing, and the income of the typical household stagnating. In addition, by some indicators, gaps between the most well-off and other Americans — already at exceptionally wide levels — became still larger in 2003.”

    From the
    NYTimes
    – The nation’s median household income rose slightly faster than inflation last year for the first time in six years, the Census Bureau reported yesterday. The rise, however, had little to do with bigger paychecks — in fact, both men and women earned less in 2005 than 2004. Rather, census officials said, more family members were taking jobs to make ends meet, and some people made more money from investments and other sources beyond wages.

    The glimmer of improvement came after years in which the economy slogged through the bursting of the 1990’s stock market boom, a brief economic downturn, the aftershocks from the 2001 terrorist attacks, a series of corporate scandals and growing evidence of a deepening divide between rich and poor.

    As for your statement – “No, they don’t show that. Look at the link. It shows a 2.9% increase in those covered by all forms of insurance and a .5% decrease which applies only to those covered by private insurance.”

    While Bush has been in office:
    Total % insured (all sources) 2001 – 85.4%
    Total % insured (all sources) 2005 – 84.1%

    If you go back to 2000, it is even worse. You are spinning the numbers to suit your argument. The total # of people on gov’t provided health insurance during the same time is up 2%. Our private healthcare system is a real and moral failure. Move away from denial and try to understand the reality – it isnt about politics and power – it is about taking care of people. Uninsured people put a drag on society- economically, socially & physically. The status quo only works for insurance execs as they wring money from those who have it and shove those who dont to the side. Americans pay more for healthcare than any other industrialized society on the planet (ask yourself why) and yet cover fewer members of the population.

  • BriMan

    Big Dog-
    I am not denying that some people lack personal responsibility. I am arguing that personal responsibility is not the largest issue leading to the problem of bankruptcy – it is in fact a red herring thrown out by lending institutions and their sympathizers.

    Neither are personal lawsuits the main reason that healthcare is so unaffordable. Most frivolous suits dont see the light of day. 80% of all lawsuits are one corporation sueing another. Why do the Republicans only want to reform the 20%? Answer: because they dont get their campaign funds from there. They arent really trying to solve any of the problems – just scapegoating to keep their base engaged.

    You are truly an enigma – you support the systems that lead to the problems you rail against. Everything you buy you support someone else’s lifestyle – you just dont want to support certain lifestyles. And surprise – who are you picking on? Well the easiest targets of course. Life aint about easy pal.

    Comments like dont participate in the free market and some no bid contracts are good just show how truly ill-informed and out-of-touch you are. One is impossible unless you live in a cave and eat grubs and the other is downright wrong in a supposedly competitive environment.

    You should see “Iraq for Sale” – lots of interviews with people like soldiers, officers, Iraqis, and contract employees. Non-partisan, non-judgmental, no BS. You’ll learn something about no-bid contracts and it wont be good (like $250,000 SUV’s that you are paying for but will never own).

    Keep picking on the little guy though – he is obviously making a killing off of you.

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    BriMan,
    I know a little about contracts. I did not say all no bid contracts are good, just some. There are certain companies who are the only ones who do a particular thing. They can be awarded contracts because of that. Bush’s administration has done this just as Clinton did in Bosnia (he no bid Halliburton of all things).

    The large awards in health care are settlements to people, not companies. You can say that Republicans do not look at the 80% because they get money from them but before you make that generalization you better look at the financial disclosure of ALL of them. Democrats get a lot of money from the same industry.

    I don’t recall saying not to participate in the free market. I think the free market is good and that government interference is the problem. Perhaps you misunderstood or I was not clear.

    Government needs reform, no doubt about it and both parties need to be reformed. But they are not the panacea to the woes of poor people or anyone else. People must bear some of the responsibility and live witin their means.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    BigDog sez….
    *People must bear some of the responsibility and live witin their means.*

    Quoted for Truth

    same as *corporations must bear some of the responsibility*

    why do i toss the last out there?

    cuz of a great point BriMan has been trying to make…

    reform of personal bankruptcy involving Individuals to make the requirements or even *categories* more stringent are one thing…but pales in comparison to the billions placed on the american tax payers by Corporations using bankruptcy to cut or eliminate the costs fo their own employees retirement benefits is just fucking criminal

    go and google yourself, you wouldn’t believe me if i typed it… take a look at how much corporate bankruptcy has cost the US as compared to individual bankruptcy

    the difference?

    when a Corp files, the taxpayer has to bail it out via the bankruptcy insurance the Feds provide to try and protect workers whose retirement funds have been evaporated and the company “restructures”… all the while the Management that drove the corp into bankruptcy get paid massively

    when an individual files for bankruptcy, it’s the creditors who have to work it out..or eat the costs

    which one got *reformed* under this Administration?

    clue: not the one we taxpayers pay for, that’s for damn certain…

    i’m all for Personal Responsibility… i just think the playign field should start as level as possible and that the taxpayers should NOT have to pay for the profits of bad Management

    and that blatant hypocrisy among some of the GOP types is just as bad as some of the reverse from the Dems, and costs the taxpayers more in the overall picture

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.onebigdog.net Big Dog

    Personal responsibility extends to your actions in business. I do not think one cent of taxpayer money should go to a company. If a company can not make it then it should go out of business. Unless there was some criminal act then people should get new jobs and move on and not whine that they are now without. The business went bust so move on.

    The feds should not bail out the auto industry, the oil industry or the airline industry. Also, if the feds are not going to give money to the business then when the business is doing real well, the feds will not be allowed to slap a windfall profit tax (has to go both ways).

    I am not in favor of any corporate welfare. It is not the government’s place to bail out a business any more than it is to bail out a person.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    well now, the Principles stated in #87 are something i can tentatively agree upon…

    as long as the Outrage is there for the criminal Enron/Arthur Anderson/airline restructuring to avoid retirement payouts – as much as it is for persons who attempt to avoid fiscal responsibility…

    i can get behind it

    the Problem, as i have outlined, is that this Administration..and the GOP in federal office as a whole, has NOT implemented actions equally across those two types of happenstance

    and when you total it up, the personal bankruptcies are a tiny fraction of the Cost as compared to the systemic vampirism of unEthical practices by SOME criminals wearing white collars

    hence the vehemence of some folks at this blatant inequity

    woudl that more *conservative* types stand up and shout this Truth out…

    it would not only go a long way in correcting the situation, but also show some Integrity on the part of those openly stating what many are obviously aware of

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    BriMan, your links are almost all to secondary sources and they are almost all wrong.

    Your one link to the census does not even support your argument. You said that poverty is up during Bush’s term in office, but the link you provide is for a ONE year increase, not the whole term. A one year spike doesn’t define a 5 year period. In fact, if you look at the census report you’ll see that poverty has remained stable from 2001 to 2005 and when their report for 2006 comes out there’s every indication that you’ll see a drop.

    As to your other points, let me counter them with actual data from legitimate sources rather than leftist editorials and propaganda groups like the CBPP.

    Center on Budget & Policy Priorities: Since 2000 — the last year before unemployment began to rise — the number of people in poverty has risen by 4.3 million

    As I pointed out above, this is a lie. If you actually start counting in 2000, the number in poverty has increased by less than a million and because of population growth that’s actually a decrease in poverty of .3%. Check my earlier link to the census for that data.

    median income has fallen by $1,535, after adjustment for inflation,

    Again, a lie. Unadjusted data from HUD shows that median income has risen by $7100 since Bush took office. It’s not clear what period your figure covers, but I bet it’s one year from early in the Bush administration while the recession was raging. Adjusted for inflation that’s still an increase of $6500.

    and the number of people with no health insurance has increased by 5.2 million.

    Wrong again. Where on earth are your sources getting their figures? According to the census bureau the number of insured has increased by 6.4 million since 2001. Is it possible you’re confusing figures for increase and decreate in the number of insured? Another reminder that nothing coming from the CBPP should ever be believed.

    From the
    NYTimes – The nation’s median household income rose slightly faster than inflation last year for the first time in six years, the Census Bureau reported yesterday. The rise, however, had little to do with bigger paychecks — in fact, both men and women earned less in 2005 than 2004. Rather, census officials said, more family members were taking jobs to make ends meet, and some people made more money from investments and other sources beyond wages.

    I’d like to see the link to the census bureau report rather than the NYT’s version of it, because this doesn’t match any data I’ve seen. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is actually the right source to go to for this sort of information, and they show a 14% increase in wages in the last 5 years.

    You need to start looking at some valid sources rather than relying on left leaning propaganda and biased media reports.

    Dave

  • BriMan

    Dave –
    “Your one link to the census does not even support your argument.”

    Then you did not chase down the single year data as I suggested. (This forum limits the # of links per post). There is a definite increase in poverty from 2000 to present. The link you provided only addresses age 65 & over. I am arguing total #’s and you are citing a specific group. Get with the argument. From 2000 (31.6 million) to 2005 (37.0 million). More people in poverty as defined by the Census Bureau.

    For healthcare, lets use your numbers – 1.7% (difference of % total covered from the peak year 2000 (85.8%) to 2005 (84.1%)) of roughly 290 million population equals 4.9 million more uninsured (you see less people are insured when the % goes down). That would have to be a conservative figure because we have roughly 10 million more in population right now and some of those are uninsured. And none of these numbers discuss under-insured – the point is it is a problem and trickle-on economics doesnt solve it. It seems that we have to keep trying it though and every time it is proven not to do the things it is promoted to do. What it does do is make the wealthy even wealthier at all of our expense as the costs of goods and services (including police and fire and highways) inevitably rise to keep inflation in check. Local and state taxes usually increase as well to make up for the budget shortfalls. Classic shove the shit to Shorty. It is piss poor policy – it has never worked and never will. But the faithful trot it out ad nauseum as sound fiscally conservative policy. Crap is what it is.

    BTW – do you notice the rough correlation in these numbers?

    The CBPP is a non-partisan analysis group. You can consider them leftists if you like because their analysis doesnt tow the party line . You seem concerned that the left points out the shortfalls of the economy (and not the pluses) but if the shortfalls are real, you also seem quite eager to massage the numbers (is it because you are a cheerleader for Bush and his cronies?). Unlike you (follow me here), I wasnt a big fan of the Clinton economy – meaning that I am an equal opportunity critic. You are a party-line critic – meaning your critically analytical skills sway in the political breeze. Wet your finger and hold it high – thoughtful approach.

    You criticize me for using secondary sources yet you cite HUD as a source for median income data! At least my source was dealing with recent Census data and not extrapolating 1990 median income levels with a little massaging from BLS statistics. The HUD median income levels dont correlate with newer census data. Not even a good try on your part.

  • BriMan

    Big Dog-
    Last I checked the Congress was controlled by Republicans. The agenda is controlled by Republicans. The Republicans made a big deal about tort reform but only picked on the smallest part of the problem. Cynical and disengenuous.

    Of course Democrats are part of the problem. But they are not the largest part of the problem. The Dem party can be moved from within to serve the needs of the many over the needs of the few. The reforms that you say are needed are not going to happen within either party’s established heirarchy easily but you can argue it is impossible within the party that represents and is funded primarily by big business.

    Clean money and public campaign finance is what will return the gov’t to the people. It is working in Arizona (a red state) and it will eventually work at the federal level too (google ‘Just $6′).

    The government (especially Republican gov’t) interferes in the free market all of the time but 98% of the time siding with business and profits over people. There is no such thing as a free market – there are opposing forces and big business has the money to sway the system. But the people have the numbers. We have also been successfully divided by these same economic forces.

    You know – gov’t is just a tool. You can use a hammer to build a house or you can use it to tear it down. The latest batch of cons are on record as wanting to tear it down (but not without personally enriching themselves first). Gov’t is necessary – it performs necessary functions – it can level the playing field – it can be used for good given the proper oversight.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Then you did not chase down the single year data as I suggested. (This forum limits the # of links per post). There is a definite increase in poverty from 2000 to present. The link you provided only addresses age 65 & over. I am arguing total #’s and you are citing a specific group. Get with the argument. From 2000 (31.6 million) to 2005 (37.0 million). More people in poverty as defined by the Census Bureau.

    You’re correct, I did link to the wrong table, but my comments were based on the same table you link to. Aside from that you’re way off base. The increase in the last 5 years is negligible and only exists because there was an aberrant dip in the poverty level right at the end of the Clinton administration. The meaningful fact is that every year of the Bush administration has had substantially lower poverty than 6 out of 8 years of the Clinton administration, which is part of an overall downward trend from the highs in the 1980s.

    The CBPP is a non-partisan analysis group. You can consider them leftists if you like because their analysis doesnt tow the party line .

    I consider them leftists because everyone else does too. Read up on them. They were founded in opposition to the Reagan administration by a former Carter appointee and they are consistently on the left politically. They’re a propaganda mill.

    You seem concerned that the left points out the shortfalls of the economy (and not the pluses) but if the shortfalls are real, you also seem quite eager to massage the numbers (is it because you are a cheerleader for Bush and his cronies?).

    Like I’ve said before, I’m an advocate for a balanced view and not shamelessly promoting a constant negative distortion of the economy.

    Unlike you (follow me here), I wasnt a big fan of the Clinton economy – meaning that I am an equal opportunity critic. You are a party-line critic – meaning your critically analytical skills sway in the political breeze. Wet your finger and hold it high – thoughtful approach.

    What party line would that be? Have you ever seen things I’ve posted about the Clinton era? I’ve generally been pro-Clinton on most issues except taxation and health care reform.

    You criticize me for using secondary sources yet you cite HUD as a source for median income data! At least my source was dealing with recent Census data and not extrapolating 1990 median income levels with a little massaging from BLS statistics. The HUD median income levels dont correlate with newer census data. Not even a good try on your part.

    HUD characterizes their methodology as rather more thorough than that, but I guess they could be lying.

    Dave

  • BriMan

    Dave –
    The trend during Clinton’s presidency was poverty down every year except one from what I can see and the trend for Bush has been going up.

    And that isnt what you started out arguing at the beginning of this thread. I made the contention that poverty was up. You called that a lie. And now that you are faced with census data that proves me out, you are talking about an aberrant dip after 7 straight years of declines! You, sir, are just plain wrong and you cant bring yourself to admit it – much like the administration you keep apologizing for.

    You are criticizing people in another article on this site of doing exactly what you have just done to me – reacting without knowledge. Faith w/o fact. You are absolutely no different except you are being an overt hypocrit.

    So by bringing up a few facts that you obviously dont like or care to hear, I am shamelessly promoting a negative distortion of the economy? It is more like you who are promoting something and it smells bad whatever you choose to call it.

    I know what the RW means by balanced view – truth followed by lies, reality followed by spin, history followed by revisionism. Please do some introspection before you reply to your critics. You are far from objective – the lofty goal you seek.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    BriMan, as a Liberal I find it reprehensible when anyone on the right or the left distorts the truth for political advantage and I try to counter it where I can.

    And that isnt what you started out arguing at the beginning of this thread. I made the contention that poverty was up. You called that a lie. And now that you are faced with census data that proves me out, you are talking about an aberrant dip after 7 straight years of declines! You, sir, are just plain wrong and you cant bring yourself to admit it – much like the administration you keep apologizing for.

    Apparently we have two different ways of looking at this issue. I see 6 Clinton years of high poverty followed by 2 Clinton years of low poverty and 5 Bush years of low poverty. Bush has certainly had ups and downs, but all within a 1 point spread which at its highest was 2.4 points lower than Clinton’s worst year. Poverty is also not up when you compare Clinton’s average of 13.25 with Bush’s average of 12.32. Hell, Bush’s numbers are low compared to everything for the last 25 years except for 2 freak Clinton years.

    So by bringing up a few facts that you obviously dont like or care to hear, I am shamelessly promoting a negative distortion of the economy? It is more like you who are promoting something and it smells bad whatever you choose to call it.

    No, you’re not part of what I’m talking about in the article in any but the most superficial way because you’re just a shill on a blog making a comment. You don’t have the power of political office or a media job behind you. You may want to talk down the economy, but you’re just repeating what they’ve programmed you to say.

    I know what the RW means by balanced view – truth followed by lies, reality followed by spin, history followed by revisionism.

    Pretty much the same as the left partisans, I agree.

    Dave

  • MrSuccess

    Libs are such losers. It just never fails to amaze me.

  • zingzing

    Stupidly, Air America modeled their programming after right wing conservative talk radio. Politics as entertainment. Parroting, etc. While those on the right seem to revel in such stuff, those on the left didn’t seem to have time for it, and so it failed.