Despite a bipartisan effort...

Your analogy is lacking (not that I disagree with your point)....BUT knowing how to drive the car has nothing to do with knowing how to fix the car.

A mechanic can fix a car, but that doesn't make him a race car driver.

Hell, I'm sure that 99.99% of airplane mechanics can't fly the airplane's they fix.

I'm sure you see why your analogy is a bad one for expressing your point now.

You don't seem to realize that nobody is looking to Republicans for economic advice any longer. It was your bunch who crashed the car into a wall,..

Cyclo wrote:

You don't seem to realize that nobody is looking to Republicans for economic advice any longer. It was your bunch who crashed the car into a wall,..

You're demonstrating your radical leftist tendencies here...these couple election cycles are just a normal "market correction"...in a few years, the tide will turn again as people forget the sins of the Repubs and come to the realization that the Dems are even more corrupt, power hungry, ineffective and arrogant. This bill and other Dem over-reach we will surely see over the next couple years will only help to make it happen more quickly.

Did you note that fully 50% of voters feel this particular bill will only make things worse according to Rasumussen? Obama, as well as a number of the more intelligent Dems, recognize that, and are doing their darndest to salvage the bill. But swapping one Congressman's pork for another's isn't going to cut the mustard...this bill will fail, face it...

Your team will be in an electoral hole for at least the next decade. You need to take a look at the math of the situation before declaring this 'normal.'

You seem to be assuming that the voters of the country are going to become... more Republican.

Following the unanimous Republican opposition to the economic stimulus bill proposed by and House Democrats, the GOP has narrowed the gap this week on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveys found that the Democrats’ lead is down to four percentage points--42% of voters said they would vote for their district’s Democratic candidate while 38% said they would choose the Republican (see crosstabs).

A week ago, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point lead.

I've got no idea about Rasmussens political affiliation, but his polls are his polls...argue his population, or questions, or analysis, but whether Rasmussen is Republican or not has no bearing on the question.

Cyclo wrote:

Your team will be in an electoral hole for at least the next decade. You need to take a look at the math of the situation before declaring this 'normal.'

You seem to be assuming that the voters of the country are going to become... more Republican.

The change is already occurring directly attributable to the Democrats botching this stimulus bill....

Rasmussen wrote:

Following the unanimous Republican opposition to the economic stimulus bill proposed by and House Democrats, the GOP has narrowed the gap this week on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveys found that the Democrats’ lead is down to four percentage points--42% of voters said they would vote for their district’s Democratic candidate while 38% said they would choose the Republican (see crosstabs).

A week ago, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point lead.

It's a small step forward, but we'll recover and in far less than a decade if the Dems continue this heavy-handed far left shtick they're currently engaged on. After all, how long did it take Repubs to recover from the truly disastrous presidency of Nixon? Four years...

Frankly, whether the bill passes or no, it is quite amusing to watch our new Chicken Little President, crying "the sky is falling" while a gaggle of Democrat Congressman emphasize his impotence by doing an end-run around him in order to bring home the pork.

And I certainly don't hope things get worst...I don't think things are so bad now....things have been much worse within my lifetime. In fact, I'm certain things will get better....probably within Obama's tenure. Our economy is far too strong to collapse because of a few temporary economic down-turns and the bankruptcy of a few out-dated and uncompetetive industries. I just don't think we need to saddle ourselves and our children with a life-long legacy of debt simply to show that we are doing something. It's something like suicide...a [near]permanent solution to a temporary problem.

And Obama is a popular and strong leader.

If things do get better, and the Republicans opposed the stimulus plan in favor of doing nothing, they are in pretty big trouble. I think you realize this is true.

Cyclo wrote:

And Obama is a popular and strong leader.

And you concluded this based upon a presidency of what....17 days...ok....
that seems to becoming a trend of you libs, making judgements and decisions on presidents and spending money with little or no fore-thought and even less reasoning...

Quote:

If things do get better, and the Republicans opposed the stimulus plan in favor of doing nothing, they are in pretty big trouble. I think you realize this is true.

I can play the "if" game as well as you....If the bill passes and things get worst...or if it fails to pass and things get better, then Dems will look pretty foolish. However, as I said before, things will get better, with or without this bill...so why incur the debt?

You don't seem to be recognizing the strong possibility that things could get worse long before they get better. The bill is an attempt to stop the bleeding, not instantly heal the patient.

Cyclo wrote:

You don't seem to be recognizing the strong possibility that things could get worse long before they get better. The bill is an attempt to stop the bleeding, not instantly heal the patient.

The operative phrase above being "could get worse"...pray tell what evidence do you have for this assertion? This is simply part of the scare tactics that Obama and the dems are engaged in to try and force Repubs to support the bill.

And how long do you think the public will withhold blaming the Dems if things get worse? Especially since the Dems hold almost all the political power to presumably make things better. I contend that folks will be looking for economic improvement within six months, especially after spending almost a trillion dollars. It will not serve Dems well if they have nothing to show for it in two or four years.

Odd, you're not the first Republican to claim that it's fear-mongering to claim that things could get worse if you don't do anything.

The operative phrase above being "could get worse"...pray tell what evidence do you have for this assertion?

I did answer the question you asked. Marxist-tinged is something less than full blown Marxism but which shares characteristics of Marxism. If you think some of the contents of the stimulus packages with their mandates re business, production, salary caps, etc. etc. is not Marxist-tinged, then I don't know how better to explain it.

Quote:

I did answer the question you asked. Marxist-tinged is something less than full blown Marxism but which shares characteristics of Marxism. If you think some of the contents of the stimulus packages with their mandates re business, production, salary caps, etc. etc. is not Marxist-tinged, then I don't know how better to explain it.

You're still completely ducking my question -- or you sincerely dont understand the point I'm making.

I know what you mean with "Marxist-tinged". You mean bad lefty stuff. I know what you mean with "socialist". You mean bad lefty stuff.

The lack of understanding what these terms mean beyond "really leftwing stuff" just gets funny when you start randomly combining them. As in the case that set me off, when you raised the accusation of "Marxist-tinged socialism". I mean, Marxist-tinged socialism? As opposed to what? Non-Marxist socialism? Why, would that be any better?

Marxist-tinged liberalism - now there I can kinda imagine what you'd mean (at least in the US context, where "liberal" means something else than everywhere else in the world). I'd guess that would mean your typical liberal stuff, but with some truly pinko beliefs thrown in - hence "Marxist-tinged". "Socialist-tinged liberalism," I suppose, would be interchangeable for you then?

But attaching that ominous sounding adjective "Marxist-tinged" if you're already calling him a socialist doesnt even make any sense. I mean, sure, there have been non-Marxist socialists, but they wouldnt be any better in your eyes. So it's basically the equivalent of calling something "fascist-tinged Nazism". Gee, fascist-tinged Nazism! Well, that's really bad then!

Basically: better not to parrot labels like these if you dont know what the distinctions between them are or what they mean beyond "pinko commie stuff" in a general sense. Or maybe play it safe and just use one at a time. Calling Obama a socialist will still be ridiculous on substance, but at least the sentence will make sense as a sentence, instead of devolving into a Dadaist kind of random mix'n'match.

Quote:

I know what you mean with "Marxist-tinged". You mean bad lefty stuff. I know what you mean with "socialist". You mean bad lefty stuff.

No. I mean Marxist-tinged stuff. I even provided a specific definition by what I mean by "Marxist"

There is a non-Marxist socialism actually, but I am far too tired to draw the distinction between Marxism and other socialist philosophies.

Quote:

Marxist-tinged liberalism - now there I can kinda imagine what you'd mean (at least in the US context, where "liberal" means something else than everywhere else in the world). I'd guess that would mean your typical liberal stuff, but with some truly pinko beliefs thrown in - hence "Marxist-tinged". "Socialist-tinged liberalism," I suppose, would be interchangeable for you then?

Did you get some bad meat or something today Nimh? You're being uncharacteristically combative and drawing personally insulting conclusions for which you have no basis.

But I recognize a socialist program when I see one. They don't teach you that stuff where you went to school?

I do hope that you are aware that when Tito broke away from the Soviet Union's MARXIST LENINISM, his variant became a formof MARXIST SOCIALISM.

I am sure that you are fearful that the general public will identify Obama's Socialist leanings with Marxism. He would, of course,lose support.