Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

posted at 8:00 am on April 15, 2012 by Allahpundit

The good news? Now that Romney’s locked things up, we’re spared the drearily predictable Santorum/Gingrich chat-show hits on Sunday. The bad news? Instead we’ve got TurboTax Tim recycling his compelling “we have no fiscal solutions but we don’t like yours” message. He’s on all three major networks this a.m. so be sure to make your morning coffee an Irish one.

Elsewhere, Axelrod will turn up on Fox to see how many Hilary Rosen questions he can deflect with his “war on women” jujitsu. The line-up via WaPo:

NBC’s Meet the Press: Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY); Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN); former Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN); Mike Murphy, Republican strategist; Savannah Guthrie, NBC; Chuck Todd, NBC

ABC’s This Week: Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner; Cokie Roberts, ABC; Melody Barnes, former Obama domestic policy adviser; Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal; Kevin Madden, advisor to the Romney campaign; Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation

CBS’ Face the Nation: Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner; Sen. John McCain (R-AZ); Michael Eric Dyson, Georgetown University; Toure, Time; Jack Ford, CBS; Mark Strassmann, CBS; Maria Cardona, Democratic strategist; Ruth Marcus, Washington Post; Norah O’Donnell, CBS; John Dickerson, CBS

Fox News Sunday: David Axelrod, Obama campaign chief strategist; Ed Gillespie, senior Romney campaign adviser

CNN’s State of the Union: Bill Cosby; RNC Chairman Reince Priebus; Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY); Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA); Dan Balz, The Washington Post; Matt Bai, New York Times


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Instead we’ve got TurboTax Tim recycling his compelling “we have no fiscal solutions but we don’t like yours” message.

Great! We’ll look forward to his timely tax-preparation tips!

itsnotaboutme on April 15, 2012 at 8:04 AM

I suppose it wouild be too much to expect that the MSM would ask Turbo Tax Timmy about Columbian hookers…

Wethal on April 15, 2012 at 8:04 AM

I suppose it wouild be too much to expect that the MSM would ask Turbo Tax Timmy about Columbian hookers…

Wethal on April 15, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Especially since the Secret Service falls under the Treasury Department.

Mini-14 on April 15, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Karma can be a beyutch. Last week was supposed to be Buffett Rule week, and the Zimmeran charges and Rosen’s “war on owmen” gaffe blew that meme.

I assume that this week was supposed to be more Buffett Rule, with Timmy leading the charge, but now we have Columbian hookers.

Goodness knows what the Fates have in store for a October surprise for the Dems.

Wethal on April 15, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Great! We’ll look forward to his timely tax-preparation tips!

itsnotaboutme on April 15, 2012 at 8:04 AM

You could be put in jail if you follow Tim’s timely tax-preparation tips. After all, taxes are for the “little people.”

Gladtobehere on April 15, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Fair and balanced?

A quick look at the people on the Sunday Shows™ shows about 90% are stark raving Progressives.

NickDeringer on April 15, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Pet Peeve Alert:

Columbia = An allegorical figure whose name means “The Americas”
Colombia = A South American Country

BierManVA on April 15, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Yes, please remind folks — on the weekend they are completing their taxes — that most in the Obama Administration (along with their patron saint of higher taxes Warren Buffet) refuse to pay theirs. Go for it, Timmy. Tell us why we should pay more — and you shouldn’t.

Rational Thought on April 15, 2012 at 8:23 AM

I see CBS is loaded with all lefties and John Mc Cain.Seems about right.

celtic warrior on April 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM

I’ve had enough of them.Don’t believe one word they say.I would spend the time rearranging my sock drawer but I don’t have one.

docflash on April 15, 2012 at 8:25 AM

And McCain is supposed to talk about enonomic issues in a coherent way? Please.

onlineanalyst on April 15, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Looks like NBC is hoping Michele Bachmann will say something kooky to relieve them of the Hilary Rosen disaster. Discipline, Michele, discipline. Please show some discipline. Don’t get pulled into a talk about teh gays.

Rational Thought on April 15, 2012 at 8:31 AM

The War Against The American People!

Not Women, not the Poor, and not the Rich.

Just US! The United States!

Kini on April 15, 2012 at 8:32 AM

I find it sad that Bill Cosby has gone stark raving progressive. While I never doubted that he was basically Liberal, I always believed that he was a thoughtful guy who sometimes bucked the Liberal Establishment. Now he’s gone over to the side of Dart Vader, Evil Emperor, President Obama.

Gladtobehere on April 15, 2012 at 8:32 AM

Especially since the Secret Service falls under the Treasury Department.

Mini-14 on April 15, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Actually I found out yesterday it is now DHS and dear sis JNap.

FLconservative on April 15, 2012 at 8:35 AM

Did Obama Pay a Lower Tax Rate Than His Secretary?

Buffet rule for thee, but not for me.

locomotivebreath1901 on April 15, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Bill Cosby? Really?

I hope Bachman points out how HilRo declined the invitation to appear with her.

FLconservative on April 15, 2012 at 8:37 AM

http://news.investors.com/article/599002/201201260818/obama-white-house-staff-back-taxes.htm

Did you also know that the SS pays $21k a year to Biden to rent the cottage on his estate to protect him?

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/04/14/biden-earned-21000-year-secret-service/

FLconservative on April 15, 2012 at 8:44 AM

Got a quickie aborsh

Ugly on April 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM

I guess robot Debbie Wasserman is out of service for mechanical failure.

brut4ce on April 15, 2012 at 8:54 AM

“Got a quickie aborsh“

Ugly on April 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Related: The Way of The Gun (EXTREME language warning)

Ugly on April 15, 2012 at 8:56 AM

I guess robot Debbie Wasserman is out of service for mechanical failure.

brut4ce on April 15, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Interesting, no? Looks like the dems believe their War on Women™ is over. Without that, what the hell would she talk about?

Rational Thought on April 15, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Elsewhere, Axelrod will turn up on Fox to see how many Hilary Rosen questions he can deflect with his “war on women” jujitsu.

It’ll be fun watching him break out the shovel to dig deeper re: the Democrat war on moms.

whatcat on April 15, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Chris Wallace destroyed Axelrod this morning.

neoavatara on April 15, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Did you also know that the SS pays $21k a year to Biden to rent the cottage on his estate to protect him?

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/04/14/biden-earned-21000-year-secret-service/

FLconservative on April 15, 2012 at 8:44 AM

And, that’s more than he and his first shrew donated to charity.
Kinda like trust fund tobakky baby Algore and his generous annual donation of a buck fitty.
Mark Steyn said it best:

“Sometimes societies become too stupid to survive. A nation that takes Barack Obama’s current rhetorical flourishes seriously is certainly well advanced along that dismal path.” – Mark Steyn, NRO Online

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Candy whatever on CNN is second-guessing Preibus on Romney’s filing an extension on his 2011 tax return.

WTF? It’s the law. Heck, I’m filing an extension.

BuckeyeSam on April 15, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Elsewhere, Axelrod will turn up on Fox to see how many Hilary Rosen questions he can deflect with his “war on women” jujitsu.

Will he resemble Neo or King Kong?

disa on April 15, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Mitt Romney in 1994 “Now mom and dad have to work, whether they want to or not.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/14/mitt-romney-hilary-rosen_n_1425910.html

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Chris Wallace destroyed Axelrod this morning.

neoavatara on April 15, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Nice to know. Here, in SW Ohio, we don’t get that show until 10 EST.

BuckeyeSam on April 15, 2012 at 9:23 AM

I see CBS is loaded with all lefties and John Mc Cain.Seems about right.

celtic warrior on April 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Dick Lugar, the other rising GOP star in the U.S. Senate, was unavoidable.

Dem rep and Candy Fatso ganging up on the GOP rep on CNN. Candy managed to avoid Hilary Rosen and to make the GOP look like ghouls.

BuckeyeSam on April 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 9:18 AM

I read that article this morning. If only the R’s could be as clear and succinct in explaining that there isn’t enough wealth to dig us out of the crushing debt. I think that’s why the baby is crying in the link posted above with Joe B.!

FLconservative on April 15, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Mitt Romney in 1994 “Now mom and dad have to work, whether they want to or not.”

[...]

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 9:22 AM

.
And under a Democrat president… so like today but really, what’s your point?

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 9:35 AM

And under a Democrat president… so like today but really, what’s your point?

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 9:35 AM

His comment suggests that moms who didn’t have jobs before were not “working” just like mean ol Hillary Rosen.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Mitt Romney in 1994 “Now mom and dad have to work, whether they want to or not.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/14/mitt-romney-hilary-rosen_n_1425910.html

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Those were the Clinton years, I remember them well. Hillary making snide comments about not staying at home baking cookes, and doing that “Tammy Wynette, ‘Stand by Your Man’” bit. Of course, when Bubb was cuaght getting BJs from an intern, Hillary did cynically stand by him to aid her future poltiical career.

Wethal on April 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Let’s make it clear that the reason both parents have to work is that so many consumer goods are now considered “mandatory.”

I didn’t feel poor when I was a kid, yet my birthday money from the grandparents etc was swept into my mom’s clothing fund for the kids. She assured me that I would get some nice stuff. And it’s true – we always looked nice for school and church. That was part of her JOB, along with feeding us nutritious meals cooked from scratch. She also sewed a lot of my clothes, late at night when the kids were asleep. She didn’t have a car, we had only one and my dad drove it to work.

She always knew what we were up to and what was happening in our lives. We each had chores as we grew up, since the household took a lot of work to run.

Even with a black-and-white TV, generic sneakers and $1 McDonald’s meals considered a rare luxury, I did not feel poor. At the same time I always understood that there was only so much money to go around, and my brothers needed things too.

I predict that there is going to be a new wave of this lifestyle (or some modern version of it) as more couples are forced to share one job between them.

disa on April 15, 2012 at 9:40 AM

disa on April 15, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Wait a minute disa, just wait a darn minute. You are getting dangerously close to suggesting that capitalistic, acquisitive and aspirational culture has as much to do with the financial struggles Americans face as it does anything any President does. Are you suggesting that American values and identity are so wrapped up in material objects such that they frame their understanding of citizenship rights or “liberty” in terms of being able to buy particular products (like gas guzzling cars or energy ineffecient light bulbs)? How dare you insult Americans for being so vapid and superficial. Oh wait…

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

His comment suggests that moms who didn’t have jobs before were not “working” just like mean ol Hillary Rosen.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 9:38 AM

.
“Before” what? 1994?
.
Do you mean he made the same comment as Hilary Rosen? Is that what you are trying to type? That would be wrong, too.
.
Romney said nothing like “stay-at-home-moms don’t work” like Rosen did. Try making a point next time.

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 9:48 AM

I predict that there is going to be a new wave of this lifestyle (or some modern version of it) as more couples are forced to share one job between them.

disa on April 15, 2012 at 9:40 AM

.
It would be helpful to know what decade you grew up in. I remember the same kind of upbringing in the 60s, a decade dominated by Democrat presidents and Democrat legislatures, where jobs were hard to come by and money was tight. Generally, I observe that if you are in the midst of a bad economy, Democrats are in charge of the government.

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Wait a minute disa, just wait a darn minute. You are getting dangerously close to suggesting that capitalistic, acquisitive and aspirational culture has as much to do with the financial struggles Americans face as it does anything any President does. Are you suggesting that American values and identity are so wrapped up in material objects such that they frame their understanding of citizenship rights or “liberty” in terms of being able to buy particular products (like gas guzzling cars or energy ineffecient light bulbs)? How dare you insult Americans for being so vapid and superficial. Oh wait…

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

What’s more, crass consumerism and narcissistic pleasure seeking as a panacea for the emptiness that accompanies a life devoid of marital commitments and other meaningful family connections, and lacking in spirituality — where spirituality is, in fact, mocked — has been brought to us largely by the media and images from Hollywood, so we can blame the lousy Republicans who run those industries– Oh, wait…

Rational Thought on April 15, 2012 at 9:54 AM

How dare you insult Americans for being so vapid and superficial. Oh wait…

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

.
Projection on your part… pure, unadulterated projection.

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Are you suggesting that American Obama family values and identity are so wrapped up in material objects such that they frame their understanding of citizenship rights or “liberty” in terms of being able to buy particular products (like gas guzzling cars or energy ineffecient light bulbs) arugula, wagyu beef, summer camp, dancing lessons, and private schools?

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

FIFY

Wethal on April 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM

It would be helpful to know what decade you grew up in. I remember the same kind of upbringing in the 60s, a decade dominated by Democrat presidents and Democrat legislatures, where jobs were hard to come by and money was tight.
ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 9:51 AM

What an absolute crock. You can’t just make up things about the past. There’s actual data.

http://elcoushistory.tripod.com/economics1960.html

During the 1960s the United States experienced its longest uninterrupted period of economic expansion in history. In the 1960s housing and computer industry overpowered automobiles, chemicals, and electrically powered consumer durables, which were the leading sectors in the 1950s. Big business dominated the domestic economy during this time. In 1962 the five largest industrial corporations accounted for over 12 percent of all assets in manufacturing. By 1965 General Motors, standard old of New Jersey and ford had larger incomes than all the farms in the United States. America’s overseas investment increased to $49.2 billion in 1965.

And now for something incredibly stupid,

What’s more, crass consumerism and narcissistic pleasure seeking as a panacea for the emptiness that accompanies a life devoid of marital commitments and other meaningful family connections, and lacking in spirituality — where spirituality is, in fact, mocked — has been brought to us largely by the media and images from Hollywood, so we can blame the lousy Republicans who run those industries– Oh, wait…

Rational Thought on April 15, 2012 at 9:54 AM

You’re an utter fool. Think back on the 1950s, the golden age of the American family, of sexual normativity, of wholesome entertainment and the emphasizing of “tradition.” And you’ll also find a decade where the logic of mass consumerism as a substitute for citizenship is borne. Think Nixon-Kruschev “model kitchen” debate. Think the growth of the two car family. Think the growth of the single family suburban home filled to bursting with appliances, all so that the housewife could provide a great lifestyle for children. In fact, don’t take my word for it. Watch this 1957 film by Redbook Magazine, as you can see its total Democrat Hollywood propaganda…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFk5y5C82tk

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:02 AM

The President must literally do anything to keep from being forced to run on his performance in office.

Speakup on April 15, 2012 at 10:03 AM

FIFY

Wethal on April 15, 2012 at 10:01 AM

.
Please add vacations up the ying-yang and government enhanced spring break trips to Old Mexico for the young adolescents of the household.
.
Be prepared for the “You’re just jealous (or envious)” retort when it was the first one to bring up the consumer economy (named for its ability to put goods and services in the hands of all but the most impoverished of citizens).

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM

You’re an utter fool. Think back on the 1950s, the golden age of the American family, of sexual normativity, of wholesome entertainment and the emphasizing of “tradition.” And you’ll also find a decade where the logic of mass consumerism as a substitute for citizenship is borne. Think Nixon-Kruschev “model kitchen” debate. Think the growth of the two car family. Think the growth of the single family suburban home filled to bursting with appliances, all so that the housewife could provide a great lifestyle for children. In fact, don’t take my word for it. Watch this 1957 film by Redbook Magazine, as you can see its total Democrat Hollywood propaganda…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFk5y5C82tk

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:02 AM

You’re going back to 1950s television to “prove” that the entertainment industry is conservative…and I’m the “utter fool.” Thanks for the laugh.

Rational Thought on April 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Axelrod on Fox News Sunday now.

I wish Chris Wallace wasn’t such a milquetoast. He is largely serving as a springboard for Axelrod’s talking points and narratives.

Cut him off when he goes off on his prepared remarks, Chris. Ask him a hard question and then don’t let him deflect, spin, and return to spouting propaganda.

novaculus on April 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM

You’re going back to 1950s television to “prove” that the entertainment industry is conservative…and I’m the “utter fool.” Thanks for the laugh.

Rational Thought on April 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM

No. I’m demonstrating that materialistic values in American society far pre-date the so-called leftism in Hollywood today. And, more importantly, that American materialism is firmly rooted in the most conservative presentations of American life. I don’t think that’s so hard to grasp.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM

http://elcoushistory.tripod.com/economics1960.html

.
Why are you calling this narrative “actual data” when there is not one supporting link on the page. It’s all unbridled assertions. C’mon! Tripod??? What is this, your favorite revisionist history site?
.
You really have no ideas other than lie and obfuscate, do you?

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 10:14 AM

It is now time for Secretary of the Treasury “Timmy” Geithner to go home an spend more time finding “Lassie” or balance his checkbook on the “point” of a pin. Both, impossible tasks.

MSGTAS on April 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM

It would be helpful to know what decade you grew up in. I remember the same kind of upbringing in the 60s, a decade dominated by Democrat presidents and Democrat legislatures, where jobs were hard to come by and money was tight. Generally, I observe that if you are in the midst of a bad economy, Democrats are in charge of the government.

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 9:51 AM

My dad went to college on the GI bill, metallurgical engineer. His starting salary at Texas Instruments in 1960 was $7000. He bought a brand new ranch house for $14,000 that year. I was 5 and my first little brother was about to be born.

disa on April 15, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Wait a minute disa, just wait a darn minute. You are getting dangerously close to suggesting that capitalistic, acquisitive and aspirational culture has as much to do with the financial struggles Americans face as it does anything any President does. Are you suggesting that American values and identity are so wrapped up in material objects such that they frame their understanding of citizenship rights or “liberty” in terms of being able to buy particular products (like gas guzzling cars or energy ineffecient light bulbs)? How dare you insult Americans for being so vapid and superficial. Oh wait…

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

What I’m suggesting is that time and effort in maintaining one’s relationship with home and hearth and God has been supplanted by something far shallower. I believe in the free market; at the same time I predict that many Americans may choose to accommodate a crashing economy by attempting to return to a familiar model of simpler times.

We do not return to the same mindset, however, so it won’t be the same.

I would love to continue with this discussion, but it’s a beautiful day outside, and I have to plant some seeds.

disa on April 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Why are you calling this narrative “actual data” when there is not one supporting link on the page. It’s all unbridled assertions. C’mon! Tripod??? What is this, your favorite revisionist history site?
.
You really have no ideas other than lie and obfuscate, do you?

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 10:14 AM

God you’re thick. Is the Bureau of Labor Statistics unbiased enough for you.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

The 1960s were one of our best decades. Its no one elses fault that you are MASSIVELY ignorant on American economic history.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Mark Steyn said it best

Karl Magnus on April 15, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Mark Steyn always says it best.

itsnotaboutme on April 15, 2012 at 10:28 AM

so has ” out of touch ed” said how much of obamacare he wants to keep under romney yet?

renalin on April 15, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Please add vacations up the ying-yang and government enhanced spring break trips to Old Mexico for the young adolescents of the household.

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Oh right – I forgot. Our vacations consisted of visiting the grandparents. Maybe once every 5 years we would share a beach cabin with the aunts and uncles.

Things like Club Med were unknown to people like us.

disa on April 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM

The 1960s were one of our best decades.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Before quotas, millions of illegals, school system decline, massive regulatory burdens, & bailouts had wrecked havoc on our economy.

itsnotaboutme on April 15, 2012 at 10:33 AM

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Oh and lets also think through your claims on Dem vs GOP Presidents and the economy. I have a feeling by the end of this post you will switch to claiming that Presidents have no effect on the economy.

From 1957-1961, unemployment increased. From 1961-1968, unemployemnt decreased. From 1969 to 1976 unemployment increased. From 1976-1979, unemployment decreased. Now are you so remedial that you need me to spell out which Presidents were in power during periods of job growth and periods of job loss? Oh fine I will. The last end of the Eisenhower years were bad for the economy, the Kennedy and Johnson years were wonderful for the economy. The Nixon years and Ford years were bad for the economy. The Carter years the economy ticked up and then sputtered. Seems like Dems win that round and particularly on the question of the 1960s. Please check your facts before you use your own family’s individual poverty to speak about the entire nation. Thanks much!

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I was born in 1960. My dad, although intelligent, was unable to attend college. His family (my grandfather a poor tailor in NYC) just didn’t have the cash to send him. So he learned a trade, and became an optician. Moved to the DC area in 1963 when I was about to turn 3.

From ’63 to ’68 we lived in a small two bedroom apartment; a year after my sister was born in ’67, he bought our first home, a small (by today’s standards) 3 bedroom ranch for $40,000. We’d shop at places like K-Mart’s predecessor, Kresge’s (sp?) for cheap clothes. Scoring bargains was my dad’s most cherished accomplishment. I remember being embarrassed when he’d go into Safeway and intentionally look for dented cans of canned food and go to the cashier to try and haggle down the price. For him, a “score” on Sunday was an all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet for $3.99 per.

It wasn’t until 1975 that we moved to a more “typically suburban” house that was at least twice the size of our first home, which they bought for $175,000 (now its fair market value is around $550,000) and started to “fill it up with material goods” marketed toward crass consumerism. Until that point my dad had invested every darned penny saved into the stock market and it wasn’t until the mid-70′s his portfolio grew enough to feel comfortable “moving up”.

My point? When libfreeordie says “materialistic values in American society far pre-date the so-called leftism in Hollywood today. And, more importantly, that American materialism is firmly rooted in the most conservative presentations of American life” the only possible retort I can offer is “Of course we were materialistic. In that era we grew up with Great Depression-era parents who themselves grew up with nothing and sacrificed intensely in order to build a better…and yes, more materialistic…life for their own kids.”

And compared to what anybody currently under 30 grew up with, I realize that I myself (comparatively) grew up with “nothing”.

Anyone born in 1980 or after, I’m not so sure you understand just how fortunate you were to live in the America my parents generation built. The only issue I’d have with my parents’ (and grandparents’) generation is that they didn’t have the forethought to guess that the entitlement programs they wanted, would be a time bomb for their descendants’ prosperity.

Yiwen on April 15, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Axelrod on Fox News Sunday now.

I wish Chris Wallace wasn’t such a milquetoast. He is largely serving as a springboard for Axelrod’s talking points and narratives.

novaculus on April 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Chris Wallace destroyed Axelrod this morning.

neoavatara on April 15, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Which one of you is spinning?

itsnotaboutme on April 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

I bet my husband that one of the first words will be:
“0b0z0 inherited”. And I was right!

Bambi on April 15, 2012 at 10:36 AM

The 1960s were one of our best decades. Its no one elses fault that you are MASSIVELY ignorant on American economic history.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM

I lived through the Sixties, little one. Let’s see, LBJ raided the Social Security trust fund to fund the Great War on Poverty (why there are no poor people today – doesn’t massive federal spending solve problems?).

The GWP, despite Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s warnings, made it possible for men to skip out on their families, as a massive welfare program would support the kids. In some demographic groups, the illegitimacy rate is now around 70%.

And then there is the cost of the Kennedy-LBJ quaagmire known as Vietnam. (Of course, we did have a treaty with Vietnam, just like we had with Kuwait…)

You can often tell what the “best” decades were by the legacies.

Wethal on April 15, 2012 at 10:36 AM

God you’re thick. Is the Bureau of Labor Statistics unbiased enough for you.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

God you’re shallow!
.
That’s “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey” not Economic History! You are just full of obfuscation and misdirection!
.
The only one delivering a massive here is you, smelly cat. Why did you bother with that tripod link in teh first place when you knew I was going to call you on it immediately?

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 10:38 AM

The 1960s were one of our best decades. Its no one elses fault that you are MASSIVELY ignorant on American economic history.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Vietnam–thanks JFK and LBJ–and riots at the 1968 DNCC in Chicago were awesome.

BuckeyeSam on April 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:33 AM

There are also such things as policy lags impacting the economy.

I was in high school during Carter’s years. I remember the awful inflation. (Actually it was stagflation.)

Interest rates were in the high teen to low twenty percent ranges. I would daresay that the terrible economy Reagan inherited took some time to get fixed. Volcker took interest rates that high to try and cool the economy to tame inflation. Result? Employment dropped. Once inflation had been handled, THEN Reagan got his tax breaks (and reduced number of tax brackets) implemented and I actually witnessed the economy taking off like gangbusters. Like wildfire. And that included employment. Before that point, I had been working minimum-wage jobs (when I was lucky to have jobs) after college, despite a good degree from a well regarded university. It wasn’t until after employment took off in the mid-’80′s that I was actually able to get a “real job” and build an actual career.

You’ll never convince me, after having lived through it, that Democrat administrations are good for the economy.

Yiwen on April 15, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Anyone born in 1980 or after, I’m not so sure you understand just how fortunate you were to live in the America my parents generation built. The only issue I’d have with my parents’ (and grandparents’) generation is that they didn’t have the forethought to guess that the entitlement programs they wanted, would be a time bomb for their descendants’ prosperity.

Yiwen on April 15, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Thank you for the intellectual honesty, a few of your fellows could learn a thing or three from you. However, I must take issue with this last paragraph. Your parents generation worked very hard for what they had but they didn’t build the America that my generation (born in 1981) on their own. They had a lot of help from the government. I can almost guarantee your family’s first ranch home was secured with an FHA loan. As disa said earlier, his father went to school with help from the GI Bill. If you lived in the DMV area then there’s no way to disconnect your father’s employment success from the expansion of the federal government. The entitlement programs you criticize now helped to build the American middle class. Economically independent senior citizens = more funds for their children to raise their families and spend money on consumer goods that boost the economy. Especially when those goods were made in the U.S. It always strikes me as amazing that people will praise the “greatest generation” and then forget that NO generation of Americans benefited as much from public assistance/welfare/federal investments whatever you want to call it.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:43 AM

That’s “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey” not Economic History! You are just full of obfuscation and misdirection!

Hhahahahahahahaha *breath* oh god, oh lord have mercy. You are a trip! You’re right my friend, a table that lists the unemployment rate each year over the last few decades isn’t economic history. Nope, no sirree its certainly not. Oh man, you *slay* me.

Why did you bother with that tripod link in teh first place when you knew I was going to call you on it immediately?

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Oh dear ExpressoBold. My *sincerest* apologies.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Why did you bother with that tripod link in teh first place when you knew I was going to call you on it immediately?

ExpressoBold on April 15, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I thought that a historical narrative which drew upon economic data that I (and anyone who has ever read a book on American economic history or post World War II history) would be enough. I didn’t realize that you were so intent on continuing to believe you’re 100% MADE UP narrative of the economic doldrums of the 1960s that you would attack a factual narrative. Its my fault that you took the lack of links, combined it with your towering ignorance and mixed them up together to create a foot-in-your-mouth stew? Well again, I apologies, I’ll never “obfuscate” with “facts” again. You poor thing, its been a rough morning.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:49 AM

all three major networks

Excuse me, there might have only been three in the last century, but this is a most inaccurate statement in this century. You need a time machine Allah.

paulsur on April 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM

One of the reasons why it’s so difficult to believe the republicans have the country’s best interest at heart is because they’ve fought against everything this president is for. All for political gain.

This president was elected by large majority. He has a mandate to enact plans he called for while campaigning. Americans should be given the opportunity to judge him instead having these republican hacks make our judgement for us.

Uppereastside on April 15, 2012 at 10:53 AM

You’ll never convince me, after having lived through it, that Democrat administrations are good for the economy.

Yiwen on April 15, 2012 at 10:40 AM

What you’re describing is a religious-like faith and a total unwillingness to even look at actual data. Reagan-hagiography is all well and good, but please don’t try and convince the rest of us its some sort of objective analysis of the economy. Supply side economics, from their inception, has given us unsustainable boom and bust cycles. Whatever increased growth comes from deregulation and lower taxes eventually blows up in our face when people game the system. Witness Savings and Loan Crisis, witness telecom bubble, witness dotcom collapse and witness the mother of them all, the housing crash. All of which came from an initial deregulatory move, a boom and then a crash. But yeah, supply side economics is better than Keynesian or something.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Americans should be given the opportunity to judge him instead having these republican MEDIA hacks make our judgement for us.

Uppereastside on April 15, 2012 at 10:53 AM
FIFY

pambi on April 15, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Libfreeordie,

I can’t speak to whether the mortgage my dad got in 1968 or the mortgage he got in 1975 was an FHA loan or not.

As for his dependency on the federal government for his income, my answer is: Yes, but only partially. His optical shop was just down the road from Andrews AFB. A large number of his clientele were officers and enlisted in the Air Force, but I can guarantee you that this was only a portion of his customer base. He also had a large proportion of people who were just ordinary citizens. While I’m sure a number of them were in fact themselves employed by the Federal government, a lot of them also had small businesses or were employed by small and medium size corporations. How do I know this? I spent a lot of time just “spending time” with my dad in his store and spoke with a LOT of his customers over the years.

So when you say “If you lived in the DMV area then there’s no way to disconnect your father’s employment success from the expansion of the federal government” the honest reponse is “well, yes, but only partially.” But I have to toss a question back at you: If I’d grown up in Michigan, and my dad’s optical shop was just down the road from one of the large automakers, how would my dad’s dependency on the Federal expansion be any different than the early expansion of the Big 3? My point is that in the DVM area, how is that dependency any different than being dependent on “the one company” in a “company town”? I don’t see it as being different.

And when you say that “It always strikes me as amazing that people will praise the “greatest generation” and then forget that NO generation of Americans benefited as much from public assistance/welfare/federal investments whatever you want to call it” my only response is “Perhaps so…but in self-blinded selfish disregard for the fates they were setting up for their kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids.”

Yiwen on April 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Libfreeordie,

You said “please don’t try and convince the rest of us its some sort of objective analysis of the economy”.

I didn’t claim that. I was merely reporting my own experience.
But my life experience was enough to guide me through comparisons between Democrat and Republican administrations. And to me, the choice is clear. Every Democrat administration I’ve lived through in my adult life has radically either disappointed or enraged me.

I’ll never vote Democrat again. EVER.

You want to debate? Waste your keystrokes on another.

Yiwen on April 15, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Libfree – how can you seriously claim that the Carter era merely “sputtered”. My formative years were spent in gas lines on odd days filling up my father’s car so he could put food on the table. Gas prices rose higher as a percentage under Carter than under any administration in history until our current leader declared his war on oil companies. We fortunately bought a house before Carter’s economic policies destroyed interest rates. Liberal policies cause long term damage to all economies. We are fortunate to have occasionally elected conservatives to right the ship and avoid Greece. It is often a painful turnaround and the next President will have a Herculean task to reign in the new spending and pay down Obama’s debt. One thing I am sure of though – he won’t spend 4 years blaming Obama for all things economic. It is not the Republican way.

LarryinLA on April 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM

I can’t speak to whether the mortgage my dad got in 1968 or the mortgage he got in 1975 was an FHA loan or not.

Only the 1968 loan would have been, they were/are for first time home buyers.

If I’d grown up in Michigan, and my dad’s optical shop was just down the road from one of the large automakers, how would my dad’s dependency on the Federal expansion be any different than the early expansion of the Big 3?

Because of the federal government’s massive expenditures in the American auto industry (and every other manufacturer) after World War II. I would suggest checking out a copy of Thomas Sugrue’s “Origins of the Urban Crisis.” I believe chapters 1-5 detail the investments the federal government made in helping manufacturers transition from urban wartime production to suburban factories.

And when you say that “It always strikes me as amazing that people will praise the “greatest generation” and then forget that NO generation of Americans benefited as much from public assistance/welfare/federal investments whatever you want to call it” my only response is “Perhaps so…but in self-blinded selfish disregard for the fates they were setting up for their kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids.”

Yiwen on April 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I don’t understand your argument. You believe the society created by the Greatest Welfare Generation was a good thing, but you also believe that it laid the groundwork for our debt crisis. But then, how do you justify your belief that they were the “greatest” generation?

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

Shouldn’t he down at the border building “the dang fence?”

Mr_Magoo on April 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Boy, was aasselrod ever on a mad!
You can tell he’s so worried. If they loose he knows the cover will be off and we all will find out what exactly 0b0z0 has done under the table.

Bambi on April 15, 2012 at 11:13 AM

libfree – your basic philosophy is that government spending creates all prosperity. How do you explain the current economic failure under Obama and his “stimulus”. It sure kept unemployment under 8%, didn’t it. Oh well – guess it was Bush’s fault anyway. Has it occurred to you that maybe our economy grew under the greatest generation DESPITE government confiscatory spending do to their work ethic, technological changes and a post-war need for goods. All good things do not come from Uncle Sam.

LarryinLA on April 15, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Interesting, no? Looks like the dems believe their War on Women™ is over. Without that, what the hell would she talk about?

Rational Thought on April 15, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Hair styling tips?

Wagthatdog on April 15, 2012 at 11:19 AM

The Obama Gaffe Machine goes into hyperdrive

DevilsPrinciple on April 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM

libfree – your basic philosophy is that government spending creates all prosperity.

That’s not my philosophy. So perhaps you’d like to try again.

How do you explain the current economic failure under Obama and his “stimulus”. It sure kept unemployment under 8%, didn’t it.

Because the form the stimulus took, including a 1/3 of it which was supply side tax breaks, wasn’t very well thought out. The bill was essentially a bailout to state governments, and that did save quite a few jobs. The problem is that the stimulus bill was passed too quickly. The idea that the economy would bounce right back was an unrealistic one. It took almost a decade long housing boom to sink us, why on earth would anyone think that something called a “stimulus” package (by its very name suggesting the short term) would be able to instantly counteract it. The Obama Administration was far too ambitious in selling the plan and far too hasty in passing the plan and far too arrogant in assuming the implementation of the plan would just work by dint of the magic and rainbows emanating from Obama’s butt.

But that’s not an argument that Keynesian policy doesn’t work. Its an argument that badly conceived policy doesn’t work.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 11:31 AM

We hope “Turbo Tax Tim” knows where his suitcase is located, as he will be packing his things soon. Did his best to praise Obama’s failed policies this morning on Meet the Press. Did not inspire anyone.

Amazingoly on April 15, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Looking at the guests that are going to be on the shows…does it seem like the media is going ballistic trying to help the DNC and it’s drones?

KOOLAID2 on April 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM

…It took almost a decade long housing boom to sink us…

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Yah, pass that pipe around, I want some of what your smokin.

OkieDoc on April 15, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Seriously, how does the WH think it helps them to have Axelrod in front of a camera speaking?

He must be something else off camera because he comes across as a clueless a**hole on camera. He’s worse than seeing Chuck Grassley trying to speak on camera. It’s painful to watch.

Another GOP who’s a disappointment is Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA). She may be a fine congresswoman, but she’s got to work on her on-camera presence.

BuckeyeSam on April 15, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Was Geithner really a sensible choice for Treasury? I’m not talking about him being a tax cheat, that kind of behavior is SOP for Dems.

I’m talking about the fact that whenever he appears in public he looks like he’s sweating like a rapist.

CorporatePiggy on April 15, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Watch this 1957 film by Redbook Magazine, as you can see its total Democrat Hollywood propaganda…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFk5y5C82tk

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:02 AM

LOL You think redbook represented the majority of people living in that era? That’s like saying People represents the majority of peoples’ lifestyles today. No magazine, not Good Housekeeping, not the tabloids, not Vogue, none, zip, represent the lifestyles of the majority. I grew up in that era and I and my friends used to fantasize about that lifestyle not live it. And we would have been considered middle class.

Deanna on April 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Looking at the guests that are going to be on the shows…does it seem like the media is going ballistic trying to help the DNC and it’s drones?

KOOLAID2 on April 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM

I was flipping around, and I caught only bits and pieces. Wallace didn’t appear to go anywhere the Hilary Rosen fiasco. I think they raised it on ABC, but I didn’t catch all of it. I did see that Cokie Roberts did tee off on her. I missed whatever Madden and Gigot might have said. The woman from The Nation is insufferable. She would be satisfied with anything less than Romney’s contributing $220M to Planned Parenthood or a combination of far left progressive organization. I really hate her.

Anyway, I’d love to hear how the other shows handled it. I suspect that the idea was to STFU about it, so that it doesn’t carry into this week.

BuckeyeSam on April 15, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Libfree –

The Obama Administration was far too ambitious in selling the plan and far too hasty in passing the plan and far too arrogant in assuming the implementation of the plan would just work by dint of the magic and rainbows emanating from Obama’s butt.

But that’s not an argument that Keynesian policy doesn’t work. Its an argument that badly conceived policy doesn’t work.

I am glad you admit some of Obama’s failures. Honesty is appreciated. I would just posit that Keynes intended for us to save in good times to spend in bad. Keynes does not apply when the spending IS THE PROBLEM because the debt burden is already nearly insurmountable and is a primary driver to slow growth. Any short term “Stimulus” is bound to be countered by a private industry pullback due to the obvious hastening of the impending debt reaper. Businessmen are in survival mode. Can I assume you felt the stimulus was too little as well as too hasty. BTW – do you see any correlation with the Democratic takeover of Congress and our economic downturn. Pelosi should indeed read more of what she passes.

LarryinLA on April 15, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers has been appearing and speaking out much more frequently recently. Is she on the VP list and it is audition time?

galtani on April 15, 2012 at 12:03 PM

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And NO business in America – no matter how profitable – has ever succeeded without “government assistance”…….because, after all, the roads were built with government money added. And probably the sewers, electric grid and water system, too.

That always provides a strong case for massive government intrusion and takeover. Government is so much more efficient.

Solaratov on April 15, 2012 at 12:04 PM

I guess robot Debbie Wasserman is out of service for mechanical failure.

brut4ce on April 15, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Something snapped when she changed her hairdo! She’s going incognito but all is for naught as soon as she opens her mouth. Chalkboard meets fingernails.

LeftCoastRight on April 15, 2012 at 12:05 PM

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Reagan’s economy was worse. Inflation over 10%; mortgage rates were through the roof. We choked on things for a year or two, but the country came storming back.

Obama knows nothing about economics, finance, and business. And it’s a shame too many like you think that he’s up to the task. I still can’t believe this un-American, anti-free-markets POS got elected.

BuckeyeSam on April 15, 2012 at 12:05 PM

BTW – Reagan inherited quite a colossal mess from Carter but the economy was experiencing a stunning turnaround before the election for his second term – hence the landslide. How many years are you prepared to cut Obama slack for. His anti-business policies, drilling moratoriums, wasteful spending, crony capitalism and legislative roadblocks are the problem.

LarryinLA on April 15, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers has been appearing and speaking out much more frequently recently. Is she on the VP list and it is audition time?

galtani on April 15, 2012 at 12:03 PM

I hope not. I don’t think she’s that impressive. She didn’t seem that sure of herself on CNN today.

BuckeyeSam on April 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM

I grew up in that era and I and my friends used to fantasize about that lifestyle not live it. And we would have been considered middle class.

Deanna on April 15, 2012 at 11:59 AM

My point exactly.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I lived in Spokane for a few years and became familiar with Cathy Mc Morris(She was unmarried)she was a state representative. The woman is quite nice and has a beautiful smile. Thats about it for her major attributes.

celtic warrior on April 15, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers has been appearing and speaking out much more frequently recently. Is she on the VP list and it is audition time?

galtani on April 15, 2012 at 12:03 PM

I hope not. I don’t think she’s that impressive. She didn’t seem that sure of herself on CNN today.

BuckeyeSam on April 15, 2012 at 12:07 PM

That is why there should be an audition.

galtani on April 15, 2012 at 12:43 PM

But that’s not an argument that Keynesian policy doesn’t work. Its an argument that badly conceived policy doesn’t work.

libfreeordie on April 15, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Keynesian policies are completely unsustainable and to that end,
obviously, you are unclear about what Keynes suggested in his work. What made Keynes General Theory so radical was Keynes’s proof that it was possible for a free market economy to settle into states in which workers and machines remained idle for prolonged periods of time…. The only way to revive business confidence and get the private sector spending again was by cutting taxes and letting business and individuals keep more of their income so they could spend it. Or, better yet, having the government spend more money directly, since that would guarantee that 100 percent of it would be spent rather than saved. If the private sector couldn’t or wouldn’t spend, the government would have to do it. For Keynes, the government had to be prepared to act as the spender of last resort, just as the central bank acted as the lender of last resort.

The latter part of his theory has proven to be incorrect and the bail~outs are proof that government will only provide mal~investment when they “believe” they should spend money directly to “kick start” an economy. This is because Keynes never modeled his theory after pragmatic monetary policy but rather political. The Keynesian appeal to dema­gogic passions chimes in with the contentions of certain labor lead­ers, that high wages are necessary to sustain “purchasing power” re­gardless of their relation to man-machine productivity. The Keyne­sian system makes no allowance for wage cuts in industries which have seen their markets shrink because of the cost-price squeeze on the customer. Although Keynes knew very well that almost all costs, in the last analysis, are la­bor costs, he never dared mention the possibility that a downward revision of wages in certain indus­tries might result in an increase in the real purchasing power of labor and in a forward movement toward the full employment of all available labor. Any such admis­sion would have left Keynes with­out political influence on the Left. And it was such influence, rather than a reputation for scientific ac­curacy, that Keynes most prized.( It’s also why Krugman is such an economics clown. He’s a major Keynesian)

What Obama is doing is a grossly distort markets such that there is now little way to assess risk. And, he is being aided and abetted by the likes of uber financial criminal Bernanke. They’ve done that by monetizing debt. You will shortly see another wave of foreclosures AND the the college loan bubble become a national crisis. This happened precisely because of the government securitizing MBS into money, student loans and all of Obamas failures in alternative energy.

Obama’s chickensh*t when it comes to real solutions because he knows he’d never have a shot at re-election.

DevilsPrinciple on April 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2