Do Republicans really care about the "War on Poverty?"

Do Republicans really care about the "War on Poverty?"

On Tuesday, the Senate advanced legislation to extend long-term unemployment benefits, and all but six Republicans declined to vote for it.  Instead of helping to restore this financial lifeline to out-of-work Americans, Conservative lawmakers say that they are launching their own plan to help the poor.  Today, Senator Marco Rubio will deliver a speech marking the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's War on Poverty, and he's expected to lay out the Republican plan to fight economic inequality.  

Considering this is the same party that wants to slash food stamps, subject welfare recipients to drug tests, and kick people off unemployment assistance, it's hard to imagine how their ideas will include anything except for tax cuts for the rich.  In a video message previewing today's speech, Senator Rubio asked, “After 50 years, isn't it time to declare big government's war on poverty a failure?”  But, despite decades of Republicans trying to slash the social safety net, the war on poverty has actually been a success.  

Just days ago, the New York Times released a report showing that the poverty rate would be twice as high without the government programs that the Right loves to hate.  Republicans don't care about the war on poverty – they've been waging war on the poor for decades.  If their tax cuts and austerity weren't so harmful to our nation, it would almost be laughable to hear conservatives talk about helping the poor.  But the fact is – poverty isn't a joke.

Comments

Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland's picture
A "Republican war on

A "Republican war on poverty"?  Don't make me laugh.  This insults the intelligence of anyone who's been a witness to this freak show.  - AIW

socialdemocrat
Hi Thom, The R's also have a

Hi Thom,

The R's also have a war on the free market and here's how: In free market theory, there are three conditions for the markets to work well:

"Perfect competition"

"Perfect information" and (wait for it.....)

NO externalities!

So when those libertarian types call in and claim to be such big believers in the wonders and magic of the Free Market, they need to understand they also should be in favor of a tax on carbon and paying a living wage to all Americans!

 

 

chuckle8
chuckle8's picture
Do not forget vigorous

Do not forget vigorous enforcement of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

stecoop01
stecoop01's picture
There's a more insidious

There's a more insidious aspect to the republicans war on poverty: By destroying the social safety nets, forcing more people to fend for themselves, they hope to raise the crime rate. The more people committing crimes and being jailed, the more profit for the corporate prisons, and more rich people getting richer. And, yes, republicans just hate poor people.

DAnneMarc
DAnneMarc's picture
stecoop01 wrote:The more

stecoop01 wrote:
The more people committing crimes and being jailed, the more profit for the corporate prisons, and more rich people getting richer.

stecoop01 ~ Yes, that thought has crossed my mind too. Makes some sense. However, there are already so many stupid laws on the books they don't really have to go that far to fill up prisons. After all, technically you can go to jail for recording a movie or reprinting an article. 

There is also the Georgia Guidestone which states first and foremost that humanity must be maintained below 500,000,000. Another explanation could very well be soft genocide.

Of course, one must always remember that the best place to hide a secret is in plain sight. What about the stars on the Republican logo being flipped into a satanic symbol? Like I've said before they might offer a clue to explain the unexplainable. Maybe the Republicans just want to sacrifice a lot of weak people who don't agree with them to their high lord Satan? They want to do it in the cruelest way possible--freezing and starving to death like dogs in the street. To me that makes perfect sense and suits all the known characteristics of this gang of losers.

Kend
Kend's picture
I can't believe you guys you

I can't believe you guys you got what you want and your still whining. Geeeez. 

When is the left going to realize you are running out of money. What are you going to do when no one will lend you any more. Isn't it about time you started talking about how to create jobs. Five years Obama has been leading you into poverty and no one seems to care. Hasn't this been extended 5 times already. You need jobs a lot more then you need social benefit extentions. When I say jobs I don't mean the kind the government subsidizes I mean the real ones. You know the old fashion ones that create tax income not spend it. 

Of course the Rep. Are coming up with there own plan. Obamas doesn't work. Thank god someone is doing something To help the poor unemployed. 

DAnneMarc
DAnneMarc's picture
Kend wrote:When is the left

Kend wrote:
When is the left going to realize you are running out of money.

Kend ~ I can't speak for everyone on the left; but, I'd say that when we cut off hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to corporations that are already making huge profits and not paying any taxes; and, when we strip our Defense Department of the annual trillion dollars that we squander on illegal wars; then, we can talk about cutting off unemployment benefits for our hungry fellow citizens. Does that answer your question?

Willie W
Willie W's picture
Of course we're running out

Of course we're running out of money. It's called transfer of wealth. The one percent have moved it all to themselves. I dream of the day when my Social Security is taken away and I can move to an efficiency one room cardboard box, and eat others discarded food for free. Obviously a lifestyle of choice. Living under the radar. Not paying taxes. 

BMetcalfe
BMetcalfe's picture
Sadly, there is a lot of

Sadly, there is a lot of truth in many of the former posts.

BUT...

They've practically lost the war on drugs because of the MMJ (and now two states are opting to sell pot for recreational use); they're losing the war against same sex marriages, state-by-state-by-state; they've lost the respect of most reasonable, self-thinking people around the country (and in other countries, as well). All they can do now is try to tear down as many of the 95%-er's safety nets as they possibly can (misery LOVES company, you know!), just as fast as they can, before (hopefully) some of their radicals are voted back to the "corn fields" and the "hollers" this coming November.

 

Remember that folks... REMEMBER in NOVEMBER.

2950-10K
2950-10K's picture
I caught some Randi Rhodes

I caught some Randi Rhodes driving home from work today and some right wing genius called her  and suggested that the unempolyed simply need to relocate to areas where jobs exist. However it doesn't take a genius to figure out what would happen if the 11 million unemployed citizens took his advice. Seeing how there's only one job for every three or four jobless citizens seeking......there would still be around 8 million jobless and homeless ciitzens living on the very streets of these alleged job fertile areas.

Can you say Grapes of Wrath!  

Sitting in for Thom today and as usual..... Pap really put the paddle to those who need it most. The overly polite and timid Democrats getting teabagged in Washington need to pay attention and learn from Pap speaking truth to power.   

 

Mark Saulys
Mark Saulys's picture
        Kend, here's a story

 

      Kend, here's a story from the daily Kos.  Ronald Reagan raised the debt cieling 18 x.  Bill Clinton reduced the budget deficit every year of his administration (by $100 billion by 1994) ran a budget surplus for the last three years of his presidency and brought down the Reagan debt to $5.7 trillion.  G.W. Bush ran a debt of 11.3 trillion, the largest increase in history.  Obama at least put the unfunded wars on the books but can't, in these times, do much about the debt. Selling bonds in a time like this is a good thing..

LarryMackFollowRSSDaily Kos member

Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 10:41 AM PDT

A Debt Ceiling Primer from George W.

by LarryMackFollow for LarryMack

When Mr. Bush took office, he inherited a federal budget that had been balanced for three consecutive years and a surplus of $236 billion, the largest surplus in American history. Even sweeter, we were running an on-budget surplus no longer diverting surplus from the Social Security Trust Fund to fund other government programs.

This conservative largess, of course, came from the previous Democratic administration. The national debt was $5.727 trillion when Bush took office. By September 2008, the national debt had soared to more than $9.849 trillion, an almost 72 percent increase during Mr. Bush’s two terms.

And those are the debt figures before the basically unregulated, free-for-all banking and financial system received Mr. Bush's $700 billion Wall Street bailout money leaving the biggest increase in the national debt under any president in U.S history as a going away present to the American people.

Mr. Bush must have erased the collective memory of his record national debt from the minds of the Grand Old Party. And the troublesome new gang of hometown heroes elected to office who are trying to operate like some kind of hostage-taking Tea Party Taliban have tried to shut down the government by refusing to approve extension of the Federal Debt Ceiling limit.

Most all of these Republicans who rant about "out of control national debt" having no real idea what a debt ceiling is and certainly no idea of how most of those trillions of bucks in debt got racked up . . . on the GOP watch.

So for our seasoned Republican pols like Speaker Boehner, and especially for the Koch Brothers' shiny new members of Congress, here's a quick review:

   

Shortly after taking office, President Bush spoke to the the Republican Congressional Retreat in Williamsburg and blithely declared that his budget would “pay down the national debt."

    President Bush raised the national debt limit eight times during his administration with no notable opposition. Certainly no attempts to take the country hostage on any of the eight occasions when the debt ceiling was raised as a routine act national fiscal procedure.

    On July 30, 2008 President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which contained a quiet little provision raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion.

    One week before leaving office, Bush asked Congress for the remaining $350 billion of the $700 billion Wall Street Troubled Assets Relief Program or TARP bailout package.

    That same last week, Bush signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 raising the national debt ceiling for the eighth time to $12.104 trillion to accommodate the $11.3 trillion all time record debt he left the incoming administration.

    George W. Bush's $11.3 trillion record debt has cost more than $37,000 each for every man, woman and child in the United States. The cost of cleaning up up after the huge GOP approved debt and near deep depression thus caused has been dealt with by the reasoned leadership of President Obama ... in spite of being stonewalled at every turn by Sen. Mitch McConnell and the entire Republican party.

And we aren't even factoring in cost of the Bush/ Cheney unfunded, off the books, decade long wars.

I have found it both bewildering and angering when Republican conservatives, now salted with Tea Party Jabberwockies all lambaste President Obama for the present state of indebtedness as if it was all his fault.  

Republicans are ordered to pass these Cliff's Notes around especially to the petulant Tea Party clog. There will be an exam ... early next year.

( the referenced figures in this piece are all public record, mostly from the Congressional Budget Office ... Larry )

 

   

Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland's picture
Kend, with all due respect,

Kend, with all due respect, just shut the hell up.  You don't know what you're talking about and it is so irritating.  If you think a Republican "war on poverty' amounts to anything more than false pretense, you're even dimmer than I thought.  How about directing your attention to the affairs of your own country?  None of this should even concern you, as you've no skin in the game.  - AIW

ErinRose
ErinRose's picture
The Republicans used to claim

The Republicans used to claim that the reason they should be in power is bc they are the "job creators"; heads of big industry, so they knew how to run things (yah, into the ground.) Then they moved all US manufacturing out of the country and created jobs in China and India. Before you go blaming people for not having jobs, you need to look at your own Right-wing leaders and their industrial employers who took all the jobs away. And this al got started under Rotten Ronald Reagan who was schooled by the Wicked Witch of the West, Margaret Thatcher (just look what she did to England; you can see it on Netflix: The Iron Lady. She had the English rioting in the streets for all the job and tax cutting she did.)

And if Obama doesn't work, it may be for two reasons: (1) he doesn't control the purse strings; the Congress does (and there again, the Republicans have failed to meet the needs of the people; in fact, they have attacked the people using their position of trust), and (2) Obama is a so-called 'Corporate Democrat' aka Moderate, aka Centrist, aka DINO (Democrat in name only). Instead of bailing out the banksters, Obama should have bailed out We, the People. He's no real Democrat; he believes in 'Trickle down economics' and true Democrats believe in Bubble-up economics or consumer driven economics. Obama's greatest fault is thinking that caving to the Right would deliver bi-partisanship in the running of this country. But the lesson is, takers are not givers and the more Obama gave to the Right, the more they insisted on taking bc that's what they do. Takers are never givers.

 

Hey There 4
Hey There 4's picture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT3K0_jEX7s

ptg0
ptg0's picture
Amazing.  They are arguing

Amazing.  They are arguing over 6 BILLION dollars.  or, a little over 1/12 what they are paying monthly as extortion to the wall street banksters that crashed and ruined the economy.  democrats have no balls.  they should have stopped this extortion payout 5 years ago but did nothing.  instead they are all in bed with each other, worried about what going to happen once they quit paying out 85 BILLION PER MONTH.  Here is what is going to happen when they quit.  The economy is going to crash.  its that simple.  Its like sneaking out when your parents ground you.  it doesnt matter how long you stay away, when you get home you are going to get your ass kicked.  Both parties are in the same position now.  when they stop the "QE" BS, they are going to get their asses kicked.

Then what jefferson said should happen every 20 years will happen.

Mark Saulys
Mark Saulys's picture
      By the way, the record

      By the way, the record debt of 11.3 trillion under G.W. Bush did not even include the two unfunded wars.

ptg0
ptg0's picture
the democrats claim they are

the democrats claim they are for the working man.  Where were they when nixon burgled the watergate?  where were they when the senile actor fired the air traffic controllers?  where were they when the senile actor forced "for profit' health care on us?  where were they when the senile actor was starting wars, trading arms for coke and selling weapons to saddam?  where were they during "trickle down economics"?  they signed NAFTA, how did that protect american jobs?  They all voted to invade Iraq.  they all capitulated any time the awol coke head wanted anything.  The problems with this country are 50% caused by democrats.  I am disgusted with myself for voting the straight dem party ticket sinc McGovern.. McGovern would be disgusted with the democrat party.

clinton, shumer baucus and obama are no democrats.  they are republicons in sheep clothing.  Its time to flush the toilet.

Health care in Canada is $50.00 per person per month.  We get the ACA.  What the fk?  And this is the democrat solution?

 

ptg0
ptg0's picture
Yes but obama has been giving

Yes but obama has been giving the banksters 85 BILLION PER MONTH FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS.

Thats very difficult to defend as a"democrat".

Kend
Kend's picture
DAnne. Good point about the

DAnne. Good point about the defence spending. I agree way too much is spent on it.  I also agree with corporations getting government cheese, no business should get government money. You make it or not.  so yes you did answer my question but we still need to create jobs. Non government ones. That is the perfect solution to all of our problems. 

Mark those numbers are staggering. But they prove my point all this spending and nothing is getting better. talking about the past isn't going to fix anything though we have to look forward. 

Alice, i do have skin in the game. I have invested a lot in YOUR country. It is funny how the left thinks. if I came into your country illegally worked here without paying taxes. had you pay for my children's school and health care I am a hero but if I help your economy by investing in it I should just "just the hell up".  If they all just shut up we would still think the world is flat. What's wrong with a little debate. maybe I should just shut up. I'll think about it. It would be a first for me Though. 

Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland's picture
"ptg0", your posts had me

"ptg0", your posts had me howling.  Thanks for making my day.  - AIW

Palindromedary
I must say that I am just

I must say that I am just amazed at the maze of oil wells or fracking sites in those green areas in Central Alberta north of Edmonton. You can see them if you zoom down on them using Google Earth. All those networks of roads and pads...none of which have homes on them...so I suspect that they are petroleum related. You can see the same thing in Texas as well. I actually saw the ones in Texas from the plane when I flew over a number of times. I think Canada has Texas beat though. Look at the area around Swan Hills about 110 miles NW of Edmondton and north of High Prairie which is another 65 miles NW of Swan Hills. Further north past Lesser Slave Lake to the western edge of Utikuma Lake.

Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland's picture
   Kend, nobody held a gun to

   Kend, nobody held a gun to your head and made you "invest" in our countrty.  That was your choice.  It doesn't give you any special authority, nor does it give legitimacy to your condescending rant.  What gives you the right to talk down to us "liberals" like that anyway?  Who do you think you're chastising; a bunch of whiny, spoiled five-year-olds?  Pllleeeeeez.  

   As always, your silly screed is delivered with disjointed logic and muddy thinking.  You're like a "one-note charlie", always harping about jobs jobs jobs.  You think we don't know there's a shortage of jobs?  So what do you suggest, then?  Shall I don a tu-tu, climb up on my roof and wave a magic wand?  Maybe it's time to consult my friend the hookah-smoking caterpillar again.  Hey that's the ticket.  But seriously, I get very weary of your repititious yammering about jobsdebtmoneydebtjobsmoneyjobsjobsjobsjobs$$$$$$ $$jobsGOODdebtBADgottacreatejobsgottagottagotta; blah-blah-blah. You offer no insight, no viable, coherant solutions, just a lot of repititious yammering.  Today I just wasn't in the mood for it.  You and that snippy little punk, Mister Valentine...  - Aliceinwonderland

Elioflight
Elioflight's picture
Stecoop01's comment reminds

Stecoop01's comment reminds me of a true story. My in-laws are the typical hardline Rush Limbaugh-listening/repeating conservative catholic voting republicans. We were visiting this family during Halloween. While we were sitting around the table talking, I noticed that there was a UNICEF donation carton in the center of the table. I asked my young, grade-school nephew about the carton. His reply was, "I hate poor people." I asked him why he hated poor people. He said, "because they are poor." I told him that they probably wish they weren't poor either and could have all the things he, as an upper-middle class boy, has. He got up and left the table.

stecoop01
stecoop01's picture
Elioflight wrote:I asked my

Elioflight wrote:
I asked my young, grade-school nephew about the carton. His reply was, "I hate poor people." I asked him why he hated poor people. He said, "because they are poor."

That's actually frightening; what are kids being taught today?

Palindromedary
That seems rather strange

That seems rather strange that someone who hates poor people would have a Unicef card in the middle of the table yet hates poor people. Unicef, was supposed to be about helping poor people...unless it was put there as a gag..or knowing Elioflight's differing views perhaps a way of provoking an argument? Anyway, it seems to me that those kinds of reich wing attitudes are what leads to things like setting homeless people on fire* or punching people out on the sidewalks...or any of the other violent things that kids do for fun.

I remember, when I was a boy, how some of the pious women of the community went around trying to convince people that Unicef was a communist organization that was trying to fund raise on Halloween and trying to convince people not to donate when the little kiddies came around with Unicef donor cards. I really don't know much about Unicef, maybe they are now raising funds for Al Qaida or Satan(in the minds of some people)?

*I notice some homeless people are possibly trying to protect themselves (if that's what they are trying to do) by having one or two really big dogs...like Rottweilers or Pit Bulls as companions. I don't blame them...there are a lot of crazies out there!

chuckle8
chuckle8's picture
Kend -- What kind of

Kend -- What kind of investments have you made in our country?  I hope you do not count gambling on wall st as an investment.

chuckle8
chuckle8's picture
ptg0 -- Are you saying Obama

ptg0 -- Are you saying Obama has a discretionary fund that he can pay out $85 billion to the banks?

DAnneMarc
DAnneMarc's picture
Elioflight wrote:I noticed

Elioflight wrote:
I noticed that there was a UNICEF donation carton in the center of the table. I asked my young, grade-school nephew about the carton. His reply was, "I hate poor people." I asked him why he hated poor people. He said, "because they are poor."

Elioflight ~ That is really quite shocking and demonstrates a complete lack of education on the par of child abuse. How did the parents react so such a statement? The boy wasn't wearing an Ebenezer Scrooge costume was he? How old is he? A five year old I can understand--they can't even cross the street alone yet. A thirteen year old is applauding. Especially giving such a bogus, and clueless response. In either case it is a fine example of the Hitler type indoctrination that is going on today in the Reich Wing.

In your opinion, where did that come from--his parents, his school, television; or, perhaps a combination?

Elioflight
Elioflight's picture
Palindromedary: This family

Palindromedary: This family had a UNICEF carton on its table because the good catholic sisters at my nephew's catholic school sent it to their "good" catholic home to be filled. The church does try, on the surface, to promote charity for the poor.

I don't know what you mean by "differing views"--unless someone is posting as me. I am a liberal American--have been that way since I was 12 or 13 and intend to die that way.

My comment was in no way meant to provoke people; it was simply a story about how the twisted hatred of the poor touched my own life. I thought this forum was just for that.

DAnneMarc: Ny nephew was 10, maybe. His parents didn't respond at all. They just stared blankly at me. We weren't invited over much after that, not a loss, I can tell you. Most likely a combination--but his sisters are not that way--they have gone their own ways. My brothers grew up in the same liberal home I did, but they are both, as adults, the frightening conservatives.

I think there are a lot of factors that make someone something. Do you have any opinions?

Palindromedary
Elioflight: What I meant by

Elioflight: What I meant by differing views was that you didn't seem to have the same right wing views as your family. I hesitated in being specific and saying "left wing view" or "liberal" because I though I might probably get it wrong so I just said "differing views". I am certainly not provoked as I too consider myself a liberal in most things.

I like your Monsanto skull and bones with a knife and spoon photo. I used to have a T-shirt with a skull with a knife and fork emblem that said "Eat the rich". I think that was also a musical band although I don't know anything about them. I sure got some funny looks when I wore that in public...especially banks.

And so now I understand why there was a Unicef carton on that table. It must be a really difficult conundrum with people who have two different religious convictions...one, the Catholic one that preaches feed the poor (but especially...feed the Catholic church)...and the Mammon one that worships money, greed, and selfishness.

chuckle8
chuckle8's picture
mark s --  It is my

mark s --  It is my understanding that Bush (or any prez) could hide the wars from the budget (i.e. deficit) but not from the debt.

chuckle8
chuckle8's picture
  I keep singing the same

  I keep singing the same song but no one seems to be listening.  I realize the right wing would block me out, but the left wing needs to listen very closely.  The $17 trillion debt is not the metric a country should be concerned about.  It is the equivalent of the bright lights and shiny objects they like to distract us with.  The metric to be concerned about is the per cent of GDP that the $17T is.  It is nearly a 100%.  If one were to base their concerns on the papers published by the economists Reinhart and Rogoff, there would be significant reason to worry.  Their studies show that no country has survived economically when the percent of debt to GDP exceeds 90%.  The republicans like to quote this study often when trying to cut spending.  Then a graduate student in economics at U Mass, Amherst, made them give them the spreadsheets on which they based their studies.  It took it numerous tries before they gave it to him.  For good reason, they did not want to reveal it.  The student found numerous errors and data cherry picking.  There are several cases where countries had nearly a 200% ratio and recovered nicely.  The other factor that makes the studies seem bogus, is that Reinhart and Rogoff were totally funded by Pete Peterson.  Pete Peterson is the wall st billionaire that wants to privatize social security.

I should point out that U Mass, Amherst, is where Richard Wolfe is a professor.

 

 

 

Elioflight
Elioflight's picture
Palindromedary: I get what

Palindromedary: I get what you're saying now. I guess we kind of just misunderstood each other--no harm done. Yes, you're correct, I do NOT have those right-wing views like most of my family. I don't understand that mind-set.

I'd like that tee-shirt you describe.

I live in grain farm/Monsanto country and have to deal with all the chemicals the farmers have to dump on the ground to get the GMO corn and soybeans to grow. There are way too many cancer cases here--our local cancer center was recently purchased by a world famous hospital--plenty of business. I just survived a bout with breast cancer--with NO risk factors. Everyone who knows me was stunned at my diagnosis. I can only point to the chemicals in food (soybean products are in almost every food, even herbal teas) and those used to grow them in our environment--so Monsanto is a pretty big enemy for me.

Have a great evening.

DAnneMarc
DAnneMarc's picture
Aliceinwonderland wrote:You

Aliceinwonderland wrote:
You offer no insight, no viable, coherant solutions, just a lot of repititious yammering.  Today I just wasn't in the mood for it.  You and that snippy little punk, Mister Valentine... 

Aliceinwonderland ~ In case you missed it, yesterday Palindromedary nailed that "snippy little punk..." He's a General Engineer with the US Department Of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. He served as the agency's liaison to the US Petroleum Refinery Industry. Surprise!!

https://heartland.org/brian-valentine

As you can see by this lecture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl6K1slhXqc

Which is full of scientific jargon mixed with high tech double talk the man sold his soul probably for a truck load of money. I don't think we can expect anything meaningful from him. In the future you might want to just ignore him; unless, he surprises us with something meaningful. After all, the taxpayers deserve something for all their money; rather, than being told "we don't have any information," "the information we do have is inconclusive," and "getting any real information would cost too much money." That's his lecture in a nutshell. (Pardon the pun.)

In my opinion, bobcox is much more qualified for this job.

Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland's picture
DAnneMarc- WOW!  I guess I

DAnneMarc- WOW!  I guess I misunderstood what Palin dug up.  I checked out that link and didn't think the guy in that photo looked like the punk in the blog photo; he looked older, with lighter colored hair.  Are you sure they are one and the same?  And what would compel someone with those credentials to pull such a juvenile stunt as to verbally harass us on Thom's blog, with no facts or substance?  Doesn't make sense... unless the guy's a mental case.  - AIW

DAnneMarc
DAnneMarc's picture
Aliceinwonderland wrote: I

Aliceinwonderland wrote:
 I checked out that link and didn't think the guy in that photo looked like the punk in the blog photo; he looked older, with lighter colored hair.  Are you sure they are one and the same?  And what would compel someone with those credentials to pull such a juvenile stunt as to verbally harass us on Thom's blog, with no facts or substance?

Aliceinwonderland ~ First, using a less than up to date photo of yourself isn't new around here. Some people use their photos from childhood. Secondly, I'm not sure about anything without irrefutable evidence. However, after reading Palindromedarys recent link above I can say with certainty that if these two guys are different people they have the same mind... perhaps the same puppeteer. On that blog Valentine is quoted calling the entire EPA "psychopaths". Anyone capable of doing that is certainly capable of calling us a bunch of dips. Typically such an individual uses such words to describe others that he knows in his own heart and mind describe himself. A psychopath would have no problem acting juvenile enough to attack us without substance. 

Still, who knows for sure. Maybe our Brian Valentine is just on obsessed fan of the real one. Remember those Satanic stars on the GOP logo. The Bible says that his followers will all have one mind. Kinda fits here regardless of the truth about his identity. Obviously,  they have the same tongue too.

Palindromedary
http://www.desmogblog.com/bri

http://www.desmogblog.com/brian-g-valentine
Looks like same jacket and shirt even...of course it is still possible that someone else has spoofed the name and likeness in the Thomhartman blog. But I doubt it.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R27UA47LIQPW2E

Very interesting blog here where this climate denier gets ripped to pieces. Maybe that's the reason he gravitated to a blog with fewer Phds in Science (but then I might be wrong there...I don't know how many on Thomhartman's blog have Phds in science but those who bantered with this guy sounded like they were pretty up on science).

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/28/shocker-psychotic-billionaires-fund-...

DAnneMarc
DAnneMarc's picture
Palindromedary ~ They sure

Palindromedary ~ They sure did rip him a new one, didn't they? Yet, even amongst his peers he's smug and dismissive of anything but a few obsolete theories. At one point he even dismisses one person saying that it is a waste of time and resources talking about Global Warming when such more important topics like illegal immigration and caring for the elderly go unaddressed. Why would someone working with the DOE on a AGW blog make an asinine statement like that, unless he was fundamentally and theoretically desperate, outnumbered and out gunned? Almost every other theory presented made more sense than his rebuttals. I especially liked that one reply that stated that if atmospheric gasses had nothing to do with planetary warming then the surface of the moon would be the same temperature as the surface of the Earth. It was hilarious how that simple fact was such a perfect counter attack. I'm still giggling from it. 

By the way, having a PHD doesn't mean you're smarter than anyone else. It just means you managed to stay in school longer; and, perhaps have learned more. Most unincredible PHD grads end up right back in school teaching--just like this one did. If you ask me, the Oil Companies got him appointed to his government position. Shame he didn't stick around and match wits here. Perhaps he thought better about risking his credibility any further by getting brow beaten on too many other web sites. That would be a logical conclusion; however, I personally think he's pathological. In my opinion, he's a useful idiot that the Petroleum industry decided to use to their advantage. All things considered, the Petroleum industry must be pretty damn desperate if this is the best they can do. I guess that's a good sign for the rest of the planet.

Palindromedary
DAnneMarc: I found that

DAnneMarc: I found that although he is listed with the Faculty at the University of Maryland here:
http://directory.umd.edu/search (just type in his name in the search box)

I went through all of the archived undergraduate catelogs for every year from 1999/2000 to present and the only place he shows up in the faculty is in the 2000/2001 catelog. Only 1 year? Let me see...that was the year old GWB became president and had all those fake "scientific experts" falsify scientific documents....hmmmmm!

http://www.umd.edu/catalog/index.cfm/show/content.pastcatalogs

Here he is in the 2000/2001 catelog...chapter 9:
http://www.umd.edu/catalog/0001/chapter9.pdf 2000/2001

Of course he is listed there as and "Adjunct" Associate Professor which means, of course, he was not a permanent fixture at the University of Maryland. I guess they never invited him back? I wonder why?

And being an "adjunct" faculty member is not a very good place to be... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/11/adjunct-faculty_n_4255139.html

Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland's picture
Palin, you are one friggin'

Palin, you are one friggin' bloodhound.  I tip my hat to you.  And the more of this twerp's posts I read, the more I am convinced he's the same guy who attacked us here.   It sure was fun reading that blog where Valentine dukes it out with the scientists.  At the end of the thread about the Vortex is the comment I just finished posting on Amazon, in response to Mr. V's silly remarks about science and environmentalism.  That guy is one piece of work.  He's met more than his match here!  - AIW 

DAnneMarc
DAnneMarc's picture
Palindromedary ~ You're

Palindromedary ~ You're kidding me. Not only was he someone who couldn't do, so he taught; but, he was a substitute teacher. Oh, golly me, there goes my belly laugh for the day. And he didn't even make it past one year. 2000/2001 says it all. I knew Bush's hand was in here somewhere. Who else is going go appoint this clown in any position. Like I said, a useful idiot.

Here's another of my more memorable quotes from the blog...

Brian Valentine wrote:
I don’t care what any of them believe, I have myself only to convince.

I’ll put it as simply as I can, then leave it alone.

If some CO2 is added to a furnace containing combustion gases, the temperature will rise. If the walls of the furnace conduct to the surroundings, the temperature achieved in the furnace will be lower, but a higher temperature than without CO2 present.

That sure explains this quote. Apparently Mr. Valentine never built a fire in a fireplace. The fire gives of CO2 and sucks in Oxygen. You can add CO2 by covering the chimney and just letting it build up. However, if it builds up too much, the fire goes out. It doesn't get hotter. The only way to make it hotter is by adding more oxygen. He should have left it alone before he made it simpler. Of course, he only has himself to convince. He does a really good job at that.

Like I said before, I kind of feel sorry for the guy. He got used like a tool big time.

Palindromedary
He's even in the White

He's even in the White Pages...and with that you can even see his house in Virginia using Google Earth street view. I wonder which car is his...the old one that's rusting on top and full of junk or the new bluish Subaru? I guess maybe it's time to lay off the poor guy...I've gone as far as I had hoped to.

But, it all goes to show that just because you, somehow, managed to get some pull and land an important sounding job with the government doesn't mean you know sh!t! Isn't that right all you NIST idiots who weighed in on 9/11 Towers collapses.

DAnneMarc
DAnneMarc's picture
Palindromedary wrote:But, it

Palindromedary wrote:
But, it all goes to show that just because you, somehow, managed to get some pull and land an important sounding job with the government doesn't mean you know sh!t!

Palindromedary ~ Actually I think the converse is equally true in this case. ie Because you KNOW SH!T, you managed to get enough pull to land an important sounding job with the government. Very sad; yet, very true!

Also, I agree, it is time to lay off the poor guy. You did a fantastic job of unveiling the man. Aliceinwonderland is right, you are quite a bloodhound. I'm sure glad you're on our side.  Thanks again for a most enjoyable evening.

DAnneMarc
DAnneMarc's picture
Aliceinwonderland ~ In

Aliceinwonderland ~ In response to that last post on the Vortex blog I do agree. However, I also have a gut feeling that the man believes his own rhetoric. Like that one poster commented on the other blog site, he made up his mind a long time ago and cherry picks his data to support it. I believe any well educated professional BS artist could do a much better job. The problem is that most highly educated professionals are committed to truth seeking and value their own personal integrity. They are talented, and as such, like to use their talents in productive ways to the betterment of everyone. This guy is a hack who seeks anything to support his foregone conclusions. Perhaps because only those conclusions have given him any clout in life. As such, he probably doesn't even have to be bribed as much as someone who knows better would have to be. Like I said before, a useful idiot.

Palindromedary
arf! arf! Thank you very

arf! arf! Thank you very much. Now, time for the dog house.

Palindromedary
Good post on

Good post on Amazon!---AIW
And I read some of the other comments from others as well both pro and con the book. Of course, I thought that the one star comments were way more honest, truthful, and realistic than the 4 or 5 star comments. That's one book that is obviously not worth reading.
http://www.amazon.com/Green-Hell-Environmentalists-Plan-Control/product-...

By the way, I noticed on that Amazon comment link (the first one) that he used a much younger picture of himself.

Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland's picture
Palin, I clicked on that link

Palin, I clicked on that link and read some of the reviews.  You're right; the fewer the stars, the more enlightened the comments.  When the discussion is about a book written to dumb-down and brainwash rather than educate, this is hardly surprising.  Overall I found it depressing, reading those posts.  The amount of ignorance in our society is breathtaking.  Sometimes I'm inspired to counter it with my own comments, but right now it just makes me tired.    

Some of the people who frustrate me most are those who seem to think the truth always has to be somewhere in "the middle"; that regardless of the subject or context, there has to be two sides to everything.  When it comes to an issue like global warming, that assumption doesn't wash.  It's just a cop-out.  - AIW

Mark Saulys
Mark Saulys's picture
     Kend, the consequences

     Kend, the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling are much worse.  Obama is much more fiscally responsible than Republicans who are intentionally trying to bankrupt the government.  Sometimes it's necessarry tosell bonds to borrow money and financially difficult times are those and boom times like the Clinton years are the times to pay it back.

     But the Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility and the Republicans of reckless, extravagant spending.

SHFabian
SHFabian's picture
It was the Clinton Democrats,

It was the Clinton Democrats, not the Republicans, who threw the poor off the cliff, making it cool to ignore real poverty in the US. It is lib Democrats who essentially hijacked Occupy and all it represents, turning it into a panderfest to the bourgeoisie (so the rest of us walked away, and Occupy died).  The media marketed to libs have vigorously waved the Middle Class Only banner, standing in solidarity with all those whose incomes are over the $35k-$40k range. This is precisely what has kept this country locked into our downhill slide, steadily deteriorating. The middle class has embraced a range of poilitics and policies that have been phasing out the middle class entirely. Our years of anti-poor ideology and policies have taken a heavy toll on the country as well. The US was rated at #1 in overall quality of life when Reagan first took office. By the time that President Obama was elected, the overall quality of life had fallen to #20 -- as a direct result of our socioeconomic policies. We've been in similar economic messes before (Great Depression, etc.). Each time, the poor and middle class ultimately united to push back, to everyone's benefit. That won't happen this time.

chuckle8
chuckle8's picture
SHFabian -- Why do not think

SHFabian -- Why do not think it will happen this time?