Jackson Free Press

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times column that President Obama is taking the country in the right direction in his new budget:

Elections have consequences. President Obama's new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years. If he can get anything like the plan he announced on Thursday through Congress, he will set America on a fundamentally new course.

The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of postpartisan depression. The stimulus bill that Congress passed may have been too weak and too focused on tax cuts. The administration's refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing. But fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished.

For this budget allocates $634 billion over the next decade for health reform. That's not enough to pay for universal coverage, but it's an impressive start. And Mr. Obama plans to pay for health reform, not just with higher taxes on the affluent, but by putting a halt to the creeping privatization of Medicare, eliminating overpayments to insurance companies.

On another front, it's also heartening to see that the budget projects $645 billion in revenues from the sale of emission allowances. After years of denial and delay by its predecessor, the Obama administration is signaling that it's ready to take on climate change.

And these new priorities are laid out in a document whose clarity and plausibility seem almost incredible to those of us who grew accustomed to reading Bush-era budgets, which insulted our intelligence on every page. This is budgeting we can believe in.

Many will ask whether Mr. Obama can actually pull off the deficit reduction he promises. Can he actually reduce the red ink from $1.75 trillion this year to less than a third as much in 2013? Yes, he can.

Previous Comments

ID

144183

Comment

first

Author

....

Date

2009-02-27T21:59:28-06:00

ID

144194

Comment

I just wanna make sure you guys are going to ambush Rove when he comes to MC on March 30. Buy a ticket, it'll help the college, and you'll get to ask some good questions.

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2009-03-01T21:24:33-06:00

ID

144250

Comment

Hate to disagree with Krugman and you guys, BUT: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html The budget is a mess. Just b/c Obama signs his name to it, doesn't mean it's gold. Look at the stimulus package... Pelosi and Reid (and a select few others) pretty much wrote it. Obama didn't want all of those pork projects in there but he felt pressured to rush something...anything out there. Regardless of politics, we all hope that it works! But, you don't have to agree wholeheartedly with everything he signs. Remember, sometimes dissent is not a bad thing. Lord knows that even hard-core conservatives dissented over the mess (that we are still suffering through) caused during the last administration.

Author

mc

Date

2009-03-03T10:37:59-06:00

ID

144253

Comment

Funny, that's a Republican talking point this week. You're saying exactly what Tate Reeves said yesterday. The problem is, it's all sound bites. If you disagree with Krugman, explain why. Otherwise, just sounds like you're being partisan. Oh, and 1 percent of the budget is "port," and much of that there to appease Republicans. And you know who was the No. 1 earmark state before Obama arrived, right? You guessed it: Mississippi. I don't agree with everything Obama says, although I do trust that he has surrounded himself with very smart people who don't "yes" him all the time. What's much weirder than having confidence in our new president elected with a mandate to change things dramatically in Washington is to hear people disagree with everything he says just because he's a Democrat. Hint: When you can't explain why you disagree in a way that makes sense, we can pretty assume it's partisan. Let's start with basics, folks, like understanding what things like "stimulus," "socialism" and even "earmark" actually mean, and don't mean.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T10:50:40-06:00

ID

144255

Comment

I apologize for offering a different point of view. I realize that kind of thing is not popular around here. Regardless, I posted a link to the article which refuted the article on Obama's "very, very good" budget. Here's a little sneak peak: "The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier. Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health." And regarding what "stimulus" means: When looking to stimulate the economy, the gov't should create/promote actual jobs and training for these jobs. The stimulus will accomplish this with green jobs and jobs created while rebuilding our infastructure. The gov't should not just include BILLIONS of dollars in unrelated programs just b/c the nation is in a panic. What did Rahm Emanual say about crisis??? His exact quote was: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Ouch, he really shouldn't have said what he meant. Please address this quote in any response. By the way, perhaps someone should inform Ronnie Mott of the JFP's "non-partisanship" stance. Hint: Most publications with posters of Che Guevera in their offices are rarely considered middle-of-the-road or non-partisan. I actually didn't believe that you guys had one...I thought it was a joke but then someone showed me a picture on your Lounge List. What's up with that? Seriously???

Author

mc

Date

2009-03-03T12:40:01-06:00

ID

144256

Comment

I realize that kind of thing is not popular around here. Alright, stop the silly martyrdom. A variety of viewpoints are welcome here, but the problem with your post above is that it didn't say anything -- except accuse people you don't agree with of agreeing with anything Obama said. And cut out the Ronni bashing. Like the rest of us, Ronni is not a partisan, but she is willing to let the chips fall where they may, regardless of party (as did most of the country in November, I might add). Beyond that, though, do not come on my site and get personal about any member of my staff. I assume you know how to self-regulate and be bigger than that and stick with the issues. If not, move on. As for office decor, we have all sorts of posters and art in our offices, in addition to the Che poster over Sage's desk. (He was gorgeous, you know.) They range from a huge blow-up of Frank Melton holding a rifle in my classroom to a "Little Frankie Titty Cop" pasty a stripper Adam interviewed about Melton's raids on strip clubs gave him (which is on my office door). Over my desk I have bumper stickers ranging from "Annoy The Clarion-Ledger: Vote Pickering" to "Are You Afraid to Think?" to "Thelma and Louise Live." Over my head on the wall is my favorite Bible verse blown up: "Be in solidarity with the poor." On my office door there is also a bumper sticker that says, "Somewhere in Texas a Village Is Missing Its Idiot"—you decide whether you think that applies to a president, a mayor or anyone else. Oh, and Todd has a Tony DiFatta painting of George Bush in his office. So, mc, are you now going to stop wasting my time with your silly little duck-pecks and stick to actually discussing issues with the rest of the big boys and girls? I thought so. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T12:54:05-06:00

ID

144259

Comment

On MC's defense, I can see why the Che Guevara poster would cause some criticism. I mean, a Marxist guerrilla leader who basically hated our way of doing things, might not go over well for some. Kind of extreme, and if I heard a publication had that poster hanging in the office, and had no information on the other posters and such in the office, I would be wary on the "non-partisan" stance. Since MC now knows of the others, it might change his opinion. Anyway, Flyers tonight against the Bruins. Go Flyers! Oh wait, no one likes hockey?

Author

....

Date

2009-03-03T13:46:10-06:00

ID

144260

Comment

Well, JOKeefe, the painting of George Bush might make some people uncomfortable in today's world as well. You caught the news yesterday where he considered suspending the First Amendment and withheld information that nearly 100 videos of torture were destroyed, right? It's called ART. The point, of course, is that y'all are trying to conduct a witchhunt here on my site, and if you're going to start whining about the art that people hang on their walls here, you'd better damn well place it in the proper context. If not, it'll sound a little like you're just trying to stir up trouble and change the subject. Take the McCarthyism elsewhere; this ain't the 1950s. Speaking of the subject, this one's about Krugman's column about Obama's budget. Care to discuss that again? ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T13:58:09-06:00

ID

144262

Comment

Well, JOKeefe, the painting of George Bush might make some people uncomfortable in today's world as well. You caught the news yesterday where he considered suspending the First Amendment and withheld information that nearly 100 videos of torture were destroyed, right? That is my point exactly. I was stating why I could see MS's point, but he/she came at it with ignorance of the office. I am not trying to conduct a "witchhunt" at all. I disliked both parties in the race, and I dislike both parties now. I was very critical to the he last administrated, as well. I am a Libertarian, so of course I am going to disagree with many of Obama's views, which is why I did not vote for him.

Author

....

Date

2009-03-03T14:06:45-06:00

ID

144263

Comment

Fair enough, but your first post was in "defense" of a really pathetic attempt to red-bait over one of many varied pieces of art my staff has displayed. Frankly, I see no defense of such idiocy. That said, it is so time for this poor dog to rest in peace. And it is certainly time to get back on topic. As for disagreeing with both sides because you're a Libertarian, that is the most sane thing I've heard here in a while. That makes perfect sense.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T14:19:19-06:00

ID

144264

Comment

My point was to show why maybe mc would say. I guess I cherry picked the argument, and did not make my statment clear. I also can not tell if the last statment was sarcasm. It was just the simplest way for me to put why I have disagreements with both parties.

Author

....

Date

2009-03-03T14:28:25-06:00

ID

144265

Comment

That's OK, OKeefe. I might have read too much into your post; I was still reeling at an attempt to red-bait me. You just don't see that kind of thing much these days! Although, you know, I did watch the Olympics this year ... and they were in RED China!?! Eek! Seriously ... I wasn't being sarcastic at all with the last statement. I lean Libertarian myself, and appreciate the consistency of a real Libertarian (not the fake ones who cherrypick issues for convenience and support the drug war, for instance). I'm not a Libertarian fully because I know it's as Utopian as all the other strict sound-good philosophies (including pure capitalism or -- hit the play button -- communism or socialism.) The country at this stage is in a real danger zone, and it's going to take the government to fix it. Why? Because the government created it. And that's why the country elected Obama -- to lead the effort by the federal government to get us out of this mess. And to soundly reject the idea that government (and its necessary regulatory and service components) need to be drowned in a bathtub. The country's prosperity and power will go down the drain with it, and that's never been clearer to the majority of the electorate. Like it or not, Obama is doing what he was elected to do. He will make mistakes, but boy are we on a better path than we've been in a long, long time.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T14:36:17-06:00

ID

144266

Comment

I have been called an extremist a good number of times because of my strict Libertarian mentality. I also have gotten the whole "rich mans anarchy," statment more then a few times. I just believe in actual independents, and ever since George Bush Sr. was in office, it seems like we have strayed away from the Constitution. I just speak out against people giving up their liberties for "protection" (Patriot Act). The problem I have with reliance on the Feds is that it becomes an obsession with letting them do everything for you and letting the "rich" pay for it. My number one concern is that we will fall into a one world government, as George Bush Sr spoke of, that is run by private banks.

Author

....

Date

2009-03-03T14:48:40-06:00

ID

144268

Comment

Number 1. I'm not bashing Ronnie Mott. She's a pretty good writer...it's just quite apparent that the overwhelming majority of her articles or posts attack Republicans. Where's the JFP's outrage on the news of another Judge finding fault with Ike Brown and the MS Democratic Party's actions. Voter disenfranchisement is among the worst crimes, whether they be against whites or blacks or Democrats or Republicans. Number 2. I guess you could consider a picture of the ever so handsome Che Guevera as art. I see him as a mass murderer and is a worldwide symbol for violent, Marxist revolution...no matter how good looking Ladd thinks he is...Whatever floats your boat, I guess. I won't bring it up again. Number 3. And finally back on the subject...I shall not vear again. What do you think about Rahm Emanuel's quote: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." If anyone could write as much about this as Ladd did about my ever so silly and ridiculus allusion to Che Guevera, that would be great. And please put it in the context of the billions of dollars of pork in the stimulus package and budget. To be a bit preemptive, I don't care how much Cochran or any Republican asked for...two wrongs don't make a right. You guys seem to attack Cochran for asking for it but defend the Democrats for recklessly throwing it out there. Republicans are absolutely guilty of playing a MASSIVE part in the troubles of the US and world today. But they are hardly solely to blame. You would never know that if you only read Daily Kos, Huffington Post, or the JFP.

Author

mc

Date

2009-03-03T14:53:17-06:00

ID

144269

Comment

You don't sound like an "extremist"; I'd call you an "idealist." ;-) Libertarians put a bit too much faith into the idea of self-regulation, sadly. I wish y'all were proved right more often. If so, I'd be with you. As it is, though, I'd have to sacrifice my personal spiritual ideals to be a Libertarian. As for Bush Sr., it's not like he was a Libertarian, although certainly more so than Junior. The problem I have with reliance on the Feds is that it becomes an obsession with letting them do everything for you and letting the "rich" pay for it. Fortunately, that's not the only option (my other problem with strict Libertarians, and other ideologues, is that everything is always black or white. Which it's not, of course). It is truly hard to argue that America has ever been a country that supports the idea that the government should "do everything for you." That's pure rhetoric. We are a hard-working country. Supporting this stimulus now in no way implies that someone feels that way. It is a dramatic fallacy to argue that it does.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T14:54:41-06:00

ID

144270

Comment

Oh, and what drug war? Oh, the "war" to keep drugs off the street only to feed them back into the streets again, and let minor possesion charges fill up out jails?

Author

....

Date

2009-03-03T14:56:30-06:00

ID

144273

Comment

.it's just quite apparent that the overwhelming majority of her articles or posts attack Republicans. mc, have you met the recent Republicans in power!?! Most of the country is on the outs with them, for God's sake, even other Republicans. Your logic is sorely lacking here, sorry. Ah, Ike Brown. Is Ike Brown in control of the state, or the country, the state Democratic Party, or anything for that matter, at this point? Or, could we possibly equate him to, say, Tom DeLay and say, thank goodness that man isn't running the country? Brown has nothing to do with anything we're talking about here. You're making no sense when you veer off the script like this. As for our taste in art, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what you think of it. Thank you for not veering into ridiculous sidebars again. The only thing I'll say to your attempt to get back on topic is: Many Democrats despise the JFP because we don't just focus our attention on the shortfalls of Republicans. You seem to cherry-pick what you notice in reading, as much as you do what you use in your arguments. As for pork, as Ronni reported in another post, 1 percent of the stimulus is pork, and much of it apparently put there to appease Republicans such as ours here in Mississippi, who lead the pork pack.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T15:08:31-06:00

ID

144274

Comment

h, the "war" to keep drugs off the street only to feed them back into the streets again, and let minor possesion charges fill up out jails? Touche. ;-) We'd agree on many things, I suspect, OKeefe. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T15:11:49-06:00

ID

144279

Comment

Maybe the neo-McCarthyites would like posters of Mao since Communist China is financing our deficit spending for the last eight years. Mao probably was the proximate cause of thousands more deaths than Che Guevara's quixotic campaigns and we are their biggest customers. THAT is twilight zonish.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2009-03-03T15:52:06-06:00

ID

144280

Comment

I don't know if you remember, but I am Rosalie's boyfriend and I am interning this summer.

Author

....

Date

2009-03-03T15:55:15-06:00

ID

144283

Comment

Oh, good. I do remember you. We'll have lots of great conversations, it seems. I mean, if you don't mind being in the building with a such hodgepodge of art. ;-) And way to go, Whitley. That was the point I was teasing about our good buddies in China, but you slammed it right between the eyes. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T16:08:29-06:00

ID

144285

Comment

Speaking of "cherry picking". You seem to attack all of the subjects in which I strayed yet you have not addressed Rahm Emmanuel's quote ...which is spot on the subject of this page. Maybe the third time is a charm...here is the quote again: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." What do you think about this? Do you not think it CLEARLY states that those in power are using this crisis to pass many outlandish and expensive programs that they would normally get away with? I hope so b/c I don't think Emmanuel can spell it out for you any better than that. This is the same thing W Bush did after 9/11 and it was as wrong then as it is now. For some reason you keep attacking Republicans in your responses but you keep ignoring this fact. Hate to tell you but I think most Republicans suck so you're kind of wasting your time there. I like just as many Democrats as I do Republicans...and that aint too many. As a matter of fact, I like Obama overall...I just really think he's rushed through all of this. Most of the jobs will be created with the stimulus money will take a few years. Rebuilding bridges and energy grids take a lot of planning...most blue collar workers won't be hired for years...so why rush everything through without reading the stimulus bill first? And his budget that you guys are so crazy about penalizes businesses. That's typically not a good way to stimulate business Hint: Businesses hire people. When you tax the sh$% out of them, they tend not to expand or hire people.

Author

mc

Date

2009-03-03T16:11:58-06:00

ID

144286

Comment

Oh, and that is if you actually pay your taxes. It's always nice when the same people that support billions of tax dollars being thrown around pay their taxes. This seems to be an issue with about every 5th person involved in the transition thus far. Isn't this just the height of hypocrisy?

Author

mc

Date

2009-03-03T16:15:55-06:00

ID

144288

Comment

Oh, I didn't see Rahm's quote. I agree with it if that is what he said: A crisis is a perfect time to get major things done. The country is ready for major change, and during this time, it's not easy for significant change to be shot down with easy partisan rhetoric and fearmongering. It kind of reminds me of the tragedy that is the fact that wars have helped lead to jobs and economic prosperity. Some people even advocate waging wars for that purpose, although I don't. Of course, the recent ones didn't lead to prosperity except for Bush/Cheney's war-profiteering buddies. Oh, and I own a business. Fortunately, the plan is not to tax the shit out of businesses. You should study up a bit. I don't remember all the "Republicans suck" rhetoric you're talking about. The truth is, not all Republicans suck. Many are progressive-minded, and intelligent. The problem is that those aren't the ones who have been in charge of late. I have confidence that the GOP is going to reset itself after all this mess and come out stronger on the other end. I sure hope so. As anyone who reads here regularly knows, I despise the two-party system. Even worse is a one-party system, which we're going to have for a while if the GOP doesn't get its act together and get in touch with the American people's mood and wishes, and stop being a regional anti-government, southern-strategy, leftover-Dixie kind of party. The country has moved on from that. (Hint: Rush and nonsensical, fact-challenged rhetoric won't get them there.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T16:19:08-06:00

ID

144289

Comment

According to salary.com the average small business owner income is $238,000 so the average small business owner will not be affected by a tax that affects those over $250,000 and will stand to benefit if insurance costs are lowered to reduce the cost of doing business. We have a problem with inequality in this country. It is not a coincidence that the greatest levels of inequality were right before the crash of 1929 and right now. If most people are not prospering they are not able to buy stuff to stoke the economy. Those at lower income levels are the ones more likely to buy stuff. Making the tax code more progressive is --- progressive.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2009-03-03T16:29:44-06:00

ID

144291

Comment

Right, Whitley. The health-care reform part is so welcome to businesses of all sizes. This has been one area where business has really departed from the recent Republican guard. I do wish people would figure out what Obama is actually pushing for before just repeating all these talking points. It scares me that so many people want him to fail at any cost.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T16:40:11-06:00

ID

144293

Comment

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." I absolutely agree. When else are we going to tackle healthcare and the environment? During the Dot Com bubble? During the real estate bubble? No...only when we're focused on fundamental solutions to economic crisis. Step one: fix health care. The current system is huge burden to our ability to be competitive globally. Likewise, I think there could be some very dramatic things done about energy in this country that it is taking a crisis to make happen; particularly the smart grid infrastructure. So, I'd say, no, the comment from Emmanuel does not necessarily mean that... it CLEARLY states that those in power are using this crisis to pass many outlandish and expensive programs that they would normally get away with? because you're working from the assumption that anyone in his position would WANT to do that, and that assumption is ridiculous. I'd encourage you to wean yourself from the notion people in this country -- liberals or conservatives -- want to pass "outlandish and expensive programs" simply for the sake of doing it. That really isn't anyone's economic theory. The theory is that the government is the spender of last resort and we're at "last resort" time in the current business cycle crisis. This is the result of a great deal of speculation within a regulatory environment that allowed too much poorly assessed risk to be accumulated using financial tools that were created within the past decade. Now, somebody has to clean up the mess. And cleaning up the mess will probably be messy -- we'll probably be retooling some railroads that don't need it on the Coast or occasionally building yet another bridge to nowhere.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2009-03-03T16:53:27-06:00

ID

144295

Comment

I didn't say that you said "all Republicans suck". I said that I think "most Republicans suck" b/c you kept attacking them in every post for no apparent reason. Some habits are hard to break. Also, how did you miss that Emmanuel quote TWICE? Are you the same person that regulary criticizes people for their lack of reading comprehension? Oh, and the tax code is going to get more "progressive", alright. Good luck small businesses! Increasing taxes on businesses has never promoting expansion of the economy and never will. Please cite an example. Why would a company hire more workers when they are paying out more to the government? Progressive taxes!!! What a fun way to say that your taxes are getting raised!!! By the way, I've never seen that $238k figure before. I googled it and still couldn't find it.

Author

mc

Date

2009-03-03T16:59:16-06:00

ID

144296

Comment

Mc, for God's sake, there is "no apparent reason" to criticize the Republicans who have been in power of late!?! Come on: trying to suspend the First and Fourth Amendments, lying about why we went to war, rolling back to much regulation, exploding the national deficit, violating international law on torture ... Clearly, you are very sensitive about any criticism of Republicans. I'm sorry about that, but it doesn't change things here. Your little stupid personal attacks don't work on this site, nor will they be tolerated. We will continue to criticize anyone we want, on the merits (or lack of them). For God's sake, learn to deal in facts and leave all the empty rhetoric to the side. If not, you're going to be as marginalized as folks like Delay, Cheney and Bush. No one will care. As far as your Rahm quote ... darling, when people post (a) lies or (b) personal insults, I stop reading the post right there, as any busy person would. It's simply not worth my time to continue to the end. Now, I've given you way too many words already today, and I'm not going to have any more chicken-fights with you. What you need to do is stick to the issues and facts, and stop going after me or anyone else personally. This is simply not a sandbox for that kind of puerile posting. You are trying to debate issues in parts of your posts. Just leave out the offensive and personal stuff, and you will be fine. I'm giving you a chance to hang here, so don't blow it. Remember: self-regulation is the way to go.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T17:08:33-06:00

ID

144297

Comment

I got the number wrong. It is $233,600. You can find it easily with the right number :-). Bill Clinton raised taxes on the upper brackets, made the code more progressive, reduced the deficit and we experienced one of the greatest economic expansions in our history. Emmanuel' words could have been chosen better. I think his intention was not much different from the respectable Republican, Steve Forbes, who writes in the latest issue of Forbes that .

Author

FreeClif

Date

2009-03-03T17:09:22-06:00

ID

144298

Comment

Well, if you really want to "care for the environment" go vegan. According to the public, since I am vegan that I care about the environment. I don't buy into the C02 situation because it is just away to add another tax. What about dumping toxic waste into the oceans and clearing the rain forest. Yes, health care is bad but look at the stats of government run health care. We need to change something about it, but nationalizing it is not the answer. Like I said, look at the systems around the globe that are government run, and see where the people come for many major surgery.

Author

....

Date

2009-03-03T17:12:11-06:00

ID

144299

Comment

Thanks for the correx, Whitley. And nice quote from ole Forbes.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T17:12:48-06:00

ID

144300

Comment

JOKeefe, a good hint is to post links when you suggest that someone look at certain statistics. Then, everyone is on the same page during an ensuing discussion. The plan, by the way, is not to nationalize health care. Hyperbole isn't going to lead to good conversation. (I was vegan for three days; I wish I could have stuck it out. But I love being vegetarian, and although that doesn't benefit the environment and society as much as being vegan, it is a good step along that route.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-03T17:16:17-06:00

ID

144307

Comment

Everybody ignored my Rove comment. ROVE IS COMING TO MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE MARCH 30!! What are you clusterfraks going to do about it?

Author

DrumminD21311

Date

2009-03-03T22:38:45-06:00

ID

144309

Comment

I know this is off topic but the subject doesn't come up enough. I am a vegetarian too. I could probably be a vegan if I didn't have to give up cheese. But I just can't do it. Every time someone finds out I'm a vegetarian I almost always get the same questions. "What/ where do you eat?" and "Isn't that hard?". I would love to see more vegetarian recipes in the pages here and in the print edition. Reviews of good restaurant vegetarian dishes would be an awesome feature also. I really think if people knew how many restaurants offered great vegetarian selections and how much easier it is now-a-days to give up eating animals there would be more of us. Ok, back to the topic and the chicken fight. lol

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-03-04T07:21:56-06:00

ID

144310

Comment

We used to run tons of vegetarian stuff in the paper (and online). Bet if you'd search the site, you'd find a bunch of stuff. However, I'm always happy to do more. I do get rather tired of the question, "What DO you eat?" Answer: Everything but flesh. And there's a lot of food that's not flesh. I also eat a more varied diet as a result. I find being a foodie is even easier as a vegetarian, but you don't always get the salmon, for instance. You experiment. And that's what being a foodie is about. ;-) You're right: this is off-topic. Start a forum thread if you want to talk about it more ...

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-04T09:00:23-06:00

ID

144312

Comment

What kind of health care system do the Republicans propose? Every since President Clinton brought up the idea in his first term, all we kept hearing is "socialized medicine". The system we have is broken and affects the budget in a big way. There needs to be a comprehensive, nonpartisam discussion on what can be done, a discussion that moves beyond the socialism rhetoric and simply gives us the facts.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2009-03-04T09:15:08-06:00

ID

144318

Comment

Ladd, apparently "self-regualation" doesn't apply to you. Both your columns and posts are commonly filled with crude remarks and nearly libelous claims. You accuse me of getting offended by your Republican atacks yet I tell you both Bush and most Republicans suck. I'm just left astounded how you let issues like judicial bribery just fly by---well, that's not true...you regualry defend Paul Minor...so that is what it is I guess. Regarding your repeated failure to "notice" my request for you to respond to Emmanual's quote, you said that you quit reading after my ridiculous comments. Yet you attacked several statements after the Emmanual quote. That simply doesn't add up and quite frankly is pretty sad. But you finally did address the quote (after the third time I posted it) and you said that he was right on. So I guess you are lucky that you are willing to have all of the cost of this pork passed on to our children's children. I see that you feel vendicated that a Republican, Steve Forbes, said a similar thing. And as I stated above, Bush did the same thing with Civil Liberties and tons of other programs after 9/11. It was wrong then (and I'm sure you flipped) but now that your savior has done it, it's cool with you. Hypocrisy and lunacy is at an all time high at the JFP. Perhaps that's why you have had only one or two advertisers on this site in the past year. Don't worry about kicking me off and deleting my comments b/c they ring to true for you. I'm deleting my account now. By the way, since you are so keen on this massive spending of our taxpayer dollars, do you think the JFP could actually pay them on time and not get another lien on your property? Again with the hypocrisy!! You want all these federal programs yet you yourself fail to pay your taxes properly. Ouch!!!!

Author

mc

Date

2009-03-04T11:59:01-06:00

ID

144320

Comment

mc, I'm not even sure what "nearly libelous" means, although it seems clear that you do not know what "libelous" means, or the need to check your facts before passing along rumors started by people with their own agendas (who don't have the courage to ask people face-to-face to check their facts, either). You've shown your true colors here: You are here to troll, and you do not like it when people dare to disagree with your views in public. What you're doing is nothing new, but it is sad. Yes, your troll comments will be deleted, but I'll leave this here long enough for you to see it. It's really too bad; you don't have to act this way in public.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2009-03-04T12:26:22-06:00

ID

144355

Comment

I'm no economics genius or anything, so he may be right. The only thing that bothers me about Krugman is whenever I've watched him in interviews and debates, it's seems to me that he tries to skew economic data to fall inline with whatever social conclusion that he's advocating. But that's probably true of many economic pundits.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-03-05T09:33:27-06:00

ID

144358

Comment

I understand why folks are concerned about huge government deficit spending, but folks, it's like this: If someone doesn't spread some money around now and for the next year or two the world could see a big D depression for a very long time. The government is the one entity that can keep money flowing when everyone else just wants to hold on to it with all their might. The private sector is more efficient, no doubt, but right now the private sector is on life support. Oh, and the JFP has done a number of great articles on food. The vegetarian recipes are not often singled out as vegetarian, but they are there.

Author

gwilly

Date

2009-03-05T10:22:13-06:00

ID

144361

Comment

People don't complain when the shows up to put out the fire in the house next door. Our economic house is on fire. A leading economist at the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank, has even concluded there is a 20% chance of the big one (with a D). There is good reason to believe that Citigroup and Bank of America may eventually fail as going concerns without more government intervention. WE already own forty percent of Citigroup, a controlling interest. Mississippi will soon have double digit unemployment. We need the cavalry and there is not a private militia that can come to the rescue. Ironically, it is probably vital to get China (the communist ones) to cooperate with a stimulus of their own also. Ironically, they are the ones who seem to be dragging on getting their government spending ramped up.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2009-03-05T11:43:57-06:00