Right Pundits

He saw this coming. Anyone looking at jail time is bound to suffer depression in some form.
Bi-polar episodes can be minutes apart and as far as months or years apart. I’m curious how far apart his episodes are, or if they’re just brought on by good weather/bad weather.
Hes just covering his ass so he can play the mental incompetence plea.

“Worked out fabulously for Mr. “47%”.”

So tired of this being spread everywhere in the wrong context.
None of that 47% included entitlements people are actually entitled to.
The liberal consensus was that Mitt was referring to everyone receiving a government check.
Not.
The reference was not to medicaid, SS, unemployment benefits, etc. But instead to those draining the system that never paid a dime into it or have collected way past what they’ve contributed.
Students loving the promise of supplementation to over priced tuition’s, those who’ve never worked waiting for Obamacare, upper incomes who receive but dont really need foodstamps, Latinos with illegal relatives, mortgage supplements…

Used to be you could buy an election with a weiner and a scoop of pisstachio, at no cost to the taxpayer.

Hard to say who to blame more on this one? Jesse Jackson Jr. for his arrogance or the voters for their stupidity?

Micky -”There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax…[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives”

-Mitt Romney

You can try and parse Romney’s words all you want. The message (rhetoric) was that ALL Democrats (Obama voters) are deadbeats. And what the hell makes you think that people receiving benefits like foodstamps, housing vouchers…..etc. were NEVER tax payers previously? The vast majority of people on these programs are on them temporarily. Loss of work, lack of family to rely upon for help, disabilities, mental health issues, fathers not paying child support….etc.

The cash benefit (welfare) averages around $100 a month for a single person. Hardly enough to form a “lifestyle of dependency” on.

This idea that people get welfare from cradle to grave is a GOP myth. The system’s a temporary safety net that people, YES even republicans in Red States, pass through when in need.

The famous “Joe the Plumber” was himself on public assistance for a while. He’s more the norm.

“Students loving the promise of supplementation to over priced tuitions, those who’ve never worked waiting for Obamacare, upper incomes who receive but dont really need food stamps, Latinos with illegal relatives, mortgage supplements…”

Students “needing” supplementation and the rest you mention probably make up less 10% of Romney’s “47%”. And the benefits are needs based. You can’t just walk up and get them, or have “upper incomes” and get them.

As for Jackson Jr….sounds like a dirt bag but we’ll have to wait and see.

buzzbee – The same delusion that all the Red State WELFARE STATES have. They’re getting more from the feds than they pay in, with Blue states mostly footing the bill, yet have this demented idea that Democrat states are moochers.

New Jersey gets back $0.62 for every $1.00 they pay to the feds in taxes, yet the right wing inbreds want to bitch about how much Sandy recovery will cost “them”.

“New Jersey gets back $0.62 for every $1.00 they pay to the feds in taxes, yet the right wing inbreds want to bitch about how much Sandy recovery will cost “them”.”

Hah !
Seems like Long Island , Staten Island and Jersey arent get much out of anyone yet. And it aint the inbreds runnin the show.(not only whites have sisters for mothers)

“OBAMA HATES WHITE PEOPLE” !!

Micky – “No, theres difference between charity at the command of the fed and what people are actually entitled to.”

Nice defense of Red State welfare. “charity at the command of the fed” sounds like wealth re-distribution to me.

“On a per capita basis, most of the top ten welfare states are Blue.”

I see that you’ve failed math. What does “per capita” have to do with an ENTIRE state’s tax burden?

Patrick McCain – No. I am referring to expenditures on social and entitlement programs. Military bases, energy production, and large national parks are NOT part of the figures. Nice try.

If you want me to present you the data on how 3rd world the South and Red states are by every metric (test scores, teen pregnancy, incarceration, divorce….etc…. )I can do that with Census and other federal stats.

I’ll pull them together for next week.

The Red States get by on subsudies, social welfare and pork. Are primarily agrarian, and produce little or nothing of value for a modern economy.

” “Nice defense of Red State welfare. “charity at the command of the fed” sounds like wealth re-distribution to me.”

Hey ! You’re starting to get it !

Yeah well, thats the sound you get in your left ear.
What red state welfare ?
Since Barrys the one doin the hand outs I fail to see what red command has to do with it.
Hes the CIC, the branches, cept for the house, are on his side bro so how are the reds redistributing anything ?
Sht, Barrys givin trillions n change in stimulus to everything on earth but the GOP and NASCAR. Gimme a break.

“Something tells me the more you fib, the more you believe yourself. Cute ”

I’m not the one who deluded myself into believing in a Romney landslide my friend.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Fiscal%20Facts/20100524-229-nonpayers-map-.jpg

Where do NON PAYERS come from….?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/19/us/politics/who-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes.html

Thought I’d reference a Nobel winning economist…

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html?_r=0

Okay so you are one of those intellectual bots who faux-requires someone to show you that poverty among blacks in Mississippi is substantially higher than whites? And that blacks in Mississippi vote Democrat? LOL. That’s a very funny way of wasting someone’s time. To actually engage someone meaningfully you have to concede the obvious points or they will tire of you. So concede that the sun will rise tomorrow and we can move on.

M – Then how about you take his (Krugman’s) piece in the Times and pick it apart point by point rather than “BHWAA-ing” away?

I don’t think you can. And I’m sure you wont. You’ll find some excuse.

Patrick – DATA please! I typically find that conseratives with a lazy “everyone knows” view of issues, turn out to be wrong 9 out of 10 times when they actually get off their butts and do some research.

Yeah sorry. I’m one of those “intellectual bots” who needs proof as a basis for my opinions. Learned how to research in one of those snobbish Ivy schools. You know. Got to write a paper….back it up. Research and confirm sources, vet them, get to the truth. Silly stuff like that.

KRUGMAN and TIMES.
Nuff said about that chit.

“M – Then how about you take his (Krugman’s) piece in the Times and pick it apart point by point rather than “BHWAA-ing” away?”

A clock can be right twice a day Ron.
Paul has racked up more bullsht than any journalist I know.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/mitt-romney-vs-paul-krugman-whos-lying.php

MITT ROMNEY VS. PAUL KRUGMAN: WHO’S LYING?
Stung by their man’s miserable performance in Wednesday’s debate, the Democrats have tried to change the subject by claiming that Mitt Romney “lied” repeatedly during the debate. But they have had a tough time coming up with any actual lies. The chronically truth-challenged Paul Krugman somewhat ironically stepped up to the plate in a New York Times column on Thursday that was titled “Romney’s Sick Joke.” You can always count on Krugman for understatement. This was Krugman’s contribution to the “Romney lied” theme:

“No. 1,” declared Mitt Romney in Wednesday’s debate, “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.” No, they aren’t — as Mr. Romney’s own advisers have conceded in the past, and did again after the debate.

Was Mr. Romney lying? Well, either that or he was making what amounts to a sick joke. Either way, his attempt to deceive voters on this issue was the biggest of many misleading and/or dishonest claims he made over the course of that hour and a half. Yes, President Obama did a notably bad job of responding. But I’ll leave the theater criticism to others and talk instead about the issue that should be at the heart of this election.

So, about that sick joke: What Mr. Romney actually proposes is that Americans with pre-existing conditions who already have health coverage be allowed to keep that coverage even if they lose their job — as long as they keep paying the premiums. As it happens, this is already the law of the land. But it’s not what anyone in real life means by having a health plan that covers pre-existing conditions, because it applies only to those who manage to land a job with health insurance in the first place (and are able to maintain their payments despite losing that job).

This is what Romney said during the debate:

MR. LEHRER: Let’s let the governor explain what you would do if “Obamacare” is repealed. How would you replace it? What do you have in mind?

MR. ROMNEY: Let — well, actually — actually it’s — it’s — it’s a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan. Number two, young people are able to stay on their family plan. That’s already offered in the private marketplace; you don’t have — have the government mandate that for that to occur.

But let’s come back to something the president — I agree on, which is the — the key task we have in health care is to get the costs down so it’s more affordable for families, and — and then he has as a model for doing that a board of people at the government, an unelected board, appointed board, who are going to decide what kind of treatment you ought to have.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, it isn’t.

MR. ROMNEY: In my opinion, the government is not effective in — in bringing down the cost of almost anything. As a matter of fact, free people and free enterprises trying to find ways to do things better are able to be more effective in bringing down the costs than the government will ever be.

It continues from there. So, what does Romney’s health care proposal, which is basically a set of bullet points, say about pre-existing conditions?

Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage.

So does that “cover” pre-existing conditions, or not? I think it would have been clear to most listeners that Romney meant his plan would address or deal with the issue of pre-existing conditions, not that the federal government would buy insurance to cover them. (Romney’s plan does not involve the federal government buying health insurance for anyone, beyond the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs.) And Romney’s plan does indeed address the issue of pre-existing conditions, by banning discrimination against those who have them and who maintain health insurance continuously. The continuous insurance requirement is necessary to prevent the obvious dodge (which Krugman specifically acknowledges) of waiting until you get sick and then buying insurance.

So what we have here is a policy disagreement, not a lie. Krugman tries to suggest that Romney’s approach to pre-existing conditions is meaningless because “this is already the law of the land.” But here Krugman is wrong, not Romney. Krugman is referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which was adopted in 1996. HIPAA, as explained here, makes group health insurance portable because it “imposes limits on the extent to which some group health plans can exclude health insurance for pre-existing conditions.” But HIPAA “provides no protection if you switch from one individual health plan to another individual plan.” So Romney’s plan will indeed cover pre-existing conditions to a significantly greater degree than existing law. Moreover, Romney’s health care plan also proposes to “[e]nd tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance,” so the plan’s extension of portability to individual policies takes on added importance.

Health care policy can be debated endlessly, and Romney and Krugman obviously disagree. Krugman wants government-controlled medicine, and Romney wants to use the private sector and principles of competition to improve care and control costs. But for Krugman to say that Romney “lied” about his own health care proposal as it relates to pre-existing conditions is simply wrong.

Krugman trashes Obama’s debate performance in his column. In addition to the language quoted above, Krugman adds this at the end of the column:

One could wish that Mr. Obama had made this point effectively in the debate. He had every right to jump up and say, “There you go again”: Not only was Mr. Romney’s claim fundamentally dishonest, it has already been extensively debunked, and the Romney campaign itself has admitted that it’s false.

For whatever reason, the president didn’t do that, on health care or on anything else. But, as I said, never mind the theater criticism.

What is odd about this is that in the debate, rather than being unaccountably silent, Obama made precisely the point that Krugman did in his column. When Romney completed his answer, Obama said:

But let’s go back to what Governor Romney indicated, that under his plan he would be able to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Well, actually, Governor, that isn’t what your plan does. What your plan does is to duplicate what’s already the law, which says if you are out of health insurance for three months then you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can’t deny you if you’ve — if it’s been under 90 days.

But that’s already the law. And that doesn’t help the millions of people out there with pre-existing conditions. There’s a reason why Governor Romney set up the plan that he did in Massachusetts. It wasn’t a government takeover of health care. It was the largest expansion of private insurance. But what it does say is that insurers, you’ve got to take everybody.

So Obama misrepresented the extent to which Romney’s plan would change existing law, exactly as Krugman did. To which Romney responded:

And with regards to health care, you had remarkable details with regards to my pre-existing condition plan. You obviously studied up on — on my plan. In fact, I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions. That’s part of my health care plan. And what we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation, state by state. And I said that at that time. The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America to have a stronger, more vibrant economy.

So the very point that Krugman thought was missing from the debate was, in fact, thoroughly hashed out by the participants. Apparently Krugman was not paying close attention during the debate, and didn’t bother to check the transcript to make sure that the claim he made was correct. This is consistent with my impression that Krugman dashes off his Times columns in a half hour or less. Next time, he should exercise more care before declaring that those who disagree with him on issues of public policy are liars.

I see a lot of typing ABSENT links to supporting facts and data. (blogs) Don’t count! Raw data from the source please. Cite source, complete quotes, and URL please. You all can best make your points with proper factual citations.

Still waiting for facts/stats folks.

-Faye….always great to hear from the “peanut gallery”….:-)

Define – Bigot
Define – Yankee
Define…..Define….

” see a lot of typing ABSENT links to supporting facts and data. (blogs) Don’t count! Raw data from the source please. ”

Blogs offer this just as did your link to the Jayson Blair Times, dont be ridiculous.

“Cite source, complete quotes, and URL please.”

I did

” You all can best make your points with proper factual citations.”

You should try this sometime. One of your first posts here requested that we “look it up”.

Bullsht Ron.
The column was dissected by comparison to readily available stats

“Still waiting for facts/stats folks.”

Yea, and then you’ll beat up the source.

Sources ?
Pertaining to what exactly ?
That Krugmans a liar ?
Blacks are worse off in red states ?
(maybe because they’re not welfare states ?
Or this just some pedantic attempt to cloud the issue with irrelevant crap ?

On the “where are blacks worse off ” issue I’m not going to play this ideologically bigoted game of yours that insists somehow blacks are worse off in red states, or that red states receive the most fed revenues.
On this you need to make the distinction as to where in those red states those fed dollars are directed. They are directed more at infrastructure,physical and state human resources and not freebees.
The blue states steer these funds to social and freebee programs.
================================================
Disclaimer;
I use the word freebees as opposed to “entitlements” which technically means “you actually posses title/ownership to reception.
================================================

Chicago is blue.
NY is blue.
Michigan is blue.
Cal. is blue.
Fla. went blue.
Louisiana is blue.
Mississippi is blue.
Illinois is blue.
Jersey is blue.
Penn is blue.
Ohio is blue.
Mass. is blue.
Per capita these states hold the majority of black poverty

Mississippi is 2nd from the top of the list and voted Republican only after losers Blanco and Nagan gave example of liberal incompetence by way of Katrina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi#Demographics
“As with all other U.S. states and the federal government, Mississippi’s government is based on the separation of legislative, executive and judicial power. Executive authority in the state rests with the Governor, currently Phil Bryant (R). The Lieutenant Governor, currently Tate Reeves (R), is elected on a separate ballot. Both the governor and lieutenant governor are elected to four-year terms of office. Unlike the federal government, but like many other U.S. States, most of the heads of major executive departments are elected by the citizens of Mississippi rather than appointed by the governor.”

Its elementary, and as McCain pointed out the obvious, poverty stricken populations vote dem yo receive fed/state aid.
Blacks have been voting dem since the early 60s and are still b!tching about the same crap.
=============
Moderation allows one link per post.

“M – Then how about you take his (Krugman’s) piece in the Times and pick it apart point by point rather than “BHWAA-ing” away?”
==========================

Okay.
First of all, Krugmans article is 10 months old.
Many states thought to be in Mitts corner turned out to vote for the Distributor in Chief.
Barrys list of giveaways far surpasses any govt. supplements offered by Mitt.
But, we’ll take it at Feb/12 value.

===========

“Modern Republicans are very, very conservative; you might even (if you were Mitt Romney) say, severely conservative.”

This is just an opinion of a journalist who upon general consensus is very liberal.
So, anything he calls “severely/very conservative” .
What he did not know in Feb is that among conservatives Mitt was seen as not conservative enough.
This is made evident by his flops on many issues only to appeal to a more conservative base, abortion, Mass. healthcare etc.

“Political scientists who use Congressional votes to measure such things find that the current G.O.P. majority is the most conservative since 1879, which is as far back as their estimates go.”

As Ron would demand of myself and Patrick…

“Patrick – DATA please! ”
================================================
I typically find that conseratives with a lazy “everyone knows” view of issues, turn out to be wrong 9 out of 10 times”

Data please ! (turnabout is a beetch, aint it Ron ?
================================================

“Yeah sorry. I’m one of those “intellectual bots” who needs proof as a basis for my opinions. Research and confirm sources, vet them, get to the truth. Silly stuff like that.”

So, should Krugman not also be subject to your requirements of us conservatives ?
What “political scientists is Krugman speaking of that back this claim ?
And wheres his data proving the 1879 timeline ?
================================================

And what these severe conservatives hate, above all, is reliance on government programs. Rick Santorum declares that President Obama is getting America hooked on “the narcotic of dependency.” Mr. Romney warns that government programs “foster passivity and sloth.” Representative Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, requires that staffers read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” in which heroic capitalists struggle against the “moochers” trying to steal their totally deserved wealth, a struggle the heroes win by withdrawing their productive effort and giving interminable speeches.”

Once again, Krugmans claim of conservatives “hating” reliance on government programs.
================================================

“Many readers of The Times were, therefore, surprised to learn, from an excellent article published last weekend, that the regions of America most hooked on Mr. Santorum’s narcotic — the regions in which government programs account for the largest share of personal income — are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives. ”

What article ?
================================================”Wasn’t Red America supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people don’t eat Thai food and don’t rely on handouts?”

I made this case in the previous post.
Red states have lower welfare costs per capita as blue states carry a larger population of minorities and minority poverty per capita
================================================

“The article made its case with maps showing the distribution of dependency, but you get the same story from a more formal comparison. Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.”

Sorry Krugman, “transfers” does not interpret to individual welfare recipients.
And, Gallup has a reputation for leaning left as Rasmussen does for leaning right.
================================================

“Now, there’s no mystery about red-state reliance on government programs.”

Its no mystery that all states rely on government programs

” These states are relatively poor,”

Bullsht. “relative” is subjective to ones determination/description of wealth.
Blue states hold the largest cities and populations all of which are the most in debt and closest to bankruptcy
================================================

“which means both that people have fewer sources of income other than safety-net programs and that more of them qualify for “means-tested” programs such as Medicaid.”

“MEANS TESTED “?

Medicaid is being rejected by more doctors everyday and is thousands of times over its 1960s forecasted budget and quickly becoming insolvent or unsustainable due to abuse, fraud, and quantities of enrollment never imagined.
================================================

“By the way, the same logic explains why there has been a jump in dependency since 2008. ”

This jump is on the presidents watch which has caused more people to enroll in more govt. freebees than ever before.

“Contrary to what Mr. Santorum and Mr. Romney suggest, Mr. Obama has not radically expanded the safety net. Rather, the dire state of the economy has reduced incomes and made more people eligible for benefits, especially unemployment benefits. Basically, the safety net is the same, but more people are falling into it.”

Once again, whos fault is this at 8% unemployment (not counting those who’ve quit looking) for 4 straight years ?
================================================
“But why do regions that rely on the safety net elect politicians who want to tear it down? I’ve seen three main explanations.

First, there is Thomas Frank’s thesis in his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”: working-class Americans are induced to vote against their own interests by the G.O.P.’s exploitation of social issues. And it’s true that, for example, Americans who regularly attend church are much more likely to vote Republican, at any given level of income, than those who don’t.”

Maybe they vote against it because they have the courage to not run the country broke or saddle future generations with their debt ?
===============================================

Still, as Columbia University’s Andrew Gelman points out, the really striking red-blue voting divide is among the affluent: High-income residents of red states are overwhelmingly Republican; high-income residents of blue states only mildly more Republican than their poorer neighbors. ”

He fails to mention that conservatives and republicans are the most charitable and altruistic demographic on earth and in America.

Like Mr. Frank, Mr. Gelman invokes social issues, but in the opposite direction. Affluent voters in the Northeast tend to be social liberals who would benefit from tax cuts but are repelled by things like the G.O.P.’s war on contraception.”

There is no war on contraception.
Its available most anywhere.
Forcing Christians to supply contraception is the true war.
======================================

“Finally, Cornell University’s Suzanne Mettler points out that many beneficiaries of government programs seem confused about their own place in the system. She tells us that 44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government program.””

This is disingenuous.
Everyone uses government programs.
The ones Mettler invokes are peoples own money paid into individual accounts.
WISE UP FOR CRUSTS SAKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
================================================
“Presumably, then, voters imagine that pledges to slash government spending mean cutting programs for the idle poor, not things they themselves count on.”

“Presumably” is subjective.

” And this is a confusion politicians deliberately encourage. For example, when Mr. Romney responded to the new Obama budget, he condemned Mr. Obama for not taking on entitlement spending — and, in the very next breath, attacked him for cutting Medicare.”

Thats because idiots keep confusing “entitlement” with “deserved”

“The truth, of course, is that the vast bulk of entitlement spending goes to the elderly, the disabled, and working families, so any significant cuts would have to fall largely on people who believe that they don’t use any government program.”

Dear Mr. Krugman you’ve already stated as a presumption, which I debunked, that these people believe that they don’t use any government program.”
No one is that stupid.
But, its no surprise,liberals assume too much based on their self proclaimed intelligence they think only comes from academia.

“The message I take from all this is that pundits who describe America as a fundamentally conservative country are wrong. Yes, voters sent some severe conservatives to Washington. But those voters would be both shocked and angry if such politicians actually imposed their small-government agenda.”

Hey ass hole, I got news for you.
These conservatives took over the house by votes from those who want smaller government.

I hope someone is getting Micky a keyboard for Christmas, this one must be worn out. Either from too much use (or pounding).

I had to quit reading after the first three “chapters”.

And another

http://www.wrko.com/blog/todd/oreilly-blasts-krugman-and-ny-times

Ron, its not necessarily the “non payers” as your NYTs charts show.
Its the “takers” that pay disproportionaly less.
Which is why all most populated eastern liberal coastal blue states are the “brokest” in the nation.
And, are also the ones that voted for subsidies that far excelled their contributions.
Cal… broke beyond comprehension.
NY…broke

You saw the list.
Quit while you’re “a head”