But he’s as fiscally responsible as a real housewife of Orange County at a Louis Vuitton sample sale. – LOL, that is hilarious!!

NOW has lost it.

I didn’t get that census ad at all. It was stupid. I can’t believe that was the best they could do. What did it even mean?

Lord knows counting ALL the people is anathema to Republican goals, which also explains the fabricated Republican Jihad against ACORN.

Republicans are on record against any statistical sampling to attain accurate counts, and have repeatedly adopted obstructionist tactics when the issue of the census arises. Glenn is just the latest huckster in a long Republican line to advocate against the underclass actually having a voice in our government.

Acorn’s corruption is “fabricated”. Bwwahhhhaaaahaaaaahaaaaaaaa.

Jim R: Thou contradictest thyself. First you state that “counting ALL the people is anathema to Republican goals.” Then you immediately contradict yourself with “Republicans are on record against any statistical sampling to attain accurate counts.”

come on man, you can’t have it both ways. For your information, the Constitution states specifically that “Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct…”

Now “by Law direct” notwithstanding, Enumeration means “to ascertain the number of,” or COUNT; or ” to specify one after another, or LIST. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enumeration) Statistical sampling inherently yields LESS accurate counts,. The cost to verify the entire population is not much more than what is being spent today, so what’s your problem with a 100% sample? Oh, it’s because the count demographics would turn out the way you wish, and sampling is much easier to fudge.

You betray yourself with your last statement when you claim the census is not to be a true enumeration, but a way to have “the underclass actually [have] a voice in our government. If that ain’t socialism, I don’t know what is.

Cheers, Frank

JimR….we just like to count people that are alive and legal, unlike dems and acorn, and that’s a proven fact.

Agreed timzank!

Those places willingly accepting and supporting illegals out to be forced to do so on their own dime…not the taxpayer’s money. By only counting legal persons, the taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for the high costs associated with playing nice to illegals.

Progressives hate that. In states like Maryland…illegals vote!

I love it! Glen Beck, tells it like it is.Gets under those left coast yuppies skins, ha ha.. N. O. W. Nagy Old Women. LOL. I made that up. The Census Commercial went completely over my head.. Guess you have to be an elitist to understand that one…..

In terms of sheer hilarity, Glenn Beck can compete with the best of em; SNL, Comedy Central, Fox News, you name it.

I really wish he would take his show on the road, a comedy tour if you will; I watched the video hours ago and I’m still laughing!!! Good stuff!

Rather amazing not to understand the difference between someone peddling an extremist ideology and someone peddling a candy bar. Does Glen(n) not have any understanding of capitalism? Apparently not.

With regard to the census, same old, same old. At the inception of our Republic, we didn’t count Blacks as whole people, and the Republicans still don’t want to. The more people that vote, they less likely the Republicans will prevail. A truism!

As for statistical sampling, there is no indication that in a mass count it is less accurate. In fact, there is every indication it is far more accurate. With people like Michelle Bachmann telling residents to engage in illegal activity by refusing to participate, we might even undercount rightist Republicans. Of course, when it finally sank in that she is in danger of losing her Congressional seat to redistricting, her tune changed quickly. Principles, after all, ought be practical in her view.

What to make of it? At the end of the Reagan administration the US economy sustained the longest peacetime expansion in history. Higher growth and lower inflation that plagued the economy between ’73-’80.

mmfA likes to trot out the percentage of GDP numbers but I have to ask. How many of the proposed changes were passed by a democrat controlled congress? What were the realized effects after eight years? Reagan delivered all four of his proposed economic policy objectives. Just not to the extent that we had hoped. That fact is undeniable and is always overlooked by hacks trying to score political points.

bariatric surgery

Reagan is the father of American budget deficits. It is foolish to talk about any economic success under him.

Facts are stubborn things, I guess. Under Ronaldus Maximus, federal tax revenues DOUBLED during his eight years, despite a deep tax cut at the beginning. It was the Dummycratic Congress that spent like they’re doing today. In fact, a case can be made that the budget surpluses during the Clintonista regime were due to the GOP Congress, not Clinton.

As for Pres. Bush 43, he was a Republican, but he spent like a Democrat, he was no conservative. Get done what you can by December, ’cause you’re not going to get anything come next January.

TRRK, Not exactly a Rhodes Scholar in econ are ya?

Thank you for the common Reagan apologia. It is no more persuasive today than it was in 1984.

timzank says:
February 9, 2010 at 9:22 am

TRRK, Not exactly a Rhodes Scholar in econ are ya?

—

Because I am not a supply sider, not a Laffer Curver? I’d say that puts me in the economic mainstream.