So Steve, what did you think about that Seahawks-Steelers super bowl game? Were the referees gaming it? You think the penalties were fair? How about the halftime show, did you like that?
Just asking, because I know you've already made up your mind on future unknown events.
Remember, don't let those pesky facts get in the way of your preconceived opinions, k?
Posted by muckdog at January 25, 2006 12:54 PMYou're a dick muckdog.
Posted by snark at January 25, 2006 01:03 PM
As far as the SOTU goes I haven't watched one since 2002. They're about as worthwhile as one of McClellan's press briefings.
Posted by snark at January 25, 2006 01:04 PMMuck, what would you or any other GOP know about facts?
Posted by goose1 at January 25, 2006 01:08 PMYou're a dick muckdog.
You seem surprised, snark. This is common knowlege.
BTW, why ruin a good drinking game by watching the SOTU? Nothing true is ever said when the chimp opens its yap.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 25, 2006 01:09 PM"known fact" Those words are a scream. It's a "known fact" that Iraq has WMD's etc. LOL. "Known fact" means that the GOP has repeated a lie over and over.
Posted by Ga6thDem at January 25, 2006 01:17 PMYou seem surprised, snark. This is common knowlege.
Sometimes it just needs saying.
Posted by snark at January 25, 2006 01:32 PMMuckcock,
GOPians are not allowed to bring up the matter of facts, for two reasons. First, you fucking assholes claim to come from a "faith-based" perpective, and we "fact/reality-based" saps are unworthy of your respect. Right, asshole?
Second, Facts have been kicking the shit out of you bastards, and you've lost the right to play the "facts" card.
Shorter version: Fuck off, hypocrite.
Posted by God Of War at January 25, 2006 01:39 PMHere's a prediction for Sotu....
9/11 yada yada terrerist yada yada 9/11 blah blah freedom yada 9/11, 9/11, blah blah terrerists.
This will go on for 30-40 minutes and the sheep will bleat and dream of scary arabs.
Pathetic.
Posted by SnarkyShark at January 25, 2006 01:47 PMask mucktroll to discuss the 30,000 Ford workers down the drain in Bush's great economy...should be worth some chuckles.
SOTU - Has Bush ever done anything but lie in this speech. DON"T watch the liar....let the ratings go down the tube, along with his approval %.
Posted by T2 at January 25, 2006 01:54 PMHow about framing in a way that Muck might understand?
Muck, you are all about predicting the future in the markets. Why cannot we do analysis of the future based on previous performance/behavior?
If a company continually underperforms and you always loose money on it, why in the hell should you expect it to do any better this time around.
Add to that the preview of his proposed HSA plan, and one can only conclude that yet another disaster is on the horizon. His view of HSA's are somewhat similar to your view of why people can't make it in the market like you do. It's just so easy, and everyone is just so damned healthy, right?
HSA's are a freaking joke. They may very well work for a portion of the US population, but it will do nada to address healthcare costs (which HSA's seem to assume that the problem with healthcare costs is simply the cost of insurance). It does nothing to address prescription drug costs. But most importantly, Bush is trying to address a percieved problem of people relying too much on health care because they are insured. They are trying to get people to stay away from healthcare unless it is absolutely neccessary. Nevermind how much preventative healthcare is shown to keep healthcare costs in check.
I'm happy to go on record, without even seeing the plan details, saying that this plan is going to follow the paths of the Social Security, and prescription drug debacles; it will go down in flames. Well there will be some sort of token legislation, such that they can claim a (false) victory out of it.
The problem, once again, is that this administration cares nothing about sound public policy. They only care about politics, perception and power.
As I've said before Muck, we all live in a bubble to some extent, but for some freaking reason you can't see 2 feet past your own. The world looks pretty simple and easy from box seats, doesn't it?
Posted by Simp at January 25, 2006 01:54 PMI think Simp's got it.
I believe, judging on past performance, that the 90+ minutes of my life will be better invested in reading with my 6 year old daughter than in listening to more worthless pap struggle across the lips of George W. Bush.
Posted by snark at January 25, 2006 02:03 PMOh, and muckdog, how about a prediction from you.
When's the NEXT time the Dow will close over 11,000?
Posted by snark at January 25, 2006 02:05 PMask mucktroll to discuss the 30,000 Ford workers down the drain in Bush's great economy...should be worth some chuckles.
Managers negotiated a horrible deal with the unions. They also made some bad decisions on which vehicles to produce. They lose about $1500 on every car they sell. Not a viable business model.
But the economy is still growing by 180K jobs per month. More than enough with an unemployment rate below 5%. And if some horse-and-buggy business goes away, something else seems to be growing. Good jobs, too. Wages are up.
We've had 10 consecutive quarters of at least 3% GDP. A record. Never been done before. It's the longest expansion at this rate ever.
The world looks pretty simple and easy from box seats, doesn't it?
I wasn't born in the box seats. Took a long time and tons of work to get here. Which is my point. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy.
Who was Bill Gates before Microsoft? Nobody.
Who was Jim Cramer before his Investing, CNBC and TheStreet fame? Nobody. He slept in his car.
Etc.
These folks work tirelessly. And if you're not, that's why you ain't them. And that's why you're not in the Box Seats.
Posted by muckdog at January 25, 2006 02:27 PMWhen's the NEXT time the Dow will close over 11,000?
It's not really a diversified index, so I don't track it as closely as I do the total market index. Small and mid cap stocks have been doing well. The DOW also has a few stocks that have been weighing it down, but are starting to look like attractive buys.
I think the trend is still up, and if this is the case then a diversified index like the total stock market should participate in the up trend. I don't know about the DOW; it's just 30 companies.
Posted by muckdog at January 25, 2006 02:32 PMYeah, well, it took a long time and lotsa money to get where I am....back in school, sucking away my savings.
Oh, and like every other word in the English language, George Bush's defintion of "fix" isn't the same as the rest of the country's....or at least the 58% who know white is white and black is black and war ain't peace.
Posted by Sharon at January 25, 2006 02:34 PMWages are up.
Where?
from the Economic Policy Institute:
Hourly Wages Have Fallen in 18 of the Last 20 Months
Real hourly earnings were down 0.5% and weekly earnings fell by 0.4% between December 2004 and December 2005 (note that these values, reported by the BLS, use a different measure of price growth, the CPI-W, which rose slightly faster than the CPI-U last year).
On a year-over-year basis, real hourly earnings have fallen 18 out of the last 20 months (17 of 20 months for weekly earnings). The decline in real wages results from both faster inflation over the course of 2005 (up 3.4% for the year, and the fastest yearly price growth since 2000) and slower nominal wage growth over the past few years especially when compared to the pace that prevailed before the jobless recovery.
Using the CPI-U, in real terms the average wage of non-managerial workers (roughly 80% of the workforce) was $16.34 in December 2005, just about the same level in real dollars as the $16.36 level that prevailed in November 2001, the month the current recovery began. The comparable weekly values are $551 (November 2001) and $553 (December 2005).
Shit, I meant "long time and tons of work"
It's the lotsa money that's being used now.
It's not really a diversified index, so I don't track it as closely as I do the total market index.
Except of course when you get a hardon because you can come here and shout;
Dow 11,000!
Putz.
Posted by snark at January 25, 2006 02:42 PMThere's a place down the road from me called "The Cantina". They have decent tacos and smooth Tecate beer and you can watch Latin American soccer on telemundo.
I'm going there for the SOTU because not only will Bush not be on the tv, but I can also practice my spanish with Mexicans who don't mind if I mess up a word or two.
Also, most current presidents in Latin America pursue better policies for their people than our does. Good food, good sport y bueno compadres-it's the best plan I've had for the SOTU so far this century. : )
Why would anyone watch the SOTU speech? Furthermore, I do not know how one Democrat could sit there and listen to this lying sob.
Posted by Judith at January 25, 2006 03:11 PMThey have decent tacos and smooth Tecate beer and you can watch Latin American soccer on telemundo.
Mmmmm. Tecate! Like biting into a smooth beer apple. Negra Modelo is my favorite.
I wasn't born in the box seats. Took a long time and tons of work to get here.
Mmmmm. All this from a guy who doesn't have squat in the market.
We've had 10 consecutive quarters of at least 3% GDP. A record.
Only if you can't use Google. Then it becomes more like a Mackarel. No matter what happens, the Chumporer cannot have as many Qs of high GDP as Clinton. More proof that getting a blowjob is better than being an idiot.
Amazing. You look at the Clinton Administration, it's bracketed by negative GDP from the idiot son and poppy. But, you are an optimist. When given shit, you roll in it.
If ABC ran a new episode of "Lost" or CBS ran a new episode of "CSI", hell, if Fox ran a re-run of "American Idol" during the SOTU, the SOTU would get lower ratings.
Posted by Trieatalot at January 25, 2006 03:25 PMWe've had 10 consecutive quarters of at least 3% GDP. A record.
Only if you can't use Google. Then it becomes more like a Mackarel. No matter what happens, the Chumporer cannot have as many Qs of high GDP as Clinton.
I stand corrected. The last time we had this strong of an economy was from 1st quarter 1983 through 1st quarter 1986. We had 13 quarters of GDP > 3%.
Clinton never achieved this during the 90's. He had 8 quarters of GDP over 3%.
So, if you want to compare economic strength over the last 20 years, the rankings would be:
1. Reagan during the 80's.
2. Bush currently, and trying to set a new record
3. Clinton during the 90's.
Just reporting the truth.
Posted by muckdog at January 25, 2006 03:36 PMIt seems the natives are particularly restless today! I think you hit a nerve Muck or they suffer from a great amount of penis (cock) envy? What’s a matter, no sequel to Brokeback Mountain? The fact that next week Sam Alito will be sitting on the Supreme Court? Maybe it’s the realization that the NSA non-scandal just doesn’t have the legs you wanted? Maybe you guys should move to Canada…Whoops they just elected conservative government too! Cheer up maybe you can all move to Venezuela and buddy up like Cindy Sheehan to Hugo Chavez? I wonder what penis variation I will be called?
Posted by Cyber Sarge at January 25, 2006 03:53 PM"...Managers negotiated a horrible deal with the unions. They also made some bad decisions on which vehicles to produce. They lose about $1500 on every car they sell. Not a viable business model." muckie
And then there's the $40M (that's "million" with an "M") that Ford recently squandared to have the football stadium in Detroit carry the Ford name and corporate logo. Y'know, where this year's Super Bowl is being played. Now *that's* money well spent, huh mucky? (hat tip to TDS' Ron Corddry). Management, pheh! (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at January 25, 2006 04:10 PMThese folks work tirelessly. And if you're not, that's why you ain't them. And that's why you're not in the Box Seats.
I invite you to come spend a day in my shoes rasing 2 year old twins (with rhuematoid arthritis to boot). My wife spends 70 hours a week teaching doing climate related research (and still made time to breast feed twins until they weaned themselves).
Don't you, for a second, tell us, that we are working hard, you have no fucking clue. Thanks for proving my point that you can't see past your own experiences you prick.
Posted by Simp at January 25, 2006 04:22 PM1. Reagan during the 80's.
2. Bush currently, and trying to set a new record
3. Clinton during the 90's.
Where you're screwing up is that Clinton was repaying Reagan's debt.
1992 3.3
1993 2.7
1994 4.0
1995 2.5
1996 3.7
1997 4.5
1998 4.2
1999 4.5
2000 3.7
2001 0.8
2002 1.6
2003 2.7
2004 4.2
Chimpy is winning? You bet. All of Reagan's GDP went to the wealthy. Same as Busch. Of course, real wages didn't increase under Reagan, and the purchasing power of the dollar dropped like a rock. So the increase in GDP was fine...except no one except a few were doing any better. When you lose 30% of your purchasing power over 8 years, and your spouse now has to have a job to make ends meet (remember?), Reagan's miracle GDP did nothing for the average American.
Posted by phidipides at January 25, 2006 04:36 PMCheer up maybe you can all move to Venezuela and buddy up like Cindy Sheehan to Hugo Chavez?
I bet it gives you a woody that Chavez is supplying discount heating oil to poor people in America. That's what I like. Another country coming to the aid of the poor in 'Muruhca'.
I wonder what penis variation I will be called?
Flaccid no matter how stroked.
Posted by phidipides at January 25, 2006 04:46 PMAnyone else get a little creeped out by sarge's inordinate interest in penises? Can't stop talking about 'em. Not that there's anything wrong with it, of course.
Thank goodness for that Don't ask, don't tell, huh, li'l buddy?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 25, 2006 05:10 PMSo, if you want to compare economic strength over the last 20 years, the rankings would be: 1. Reagan during the 80's. 2. Bush currently, and trying to set a new record 3. Clinton during the 90's. Just reporting the truth. Posted by muckdogHere's a list showing the Bush Economy in contex Looks like Clinton beat Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I & II Here's a chart showing the growth of poverty in America. Note the uptick in the Bush years. Just the facts, sir, nothing but the facts. Posted by Mike at January 25, 2006 05:12 PM
Donald, $40M isn't going to do much to help 30,000 workers. That's just over $1300 per worker. Plus, the $40M spent at Detroit probably helps advertising and to sell more cars.
LOL, Phidip. You're really uninformed. Or misinformed. Either way. Hillarious.
Simp, sorry that you're having some difficult life experiences. Some things we choose for ourselves, some things we don't. Can't do much about the latter. I'm just addressing the former; and truly, that's where most of America is. Most of America chooses their destiny. And for those who don't, we help them out.
God bless the USA.
Posted by muckdog at January 25, 2006 05:20 PMMike, your post is from Angrybear. Those folks are rabidly anti-Bush, so I disregard their opinions on the current economy. And I'm not disagreeing that the 90's were good. Times have been good since the 80's. America is a great country.
But somebody at Angrybear will have to explain why they think money in the government's hands is better than money in your hands. And I do mean YOU. You're the ones who would get hit with tax hikes.
America is the land of opportunity, not the land of confiscation and redistribution.
Posted by muckdog at January 25, 2006 05:33 PMbush has united latin america chile, brazil, argentina, venezuela, soon mexico will swing left. if chavez was smart, he'd pull out of OPEC, complaining about the "non-democratic regimes" that run it, then form a new cartel with the new leftist pres of mexico.
Posted by benjoya at January 25, 2006 06:16 PM…. Those folks are rabidly anti-Bush, so I disregard their opinions on the current economy. And I'm not disagreeing that the 90's were good. Times have been good since the 80's… Posted by muckdog aThe chart and analysis is from Angry Bear. I'm sorry that facts are partisan, but numbers are numbers. I find that site is politically moderate. They all support free trade, which is inimical to the interests of American workers.
I have to disagree that times have been good since the 80's. The 80's sucked. I remember the biggest recession since the great depression. I remember Reagan signing the biggest tax increase, adjusted for inflation, in history. I disagree with your assessment on taxes. Taxes were higher during the Clinton years, business was better, jobs were more plentiful and paid better, poverty was decreasing, budgets were balanced, and the deficit was being reduced. Your discussion on taxes fails to note that deficit spending is really a tax increase in the future, either for current or upcoming taxpayers.
If the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire, the way they are designed, taxes would merely revert to the Clinton levels. They were not a problem then and they won't be now.
What we have now in this country is a massive re-distribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy. It is interesting that you complain when you assume the converse and silent with current conditions.
Who was Jim Cramer before his Investing, CNBC and TheStreet fame? Nobody. He slept in his car.
Etc.
These folks work tirelessly. And if you're not, that's why you ain't them. And that's why you're not in the Box Seats.
Posted by muckdog at January 25, 2006 02:27 PM
*****
Don't fucking drag Jim Cramer into this. He's not on your side. BTW, he went to Harvard Law. He was never a "nobody" from "nowhere."
Yeah, there are a few of us that through hard work and dumb luck find ourselves in the position of running things. That is not the way of life for 90% of the population, and they are the ones who really make this nation run. They are the working middle class, the true heroes of this economy. Your contempt for them is sickening, and Jim Cramer would call your sorry ass out on your haughty disdain. He'd give you a "BOOYAH? NO SCREW YA!"
He's on our side. So is Buffet. And Gates. They "get it." Your K-Street leeches, on the other hand, are wholly unworthy of our respect.
Posted by God Of War at January 25, 2006 06:31 PMlmao,
Muck still misses the point, in its entirety... as usual.
Posted by Simp at January 25, 2006 06:33 PMBut somebody at Angrybear will have to explain why they think money in the government's hands is better than money in your hands.
How about: because under Reagan and GW bush, our country borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars from China, and the people who borrowed it in our name are the only ones who can pay it back. I don't know where to send the checks. Do you?
Clinton was actually paying off the national debt, but paying off loans is not the Republican way. I sure wish I could treat my mortgage with the indifference Bush treats the national debt.
Maybe you can explain why it is in our national interest to be owned by China and Saudi Arabia.
Posted by Repack Rider at January 25, 2006 06:33 PM"He's on our side. So is Buffet. And Gates. They "get it." Your K-Street leeches, on the other hand, are wholly unworthy of our respect."
What????? You mean there are rich LIBERALS out there???? I'm shocked. SHOCKED. So when the Dem's attack the "rich" I guess they are attacking their own.
BTW, KErry is one of the richest Senator's - ever.
BTW Steve, if your side hadn't opposed drilling for oil in our own country the past 20 years, we'd BE energy dependent by now. That rhetoric is so transparent nowadays.
Also, the terrorists ARE on the run. I guess OBL (or whoever is impersonating him) wants a truce because THEY are winning. Geez.
Posted by David at January 25, 2006 07:15 PMOBL (or whoever is impersonating him) wants a truce
see, cause he's scared, but that doesn't mean he's alive, in fact, i'll bet dear leader killed him cause he was probably in iraq all along, and the imposter osama is afraisd we'll kill him cause his fake beard won't come off, yeah, that's the ticket.
"smoke him out," good one, dear leader.
Posted by benjoya at January 25, 2006 07:26 PM"He's on our side. So is Buffet. And Gates. They "get it." Your K-Street leeches, on the other hand, are wholly unworthy of our respect."
What????? You mean there are rich LIBERALS out there???? I'm shocked. SHOCKED. So when the Dem's attack the "rich" I guess they are attacking their own.
BTW, KErry is one of the richest Senator's - ever.
BTW Steve, if your side hadn't opposed drilling for oil in our own country the past 20 years, we'd BE energy dependent by now. That rhetoric is so transparent nowadays.
Also, the terrorists ARE on the run. I guess OBL (or whoever is impersonating him) wants a truce because THEY are winning. Geez.
Posted by David at January 25, 2006 07:15 PM
*****
You're just pathetically stupid, aren't you.
Osama's message was a TAUNT, you clueless fuck.
And there are nowhere near sufficient oil reserves in America. We'd drill it if there were, dumbshit. There's that little pool up in Alaska (that will be exported to Japan...yep, that's right), and apparently some off the coast of Florida, but fucking Jeb refused to allow drilling there. In any event, America is not an oil rich nation by any stretch of your puny imagination. What a stupid, clueless, utterly uninformed troll you are. You want to come on here and debate, at least get your fucking facts straight. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and save the bandwith.
Posted by God Of War at January 25, 2006 07:32 PMYeah, david, we're just sitting on top of the world's largest oil fields, only we just aren't permitted to drill 'em. Damn environmentalists!
Discovery of American oil fields peaked in the 50s; our production peaked in 1970. Read a book.
Our available undrilled reserves wouldn't make us energy independent for a year.
America's only hope for energy independence is through conservation---and if YOUR side hadn't opposed every energy conservation proposal for the past 20 years, we'd be energy independent today.
Posted by euzoius at January 25, 2006 07:36 PMBTW Steve, if your side hadn't opposed drilling for oil in our own country the past 20 years, we'd BE energy dependent by now. That rhetoric is so transparent nowadays.
Oh, my. We've got to go into ANWR again, too?
"Even a modest improvement in fuel-economy standards - say, thirty-two miles per gallow for cars and twenty-four miles per gallow for light trucks - would by 2010 be saving 2.7 million barrels per day - or nearly twice as much as could be pumped every day from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."
"You open up ANWR, and the only difference is that by 2020 we're importing 62 percent of our oil instead of 64 percent."
So, sure let's talk about energy independence, and you can start by lobbying your congressmen to get to work on raising CAFE standards. Times a wastin'.
Posted by ann at January 25, 2006 07:46 PMGotta love it when someone makes such a clueless remark that you can't really believe that they believe it.
Does claiming that if we'd been drilling for oil the past 20 years, in every place in the US that there may possibly be oil, that we'd be energy independent completely obliterate the need to give any credit to anything else that person says?
I mean Christ. If you're gonna make partisan attacks at least try to ground them in some sort of reality.
Posted by snark at January 25, 2006 07:48 PMAmerica's only hope for energy independence is through conservation---and if YOUR side hadn't opposed every energy conservation proposal for the past 20 years, we'd be energy independent today.
Posted by euzoius at January 25, 2006 07:36 PM
****
Exactly. The GOP has constantly and consistently opposed any energy conservation efforts, most notably in fleet MPG requirements. The Anwar reserve holds less than a year's worth of domestic consumption, clearly not the answer to energy independence. Energy independence, I believe, lies in a mixed bag of conservation, alternative fuels, and new technology. All of these have been clearly stifled by the GOP. I've said this before and here goes again, Bush is the worst president at the worst time in our history.
Also, the terrorists ARE on the run. I guess OBL (or whoever is impersonating him) wants a truce because THEY are winning. Geez.
Posted by David at January 25, 2006 07:15 PM
****
Looks like Dave is back on the crack-pipe. Guess that third time at rehab just didn't work out. He's comin' back for another political ass-whippin'. Again.
"worst president at the worst time in our history"
Right on, sf!
Of course, the citizenry did actually elect one of the most qualified candidates in history in 2000, but, tough luck.
We needed a genius and we got a drug-crazed, ignorant nitwit. A bad fate--like a kingdom having a retarded monarch, you're screwed.
Posted by euzoius at January 25, 2006 08:16 PM"worst president at the worst time in our history"
Right on, sf!
Of course, the citizenry did actually elect one of the most qualified candidates in history in 2000, but, tough luck.
We needed a genius and we got a drug-crazed, ignorant nitwit. A bad fate--like a kingdom having a retarded monarch, you're screwed.
Posted by euzoius at January 25, 2006 08:16 PM
****
Agreed. At another point in history, we might have been able to whether a Bush, but it's such a critical point and then to have him? I also agree with you about Gore, one of the biggest losses this country will ever have known.
Sure things are going well for quicksand-canine. Out of the kindness of Steve's heart, she\he\it, is allowed to blog-clog here, and get paid by the White House for wasting bandwidth.
Upon hearing the first lie, (should not take long), from the Supreme Commander of the Universe, the dems should start reading a copy of "My Pet Goat". On the second lie, all walk out in unison.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 25, 2006 11:34 PM"Osama's message was a TAUNT, you clueless fuck."
I see, a proposal of a truce is a taunt. LOL.
God of War for all your blustering, you really don't deal with logic too much do you?
...you really don't deal with logic too much do you?
Do you? Your inane comments declare that you don't.
Posted by pessimist at January 26, 2006 06:29 AMBush: "I, Claudius"...
Posted by Heywood Djernowatsnext Soidonthavetosayit at January 27, 2006 10:38 AM