• mike as usual you applaud BHO as a speaker and I have to admit he does give a good speech. All that said it was more of the same fluff with no substance, platitudes and lofty dreams. He did not propose any new ideas and is still pushing obama care that nobody wants. He wants republicans to play nice with him but never included any of their ideas in health care reform. Bipartisianship is a two way street had he allowed some of the republican ideas into this bill it might have passed but buy shutting republicans out of the process he doomed any chance obama care had. If he truely wants republicans to vote for anything he wants he MUST also allow them some imput.

    February 2, 2010 at 6:37 a.m.

  • Mike, you are the one that needs to do some research. Take a look at the actual Federal Tax tables for

    and a list of the 2003 tax changes

    Among other things in the tax cuts the lowest tax rates went from 15% to 10%. And the marriage penalty disappeared.

    It is an old debate trick to change the direction of the subject when one is losing the debate. You need to read my blog about Media again, my blog did not say I supported Debra Media, I said I am giving her a second look and felt like other Texans should do the same.
    And I still find you comments and blogs funny.

    January 29, 2010 at 11:40 p.m.

  • Inventory levels are low that's why the GNP has increased 5.7% - it's idle capacity coming back on line. The largest increase in GDP growth occurred during the depression years of 1935 and 1936 for the same reason.

    Speaking of idle capacity, the automakers are cranking up their truck/SUV production to makeup for the losses they are incurring on their smaller fuel efficient cars that they are required to produce. Don't you just love how these government mandates work, it's so much fun to watch - but then again I guess I hate the government.

    Now all we have to do is wait for the other shoe to drop, you know that shoe loaded with trillions of dollars of federal reserve notes. We will see how good Bernanke is in the coming months. He has to dismount that huge elephant from the head of a pin without it falling and flattening him - we'll see.

    January 29, 2010 at 2:43 p.m.

  • You need not be a "fundamentalist" to like the idea of being able to audit the Fed six months after the fact. There's nothing extreme about his bill. The lesson to be learned from this bill's life is that there are a select few who act as gatekeepers of the people's will. In most cases, they go out of their way to trick Congress into voting for laws by rolling out 1,000-page bills hours before a vote or putting it on the floor in the late-night hours, but here we have a short-n-sweat, no-nonsense bill with 70%+ support, but it's been held up in committee for months. Do you condone this type of usurpation of representation?

    I sincerely don't mean to hijack your blog, but I do think the Fed's activities are central to the topic of long-term economic health, and it's being ignored.

    January 29, 2010 at 1:34 p.m.

  • BSspotter

    Inflation is relatively low as I have said many times before I would welcome a little inflation (shows inventory levels dropping) because we have the tools to remedy that… It’s deflation that people should worry but economist tell us that we do not have to fear that, at this moment…. IRAs and 401Ks are starting to perk up a little bit because the market is rolling along pretty well.

    The Fed did fall asleep at the switch and kept interest rates artificially low but no one can say with a straight face ,that Bernanke did not pull out all the stops to keep us from going into a depression.

    Senator Christopher Dodd will scale back and put a hold on his credit card reform bill , which I think is ridiculous…I’m glad he is leaving.

    We have a credit-based economy and we won't change because people like the idea that you can finance a 30 year mortgage or a three year automobile loan. You have to deal with reality.

    BTW I wouldn’t bank on those 319 votes because if the economy starts to improve, those votes will dwindle….Ron Paul is a “Get rid of the Fed fundamentalist” but the other legislators are not…I could be wrong.

    January 29, 2010 at 12:40 p.m.

  • Government monetary inflation should be "near and dear" to anyone with a 401k or savings acct, which is why I continue to shed light on it. Our country's negative savings rate is both a symptom & cause of our economic woes. With artificially-low interest rates, we're encouraged to borrow instead of saving. How is this not a problem (unless you're a central banker charging interest on fiat money)?

    Dealing with this issue doesn't register on the establishment's radar because it's what enables nearly everything they do. If they had to tax the people directly, the people would get wise in a hurry. Obviously, it's important enough for 317 US Representatives.

    January 29, 2010 at 12:10 p.m.

  • Well then, I apologize but it still doesn't lessen the fact that you want to waste my time on a subject that is near and dear to you, but ranks about .1 on the Ricther scale of importance.

    The naysayers will not mention today's good economic numbers of 5.7% growth in the 4th quarter. (the best in the last 6 years) because some are rooting for failure..Job numbers are still bad.

    January 29, 2010 at 11:52 a.m.

  • Mike, I have no use for the Tea Parties. I'm not sure why you're pinning that on me.

    Again with the existence of the status quo as justification for more status quo. Hooray inertia!

    And I prefer to argue with only one rock at a time.

    January 29, 2010 at 11:40 a.m.

  • BSspotter

    Go find a rock to argue with because you can gather all the Tea Partiers all across this nation but it will not move one piece of legislation to eliminate the Federal Reserve. You can post your all your one sided hypotheticals and criticize all your opponents with catchy phrases to demonize the federal government but our country will continue to have a central banking system.

    I'm not a worried about your evaluation, so instead of saving for the ballot box, save it for your next Tea party…. They might listen to you.

    Debra Medina for Guv…lol

    January 29, 2010 at 11:25 a.m.

  • Mike said this: "I know conservatives don't like to accept any responsibility for the last eight years but they must, if they expect any sort of credibility, when they criticize President Obama's first year."

    Then this: "I did not intend to challenge anyone’s credibility but rather to get a little reason into the discussion, hence 41% of the current spending due to the blunders of the last administration. They don’t like to hear it but Bush blamed Clinton, Reagan blamed Carter, etc.:

    Mike, I can admit that they're ALL correct when they blame past administrations. The next administration will be correct, as well, and so on until we (admit that we) are insolvent.

    January 29, 2010 at 11:02 a.m.

  • Mike, if there's no honest discussion of the root causes of the problems, and we continue to operate under the flawed system, government creation of jobs is artificial and unsustainable. Why isn't there any real consideration of the Fed's role in the bubbles, business cycles, and meltdowns? You can't have an effective intervention with a junkie (banks) without isolating them from the drug pusher (Federal Reserve).

    Your mentality is the same that spawns the rhetoric coming from Mt. Olympus, which is all in the name of preserving government control over every aspect of society, even if their means defy their stated ends. "Enough" is right -- ENOUGH of this shortsighted government intervention!

    January 29, 2010 at 10:58 a.m.

  • BSspotter

    I did not intend to challenge anyone’s credibility but rather to get a little reason into the discussion, hence 41% of the current spending due to the blunders of the last administration. They don’t like to hear it but Bush blamed Clinton, Reagan blamed Carter, etc.

    I don’t believe that unemployed person standing in line waiting for a job .cares if the Fed will get audited..AGAIN…We have priorities, and right now that bill goes to the back of the line…It will have due process.


    January 29, 2010 at 10:17 a.m.

  • Waywardwind
    I am still a bit confused how a corporation should have the same rights as an individual but I can almost see where it is a free speech issue.

    The case centered on the rights of a group called Citizens United right to show a movie about Hillary Clinton just before the election, to a decision that struck down the laws of 22 states and the federal government.

    Personally, I don’t think McCain-Feingold was working but this decision means the corporations will not have to pretend anymore..The “Energy bill”, brought to you by Exxon.”

    “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    January 29, 2010 at 9:56 a.m.

  • Mike, in this very blog, you challenged the credibility of a political group, so I challenged both your credibility and that of the opposing political group. My comment was also related to the economy, a major theme of your blog. I think my comment was completely relevant. Your claim that my post is self-centered is bunk because I simply posted the most egregious current example of the political powers ignoring the will of the people's representatives regarding a banking-related bill. Should I just "save it for the ballot box" to see if the Audit the Fed Bill can reach 90% co-sponsorship before it gets a vote?

    January 29, 2010 at 9:54 a.m.

  • Alton
    Re: I don't see how an uninformed poster can laugh at a blog, then in a few sentences prove my point.
    The bush tax cut were indeed targeted to the rich but don't take my word for it.

    Alton said” So it is just not true the tax cuts increased the deficit.”…. Check back and you will see that we borrowed the money for the tax cuts while we were engaged in two wars… That automatically increases the deficit and debt for that time period.I am not going to do all your research.

    Guess what, you're not the appointed one to determine whether one is conservative, liberal, progressive, moderate, or anything in between.
    Good luck in your support for a known secessionist, Debra Media, who stood by, while one of her supporters pointed to the United States flag and threaten to take it down and replace it with the Texas flag…. Don't make me post the link to that rally where a whole 200 showed up.

    January 29, 2010 at 9:04 a.m.

  • BSspotter

    Ron Paulites have a common trait, they always try to steer the conversation to themselves or their viewpoints… I never mentioned the Federal Reserve.

    Remember how you chastise the posters on your blog for posting what you thought was irrelevant and threatened to delete their posts…. I apologized and removed my comments.

    BTW On the list of priorities; another audit of the Federal Reserve ranks pretty low….It’s all about jobs.

    January 29, 2010 at 8:54 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    January 29, 2010 at 8:44 a.m.

  • Mike many of your blogs makes me laugh. One paragraph related to the title of your blog, and a few misstatements of facts.
    Your statement "Conservatives are frequent poll watchers" is a hoot. I cannot recall a blog of yours in which you did not mention poll figures.
    You appear to believe that all Democrats are liberal and all Republicans are conservatives.
    It is my belief that the current Democratic leadership consists of extreme leftist and a few moderate liberals. I believe the Republican Party has more moderate conservatives than hard line conservatives and even a few liberals.
    Why it may be true that President Bush was our President for 8 years, only 6 years did the Republicans control Congress. And President Bush's administration was more moderate than conservative.
    It disturbs me when I hear or read the statement that President Bush's tax cuts were for wealthy, implying that the tax cuts were only for the wealthy. The personal tax cuts were across the board, they helped everyone. Even the federal governments own data shows that the 2003 tax cuts increased federal tax revenues. So it is just not true the tax cuts increased the deficit. Time and time again history shows that overspending creates an increase in deficit.
    I believe that only when there is a small majority of either party in Congress we are able to have bipartisan bills.

    January 28, 2010 at 10:39 p.m.

  • Mike...You know full well how I feel about Obama, but I have to tell you that there was ONE thing about which I did agree. I was surprised that he lambasted the Supreme Court. I don't know if any president had ever done so in such a public forum, but he was right. I was so surprised to find myself agreeing with him that I had to look closely at what he said about what the Court decided (and look more closely at what the Court decided.)

    I have been cynical about Congress critters and their "campaign contributions" for many years. This latest SCOTUS decision removes citizen input completely from government. I suggest that anyone with kids or grandkids hurry out and buy a good history book while they're still available so the future generations can see what America was like. The Court is like the Democrats with a 61 vote majority -- they can do whatever they please because, while the executive and legislative branches have checks and balances in place under the Constitution, the founders neglected to place any on the Court.

    January 28, 2010 at 9:26 p.m.

  • rollinstone, Mike will tell you that we'll never have a free-market economy, so it's an invalid concept. Lay down and take it. Ya know, perhaps it would be best just to stop fighting the machine so we can get it over with sooner. The faster we have bread lines, the sooner the central planners will get run off.

    January 28, 2010 at 8:04 p.m.

  • "All recent administrations have used Keynesian economic policies but conservative don't like to admit it. That's what funded the Great Depression and WWII."

    Spending during the depression did virtually nothing to help the economy. FDR was a loose cannon he was all over the place throwing money around and raising taxes. His Treasury Sec. admitted in 1938 that the spending was a failure.

    The economy was recovering as WWII began mainly because they stopped contracting the money supply. The war brought us full employment because there were 16 million men in uniform and everyone else was needed to produce war supplies.

    But during the war there were no consumer goods produced and almost everything was rationed. I remember my dad telling me he had to ride a bike to work to conserve gasoline and tires on the car.

    So yeah the government can produce full employment just ask Joe Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. But they do not produce things that people want at the right price and quantity. A government controlled economy has never worked - they do however produce lots of hardship and misery.

    It was after the war that our post war / depression economic miracle really started. It was very sucessful because the industrial capacity of almost every major country lay in ruins - no competition.

    Now it's completely different the world is playing hard ball and we are losing. I heard nothing from Obama that would change that assessment. All I heard were more entitlement programs. His student loan program will do to college tuitions what "affordable housing" did for housing - it is truly sad to see where our country is being led by both parties.

    January 28, 2010 at 7:52 p.m.

  • If the Democrats want credibility, they should start with being Democratic by letting Ron Paul's Audit The Fed Bill onto the floor for a vote. After all, it has a 73% (317/435) super-majority co-sponsorship. And Mike, if you want any cred, you'd support this since you put so much stock in elections that put those Representatives in those positions. 317 Reps support Paul's Bill, yet political games are being played to stifle the majority (result of elections).

    January 28, 2010 at 7:27 p.m.

  • If you guys want to see perhaps the coolest picture you have ever seen, check out the New York Times picture.

    At the State of the Union

    A view inside the House chamber at the Capitol during President Obama’s State of the Union address.

    January 28, 2010 at 6:45 p.m.

  • No, like I said it’s the house leadership, congress, the president and his administration’s fault that transparency is not happening as fast as some want…It was Obama’s campaign promise and proposal….Do we know who the members of Cheney’s energy committee were? Did you complain then?
    I heard this complaint from a listener of Alan Colmes radio show last night but the caller was not even aware that the health care bill was on line, so I am not sure most of America really cares...They should but I don’t think they do..IMO

    Far left? Name one thing that has passed that is far left? Think about it...A health care bill cannot have a low 32% approval if the liberals were happy with it...But that freeze was not the mainstay of the speech,every president throws out cookies during the SOTU..Remember Bush,"We are addicted to oil",yet never mentioned it again.

    January 28, 2010 at 6:09 p.m.

  • And oh yeah, I didn't watch any of the FNN, and only a few minutes of MSNBC.

    January 28, 2010 at 5:57 p.m.

  • Posted that before you posted your last, that is understandable, Obama is trying to ride the fence, far left on one side, moderate democrats and independents on the other.

    He gives each side half of what they want and hopes for the best, a risky strategy IMO.

    January 28, 2010 at 5:55 p.m.

  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended Congress' work on a healthcare bill Tuesday saying the process has displayed historic transparency, just as C-SPAN mounts an effort to open the negotiations.

    C-SPAN wrote a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday asking that TV cameras be allowed to film negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.

    In a bald political move, the Democrats have decided to hasten the melding of the House and Senate versions of their bills, with participation from representatives of the Obama administration.

    Updated versions of the negotiated bill will be adopted and passed to each chamber in a process called ping pong until an identical draft is approved. In an ideal Democratic world, the House would adopt one version that looks much like the current Senate bill that the upper chamber could stamp and send to Obama as early as late January.
    That "informal" route taken by the Democrats sidesteps the conference-committee procedure that would require three procedural votes -- all of which could be filibustered -- and potential partisan squabbling during the negotiations. This way, any arguments are among friends, so to speak.

    Ok. Yeah it is not the White House, but it is the democratic leadership in congress, who, I imagine, hear from the administration on all bills or initiatives.

    January 28, 2010 at 5:46 p.m.

  • I watched the SOTU on CNN and came away impressed with the opinions of focus groups, the eight member panel, and Jon King’s new toy, about 200,000 twitter posts…Jon King pulled up pros and con twitters comments in various states. Most of the comments were favorable…. The mixed panel started fighting amongst each other. They had to cut to commercials several times.

    BTW If you wanted the opposite of MSNBC, you could've flipped over to Fox News.

    The other night Rachel Maddow gave Joe Biden's economy adviser an earful for the freezing proposal, so all the liberals are not satisfied and status quo or the new initiatives of the administration. Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner must go…. Since Bernanke was confirmed he will stay but liberals were not happy with him.

    January 28, 2010 at 5:31 p.m.

  • Legion357

    I was not singling out a local poster; I saw that Michael Moore comparison in the comment section of a national right-wing blog.

    Read carefully, I do not agree with this freeze because it amounts to gimmick and as you say, it was intended for the independent vote. It amounts chump change….

    Personally, I think the president is being given a bad rap when it comes to transparency because he is taking small incremental steps like making White House visitors public but his detractors will never give them credit for trying to make it happen over the hesitation of congress. Sometimes it's like herding cats…. Some of the health care policy meetings were on C-SPAN, the proposals put online but the micromanagers will always find one that did not and exploit it for all it's worth.

    January 28, 2010 at 5:10 p.m.

  • Ahhh, a reasonable and expected post for you Mike, but you just had to mention O'Keefe and Michael Moore.

    Four of the top eight grossing documentaries, well sure, all the enviro-nuts and far left minions love anything Michael Moore, and probably paid to watch said documentary s more than once and also bought the DVD s.

    One poster commented that O'Keefe did violate the law and should be punished, on that I agree. But the thread the comment was on equated his lack of wisdom to the Watergate scandal, wrong IMO.

    Back to the state of the union speech, (and also some biased reporting), I did not catch the persons name on MSNBC but he constantly said, "we agree with the President", "all of us agree with the President" and "the President expressed our views", over and over.

    If that is not biased reporting, I don't know what is.

    All in all, a very well written speech.

    The President is going to save 1% of what he wants to spend, although $250B sounds like more.

    The president also made a little shift to agree with the MA independent voters, damage control I guess.

    The President also very skillfully side stepped his "more transparency in government" campaign promise.

    January 28, 2010 at 4:55 p.m.