American Politics during the Obama Presidency [Archive] - Page 12

Tiny12

03-01-11, 00:46

Wild Walleye

03-01-11, 04:19

Let's bomb them gal dang Libyans! Who's with me?! From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli!If we could just colonize the oil fields. Maybe we could use that border fence they never built on the Mexican border.

Wild Walleye

03-01-11, 04:21

It probably isn't worth pointing out how week and feckless the USA appears to the world (10 days to comment on Libya, no cogent position on Egypt, etc) and in particular to the Muslim World (who only understand strength).

Toymann

03-01-11, 05:03

I told you all up front that I am an asshole. Why don't you be honest and tell us what you are?IALOTFLMAO! I thought I was the biggest asshole on the board. Just ask the silly putas and the wild-ass liberals. Hope that my elite status isn't being infringed upon by you WW. I might get offended like all the humorless left wing retards that show up from time to time on this board. Better back down or no fishing trip for you. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Offended Toymann

Wild Walleye

03-01-11, 14:27

IALOTFLMAO! I thought I was the biggest asshole on the board. Just ask the silly putas and the wild-ass liberals. Hope that my elite status isn't being infringed upon by you WW. I might get offended like all the humorless left wing retards that show up from time to time on this board. Better back down or no fishing trip for you. LOL. Happy Mongering All. Offended ToymannAs asshole second class

Stan Da Man

03-01-11, 15:18

I was reading an article about Raghuram Rajan, a famous economist, recently. He's concerned about inequality in the USA. His solution is education. If every American were provided with a first class education, the gap between the rich and poor would decrease. In a global economy this is essential. We need to educate the scientists, engineers, machinists, technicians, etc. To compete with China et al in the 21st century.

Rajan promotes ideas like paying teachers more for outstanding performance and promoting charter schools and vouchers. But this is never going to happen. Why? Because along the with trial lawyers, the teachers' unions control local, state and national Democrat parties. They have the same effect on schools that the UAW has on GM.

Adjusted for purchasing power, the USA already spends more per capita on education than any country in the world except possibly Luxembourg. But our system produces results far inferior to countries that spend much less. The Democrats are never going to let this money be spent efficiently. The primary reason is the teachers' unions. Some speculate that another reason is that a poorly educated, poorly-compensated underclass is helpful in electing Democrats. I'm not sure whether or not that's true. Hi Tiny. Thanks for posting that Economist article a while back. It was a good, in-depth discussion of the problems presented by unions. From the deafening silence emanating from our resident left-wingers, I suspect that even they cannot mount any cogent defense for public unions. But, they are much better at obfuscation than cogency when attempting to defend a point.

I read two additional pieces recently from unlikely sources, both pointing out how Democrats are now the party that desperately is trying to undermine Democracy as best they can. I generally don't like Joe Klein or Time Magazine, but this is a decent piece.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/18/wisconsin-the-hemlock-revolution/

And, Nolan Finley does a pretty good job of getting right to the point:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110227/OPINION03/102270310/1008/AWOL-Dems-defy-ballot-box

In essence, Democrats were "shellacked" this past election, to use their leader's words. They spent the better part of the run up to the election berating Republicans as the party of "no" for using the Filibuster. But, they still had their head handed to them by the electorate. So, what do Democrats do? They filibustered for a while in Wisconsin. But, when it appeared that this wouldn't succeed, they turned tail and ran. Essentially, despite a free and fair election, they refuse to participate in the democratic process unless they get their way.

They did the same thing in Indiana: Citizens be damned; we're not coming back unless we get our way.

So, now the Emperor has no clothes. Several things are abundantly apparent at this point.

First, the liberal message cannot succeed without a rigged game. That game is as follows. Force public workers to join unions in the majority of states. Automatically deduct union dues from public worker pensions. Spend the forcibly extracted union dues to re-elect Democrats, who then perpetuate this money-laundering scheme.

Liberals can cry all they want, but that is What has been going on here. The population is generally pretty evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, with slight variations each election. But. 98. 7% of AFSCME contributions go to Democrats, with like percentages from other unions. It's no accident. A large proportion of their membership votes for the other team, but they need to continue this fraudulent scheme to have any chance. Unions are by far and away the biggest political contributors in this country, both at the national and especially the local levels. Starve them, and you starve the left.

So, now that someone has had the spine to challenge this corrupt enterprise, the Democrats refuse to play. The reason is as plain as day. They can't win without cheating, and they know it.

So, rounding back to the question you pose at the end of your post. Do the Democrats need a poorly paid and poorly educated demographic to succeed? You better believe it. That's their dirty little secret. Without that voting demographic and union money, they can't succeed.

Rev BS

03-01-11, 20:13

If you look at American society as a whole, you have to say that the citizenry has "no clothes". Every president in their inaugural speech has made note of education but yet we have seen a steady decline in scores over the last 50 years. If not for the children of some minority immigrant groups, the decline in science and mathematics in the school systems would have been even more drastic. American buisness leaders have been beating their knuckles over this issue forever, yet Congress have not responded. And on the home front, the emphasis of dance and cheerleading teams clearly show where the Great American Society is, caught between 3rd base and home plate. Well, maybe, it is what it is, it's harder to stay at the top than to get to the top.

Esten

03-02-11, 00:38

Jackson

03-02-11, 02:32

A public union employee, a politician and a taxpayer are sitting at a table.

The taxpayer opens his lunchbag and pulls out a dozen cookies he baked for himself earlier that day.

The public union employee leans over to the politician and says "The more of those cookies you take from the taxpayer and give to me, the harder I'll work to get you relected."

Tiny12

03-02-11, 02:34

A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it.

The CEO takes 11 cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, 'Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie. 'I think you've got a point. Both the CEO and the public union employees play way too big a part in choosing the people who will decide their pay, being directors and politicians respectively. Shareholders and voters / taxpayers must take control, or suffer the consequences. In your imaginary group, it's the tea party activist who's the hero.

Wild Walleye

03-02-11, 04:39

Or any intelligible inference that one may draw from your fictitious and fatuous farce?

A public union employee, a tea party activist, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it.

The CEO takes 11 cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, 'Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie. 'One question, where the fuck did the cookies come from? Did they just magically appear on the table? Guess they must metaphorically represent entitlements in that they appear out of nowhere and don't cost anyone anything.

Stan Da Man

03-02-11, 19:19

I think you've got a point. Both the CEO and the public union employees play way too big a part in choosing the people who will decide their pay, being directors and politicians respectively. Shareholders and voters / taxpayers must take control, or suffer the consequences. In your imaginary group, it's the tea party activist who's the hero.I don't disagree with this. There is an inherent problem when CEOs are bargaining with a board they control.

But, the joke posited by Esten misses the point. While I'm no fan of private sector Unions, they are at least subject to the laws of supply and demand, profit and loss, and an economic model that forces them to come to grip with reality or face the death (read, bankruptcy) of the host on which they are a parasite. That is, unless the government steps in for a bailout. The same reality does not exist for public sector unions.

In the public sector model, there is no CEO. The fat union guy stole all 12 cookies, passed 5 of them under the table to the Democrat politician, and the union guy still looks hungry. Meanwhile, the Democrat is rifling through the pockets of the tea party guy. The fat union guy's got to eat, and the politician sure as h*ll isn't going to give up any of his 5.

Esten

03-03-11, 01:42

Jackson

03-03-11, 02:40

A public union employee, a politician, and a CEO are sitting at a table with a plate of a dozen cookies in the middle of it.

The politician pushes the plate over to the employee and thanks him for his public service.

The CEO leans over to the politician and says "That union guy is getting too many cookies. Give him fewer cookies and I'll pay to get you re-elected."Esten,

In order to understand your scenario, please tell me...

- Who made the cookies on the table?

- Shouldn't the owner of the cookies get to decide what happens to their cookies.

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

03-03-11, 04:43

I'll surely have fashioned a 'poking stick' (shiv) out of one of the wooden spoons laying around the kitchen. If the table is on my property, the first one to make a move on my cookies is going to catch the poking stick in the carotid, the rest will be catching some 45ACP. Add a $14 spade from Home Depot, a bag of lime and no one is going to miss any of the thieving scum.

WorldTravel69

03-03-11, 07:08

Where can we get Sex in the USA?

That is all we want to Know.

We do not give a shit about what you think about who is in charge in our country and the workingman.

Maybe you should join Qaddafi your brother businessman?

Check Minnesota

WorldTravel69

03-03-11, 07:51

I have been going to to Buenos Aires to get Laid FOR 10 YEARS.

The Price is right, why do you have to add all this other political bull Shit?

Who Cares, Are You Knot getting enough?

All Us mongers want to know IS WHAT IS THE PRICE AND THE ADDRESSES OF WHERE THEY CAN GET LAID?

How come you are NOT voting at home?

Or Did You Vote Wrong. THINK OR Can You?

Wake Up and see "Inside Job" The Academy award Winner.

How You and I Got FUCKED?

It Is Not About The Party You Voted For! THEY DO NOT CARE FOR US LITTLE MEN!, They Fucked You and ME!

SEE This!

" InSide JOB". The Movie.

You can a get a Pirate copy on any Street corner.

Screw the workers rights in around the the world, especially in China!

No Unions in China.

I know some some you "Can Not See the Trees from the Forest."

Tiny12

03-03-11, 14:33

Stan, I never gave much thought to public employee unions until you brought it up and the recent news came out of Wisconsin. It's a real problem.

WT69, using your words, you've contributed your share of political bull shit to this thread, so I don't understand what you're complaining about. Especially since you could just disregard the thread. By the way, honestly, thanks for your diligent work compiling lists. I've never used the one in Buenos Aires, but have in a couple of other places.

Wild Walleye

03-03-11, 14:47

I can't thank you enough for all the work you do on the privado list. Please don't take this the wrong way, as often times the typed response does not do justice to the intended message.

I know some some you "Can Not See the Trees from the Forest."
It Is Not About The Party You Voted For! THEY DO NOT CARE FOR US LITTLE MEN!, They Fucked You and ME!Look out, trees!

Who Cares, Are You Knot getting enough?Sounds like you care. So do I.

I have been going to to Buenos Aires to get Laid FOR 10 YEARS.

The Price is right, why do you have to add all this other political bull Shit? There is no one happier about your freedom to do so than me. Let's hope we can all contribute to keeping it that way.

I don't view it as bullshit.

Everything that I enjoy, have ever enjoyed or will ever enjoy in life is derivative of my freedom to do it. It is not possible, nor desirable for me to separate enjoying and exploiting freedom from respecting it, for neither can exist without the other. Therefore, I enjoy with deference to the forces that made it possible. So far, only God and American patriots (their allies and righteous practitioners of freedom) have contributed to that freedom. It is incumbent upon me to do what I can to make sure that others can avail themselves of those same freedoms. It is a moral imperative of all Americans not only to preserve those freedoms but to avoid infringing upon them, intentionally or otherwise. That last part is what trips up most.

Our freedom didn't come easy or cheap nor is it a maintenance-free appliance. While our creator has imbued certain inalienable rights upon us, He didn't guarantee that we would be free to enjoy them, He left that part up to us.

If my posts bother you, please feel free to ignore me.

Toymann

03-03-11, 15:41

He just can't help himself WW. Good guy who is politically "way out there" and certainly not in touch with america these days. Hmmm. Just like the democratic party in general. If he doesn't like the thread then he doesn't have to read it. Makes sense to me! Happy Mongering WT69. Toymann

WorldTravel69

03-03-11, 21:00

When I get bored from not getting Laid, etc..

I'm not saying that what this thread has to say is turning me on.
Like some of You.

I check in too see what Middle America is thinking about. Must be tough, with no clear calming Waters to See (Sea) (Ocean) and Feel.

I heard / read that the one of the reasons our founding fathers left England was to get away from the Anti-religion rulers.

I guess the old beliefs followed a little bit of our Middle America thinking.

Like the protesting at a Funeral.

What the election showed in 2008 was:

Bushes religious Right is here.

Personally, I respect all religions.

Even the belief "Each man is his own God".

"But do Not Take one."

"I don't care where anyone is from, Country, State or City."

"I know we all want to get Laid."

My brother gets home and turns on the TV.

FoxNews. I heard on the radio that the viewers are in the age group 65+.

And that the younger age groups do not want to listen or see that B. S.

I watch it with my bro and we both get pissed off. My Bro starts screaming, agreeing or not agreeing at the TV. I get pissed about how they are not impartial about what they are saying. Why would anyone want to Lie or Twist the Truth and Facts?

Must be Big Bucks. How low can you go?

What we believe in, in politics makes no difference to us, the graft and greed will prevail.

" I'd rather be drunk, watching something happy, than depressing". Like the bad guy getting is ass kicked, not ours."
Or getting Laid or helping others to do that, with Lists, not BULL SHIT.

It was said a long time ago."No News Is Good News." Yes, no news, is calming, but does get boring, but FOXNEWS,
Stop the Slanted Opinions. Please!

Gas is going up? Why. 2% is from Libya.?
?

"Greed is Good". What movie was that From?

He just can't help himself WW. Good guy who is politically "way out there" and certainly not in touch with america these days. Hmmm. Just like the democratic party in general. If he doesn't like the thread then he doesn't have to read it. Makes sense to me! Happy Mongering WT69. Toymann

Rev BS

03-04-11, 00:04

The debate goes on, but beyond all the rhetoric is the everpresent virus, SELF INTEREST. It taints every individual and every action. Some may argue that it is a necessay ingredient for self survival. Well, I agree but only up to a certain level before greed is good becomes greed is evil. Where is America is in regard to greed in 2011? Well, I leave it to you. The Middle East revolution shows that we have supported some really evil people for decades in our self interest, but then pretend that we really believe in liberty and domocracy for all. Wow! Obama or Bush, does it really matter?

Esten

03-04-11, 01:06

Wake Up and see "Inside Job" The Academy award Winner.Do you remember the part in that movie where they showed how Fannie and Freddie were the primary cause of the financial crisis?

I don't either.

Esten

03-04-11, 02:38

Esten,

In order to understand your scenario, please tell me.

- Who made the cookies on the table?

- Shouldn't the owner of the cookies get to decide what happens to their cookies. Jackson and Walleye both asked the question: Where did the cookies come from? In my last example, the politician (government) is giving the cookies (money) to the union guy as payment for services rendered.

Where did the government get the cookies from? From the taxpayers.

Where did the taxpayers get the cookies from? From their employers (or customers).

Where did the employers (or customers) get their cookies from? From their employers (or customers).

And so on and so on. So it's really pointless talking about where the cookies came from. What's important is who are the cookies owed to. To your second question- just who is the owner?

Well the union guy is the owner. He owns the cookies. Why? Because of the laws and contracts in place for the government to collect taxes to pay for public services. I fully agree, the owner should decide what happens to their cookies.

Which brings us to the next question....

Even now, with all the union furor in Wisconsin, none of the union bosses or lackeys, and no one in the media, has ever bothered to try to articulate why public unions are necessary or beneficial. I'm pretty sure I know why.

But, one last time: Why do we need public unions? Easy. The same reason private sector unions have value:

To help negotiate good deals and avoid bad deals.

All hard working Americans deserve fair compensation and reward for their work. We may not agree on what's fair, and fair will vary depending on the job and skill level. But without leverage and negotiating power you are more at risk of unfair or bad deals, however that may be defined.

The potential for unfairness exists in the public sector just as it does in the private sector. Look at the states. Some states are making sure the budget 'pain' is shared by spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy. Other states are giving the wealthy a free pass and dumping all the pain on public workers.

I'm not a big pro-union guy. But I see the potential for Big Business / Republicans in positions of power to protect or enrich the wealthy at the expense of the working poor and middle class. For this reason alone, I think private and public unions can provide leverage against this threat and therefore have value.

Getting back to Jackson's question, one thing is for sure: the union guy's cookies are NO business of CEO's like David Koch. The Koch Brothers and their front group "Americans for Prosperity" are basically trying to buy politicians to advance their agenda, which includes killing public unions. You guys know the story.

I am sure Walleye has a giant poster of David Koch on his bedroom wall.

Wild Walleye

03-04-11, 16:13

Do you remember the part in that movie where they showed how Fannie and Freddie were the primary cause of the financial crisis?

I don't either. Unlike Michael Moore, Charles Ferguson is no doubt a brilliant guy. While he is a successful technologist and entrepreneur, however, I missed the part of his background that makes him an expert on micro and macro economics nor did I discover anything that would make him an expert on the effects of government regulation on the economy and human behavior. While I was busy not seeing things that would qualify him as an expert on all these subjects, I did come across some things that would make me question his objectivity, namely: he grew up in the Bay Area, graduated from Berkley in '78, got a PhD in Political science and worked for Clinton.

I am glad to know that the definitive analysis of the largest global economic calamity in generations has been performed by a biased, political operative with an agenda. Maybe Congress should just adopt the movie as the official version of what happened.

Moveon

03-04-11, 16:28

Wild Walleye

03-04-11, 16:41

Jackson and Walleye both asked the question: Where did the cookies come from? In my last example, the politician (government) is giving the cookies (money) to the union guy as payment for services rendered.

Where did the government get the cookies from? From the taxpayers.

Where did the taxpayers get the cookies from? From their employers (or customers).

Where did the employers (or customers) get their cookies from? From their employers (or customers).

And so on and so on. So it's really pointless talking about where the cookies came from. No it isn't pointless. Your premise starts with the cookies with the government, that is not where or how they were created. You think in terms that the cookies are government property.

What's important is who are the cookies owed to.This is the single most reveling comment you have made, in some time. For you, TO WHOM the government is giving the money is more important than from whom it was taken. Further, you don't care whether or not there is a moral basis for the government expropriating the private property of its citizens. You have never articulated, and probably have never contemplated, why the private citizen should be compelled to part with his property in order for it to be GIVEN to someone else, you just assume that he should.

To your second question- just who is the owner?

Well the union guy is the owner. He owns the cookies. Why? Because of the laws and contracts in place for the government to collect taxes to pay for public services. I fully agree, the owner should decide what happens to their cookies. Why don't the laws and contracts relating to the business of the guy who made the cookies matter as much as those related to the union guy?

Which brings us to the next question.

Easy. The same reason private sector unions have value:

To help negotiate good deals and avoid bad deals. They serve similar functions, in addition to laundering money for the DNC, extorting money from its membership to give it to the DNC as a payoff for favorable policies. However, the big difference if against whom they are negotiating. In the case of the private sector, the other side is the owners of the business. In the case of the public sector unions, the other side is the taxpayer.

The deals that the unions negotiated for GM were so good, they bankrupted the company. The deals that unions have negotiated over the past 50 years have been so good that they have priced us out of most of the industries requiring manufacturing (textiles, shoes, electronics, etc).

Why are so many states and municipalities insolvent? In large part because of the great deals the unions have negotiated.

All hard working Americans deserve fair compensation and reward for their work. We may not agree on what's fair, and fair will vary depending on the job and skill level. But without leverage and negotiating power you are more at risk of unfair or bad deals, however that may be defined.Why shouldn't the market determine the price rather than have it artificially set by non-owners who are being extorted by unions?

The potential for unfairness exists in the public sector just as it does in the private sector. Look at the states. Some states are making sure the budget 'pain' is shared by spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy. Other states are giving the wealthy a free pass and dumping all the pain on public workers.Well now, the state government can't lay off the 'wealthy' because they work in the private sector. You have your vote, for free, to change management.

That said, there are far too many public union employees who are grossly overpaid for the jobs that they do and receive benefits (particularly defined benefit pensions) that generally don't exist in the private sector.

I'm not a big pro-union guy. But I see the potential for Big Business / Republicans in positions of power to protect or enrich the wealthy at the expense of the working poor and middle class. For this reason alone, I think private and public unions can provide leverage against this threat and therefore have value.Back in the day when unions actually served to protect workers, at a time when they needed protection. Now they exist for union basses and the DNC.

Getting back to Jackson's question, one thing is for sure: the union guy's cookies are NO business of CEO's like David Koch. The Koch Brothers and their front group "Americans for Prosperity" are basically trying to buy politicians to advance their agenda, which includes killing public unions. You guys know the story.If he's the CEO of the company from which union guy gets his cookies, the CEO has a fiduciary responsibility to the owners of the company to ensure that union guy is paid a market salary.

If union guy works for the state, in which the CEO's company pays taxes and where the CEO pays personal taxes, the union guy's pay is his business both as CEO and as an individual.

I am sure Walleye has a giant poster of David Koch on his bedroom wall.It's in the bathroom so I can look at it while rubbing one out.

Wild Walleye

03-04-11, 16:50

Wild Walleye

03-04-11, 22:16

The debate goes on, but beyond all the rhetoric is the everpresent virus, SELF INTEREST. It taints every individual and every action. Some may argue that it is a necessay ingredient for self survival.Correct you are. No self interest = no human race. It's binary.

Well, I agree but only up to a certain level before greed is good becomes greed is evil.Greed isn't 'evil' per se, it is a sin defined as 'an excessive desire to possess wealth or goods with the intention to keep it for one's self." Sins are bad behavior, some may even be driven by evil or rooted in evil.

Greed is separate and distinct from self interest which is loosely defined as 'a focus on the needs or desires (interests) of oneself'

Self interest is good. Greed is considered to be bad. Except of course according to GG when "greed, for a lack of a better word, is good."

Where is America is in regard to greed in 2011? Well, I leave it to you.Not sure. There are lots of greedy people in the world, America clearly has not cornered the market.

The Middle East revolution shows that we have supported some really evil people for decades in our self interestWe certainly have. History will tell us if we were correct in doing so. If in doing so, we acted in our best interests, then we were correct. Were we just or moral is a different question that may have a different answer. As for the various uprisings in the middle east, sadly, I think there will come a day when the masses will long for the days of Gaddafi and Mubarak.

but then pretend that we really believe in liberty and domocracy for all.A free, moral and just society should look to advance personal freedom as it relates to all peoples, within and beyond its borders. However, as it relates to its own peoples, it is a prerogative whereas when it relates to non-citizens, beyond its borders, is should be an objective.

Wow! Obama or Bush, does it really matter?I think it does. Only one of the two has intentionally participated in efforts to weaken the US, which despite the presence of some greedy citizens is still the greatest human force for good in history.

It is that kind of thinking that gave us Obama in the first place. That thing I mentioned about not intentionally or unintentionally damaging the country and our freedom, everyone who voted for Obama did one of the other. It's binary.

Moveon

03-05-11, 00:18

Obama / Pelosi / Reid have backed the nation up to a cliff by going on the greatest debt binge in history. There was never any doubt that congress would need to raise the limit because the dangers of impacting the 'full faith and credit. ' No one except you is surprised by this.

"Real World" that is a funny name to give to something that spends $1. 5T more than it will take in and thinks it is sustainable.

According to the extremist right. Wing REPUBLICAN Tea party politicians nearly all have been screaming about cutting the government debt limit, NOW. (Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, etc) Evidently that shows you're out of touch with your own party, fool.

I never said that the current spending was sustainable, did I? However, we are trying to get out of the worst recession since the 1930's.

The most recent data now shows that unemployment is 8. 9% but we have a way to go still. All those naysayers can now jerk-off about the Obama stimulus package not working or contributing to the nation's recovery. (including you, Wallyeye)

Jackson

03-05-11, 00:33

According to the extremist right wing REPUBLICAN Tea party politicians nearly all have been screaming about cutting the government debt limit, NOW. (Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, etc) Evidently that shows you're out of touch with your own party.I've never seen Ron Paul or Sarah Palin scream About anything.

Please provide a link or reference to these events.

Or just admit that your statement is typical liberal hyperbole.

Thanks,

Jackson

Moveon

03-05-11, 00:40

I've never seen Ron Paul or Sarah Palin scream About anything.

Please provide a link or reference to these events.

Or just admit that your statement is typical liberal hyperbole.

Thanks,

JacksonLiberal hyperbole? I don't think so, READ:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=263933

Jackson

03-05-11, 00:40

The most recent data now shows that unemployment is 8. 9% but we have a way to go still. All those naysayers can now jerk-off about the Obama stimulus program not working. (including you, Wallyeye)ROTFLMAO!

The Obama stimulus money was 90% pissed away last year. The reason the unemployment rate is dropping now is because business owners are starting to hire because they have confidence that the newly elected Republican Congress will finally reign in the rampant spending, restoring some sense of fiscal order to the government's budget and stop the Obama administration's reckless borrowing.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

03-05-11, 00:45

Liberal hyperbole? I don't think so, READ:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=263933

Hi,

You claim that "politicians nearly all have been screaming about cutting the government debt limit, NOW. (Ron Paul, Sarah Palin) ", and you specifically list Ron Paul and Sarah Palin.

So, where's the link to substantiate your claim that Ron Paul and Sarah Palin have been "screaming" about cutting the government debt limit?

Thanks,

Jackson

Moveon

03-05-11, 00:56

Hi,

You claim that "politicians nearly all have been screaming about cutting the government debt limit, NOW. (Ron Paul, Sarah Palin) ", and you specifically list Ron Paul and Sarah Palin.

So, where's the link to substantiate your claim that Ron Paul and Sarah Palin have been "screaming" about cutting the government debt limit?

Thanks,

JacksonRon Paul:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-01-10/ron-paul-ill-vote-against-raising-the-debt-limit/

Sarah Palin:

"Palin also said she is thankful for lawmakers who are prepared to vote against raising the nation's debt limit, which is a cap set by Congress on the amount of debt the federal government can legally borrow." (CNN. Money. Com 2/17/11)

or this:
http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/sarah-palin-speaks-out-on-the-upcoming-congressional-debt-ceiling-debate

Punter 127

03-05-11, 02:21

The most recent data now shows that unemployment is 8. 9% but we have a way to go still. All those naysayers can now jerk-off about the Obama stimulus package not working or contributing to the nation's recovery. (including you, Wallyeye)Really, who's jerking who off?

9 Feb 2011.

Last week's surprisingly sharp decline in the unemployment rate from 9. 4% to 9% and equally surprising anemic job growth. 36, 000 new jobs. Left a lot of investors scratching their heads. How could the unemployment rate plummet so significantly while a such a trivial number of new jobs were created?

If we simply extrapolate those numbers, we get some nonsensical results. If adding 36, 000 jobs to the 139 million jobs in the USA economy lowers the unemployment rate by 0. 4 percentage points, then adding just 720, 000 jobs should lower the unemployment rate by 8 points. From 9% to only 1.

Yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that 812, 000 jobs were added in the year from January 2010 to January 2011 (138, 511, 000 vs. 139, 323, 000). Based on the unemployment rate announced last week, we could expect that those 812, 000 additional jobs would have lowered the unemployment rate to near-zero. But of course, we know they didn't.

According to the BLS, the civilian labor force was 153. 8 million in January 2008 and 153. 2 million in January 2011. A decline of 600, 000 while the population increased by some 6 million. And the not-in-labor-force category expanded by 2 million from January 2010 to January 2011, from 83. 4 million to 85. 5 million.

When unemployed people stop looking for jobs at their local unemployment office, the government no longer counts them as unemployed. That's how the number of unemployed can drop from 15 million in November 2010 to 13. 8 million in January 2011, a decline of 1. 2 million, even though the economy created only about 400, 000 jobs in those three months.

Over a longer time period, the not-in-labor-force group rose from 78. 8 million in January 2008 to 85. 5 million in January 2011. An increase of almost 7 million.

How do you drop the unemployment rate? Simple: remove 7 million people from the labor force. And for February the BLS reports.

Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 192,000 in February, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 8.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Here's another link that speaks of ' manipulated job numbers'.

http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/wall-street-ignores-job-number-exuberance-as-oil-hits-104-and-dollar-drops-hard

Now could you explain one more time how the Obama stimulus package is working and contributing to the nation's recovery?

Esten

03-05-11, 02:35

No Moveon,

Jackson wants you to produce an audio or video clip like on YouTube proving they were actually "screaming". He couldn't argue with the substance of your post, so he's trying to get you on style. Perhaps it's hyperbole, or more likely just a metaphor.

Of course, no conservative would ever use hyperbole or metaphors in their arguments. LOL!

BTW, you haven't been around Walleye enough to understand what you are dealing with. You make some good points, but don't expect to be convincing him about anything. He is stuck in the quicksand of his ideology. Here is a practice exercise I would suggest: Go find a large rock and place it on your kitchen table. Sitting down, look at the rock calmly. State your argument. Wait for an intelligent response. Repeat your argument. Listen again. Repeat three times.

Esten

03-05-11, 03:09

The Successful Stimulus

No amount of lies and repetition can change the fact that Obama's Stimulus (supported by the USCoC) was absolutely successful as assessed by respected economists. Repubs keep repeating that it failed to keep unemployment below 8% as claimed in early 2009. That's all they got, but nobody could have foreseen the deep private sector job losses to come over 2009. The Administration erred in making an overly optimistic projection. However, the economic analyses show that the Stimulus created or saved near 3 million jobs. Without it, unemployment could have peaked over 11%, with no guarantee it would be trending down like it is now. Although the recent month-to-month unemployment trend is definately not directly attributable to the Stimulus, the idea that the Stimulus has not played any role in this trend is about as dubious as the idea that the trend is entirely due to post-midterm election private sector optimism.

Bush's Debt

The major components of our current deficit / debt situation are mostly due to Bush's legacy, not Obama. The Stimulus and other recent spending are large but temporary, and more importantly, are outsized by the ongoing impact of the Bush tax cuts, unfunded wars and economic downturn tax revenue loss resulting from conservative ideology under Bush.

I've posted this link a couple times before, and here it is once again, see Figure 1:

Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

Toymann

03-05-11, 03:26

The major components of our current deficit / debt situation are mostly due to Bush's legacy, not Obama.Democratic house and senate have set the budget since 2007. Obama showed up in 2009. It's now March 2011. It's all Bush's fault! WTF!

How dare you use the term "misinformation" Esten. I must admit that you liberals will never let the facts get in the way of a decent discussion. We need democrats in this country to provide a balanced agenda, HOWEVER, never give them the keys to the bus. It ends up going off the road everytime!

Tick! Tick! Tick! 2012 is just around the corner. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Esten

03-05-11, 03:31

Toymann

03-05-11, 04:52

A November 2010 report by the CBO estimated that the ARRA (Stimulus) policies had the following effects in the third quarter of calendar year 2010:

• They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1. 4 and 4. 1 percent,

• Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0. 8 percentage points and 2. 0 percentage points,

• Increased the number of people employed by between 1. 4 million and 3. 6 million, and.

• Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2. 0 million to 5. 2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers). [Congressional Budget Office. 11/2010]Please respond to my deficit comment as it pertains to WHO has been putting the budget together since 2007? I know. You can't! LOL. Was your turn dude and you're boys blew it. LOL. It may be a while till you get the keys to the bus again dude. Better enjoy the free ride for the next 18 months or so. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. Oh! I forgot! It had to be George Bush's fault! IALOTFLMAO

Wild Walleye

03-06-11, 21:34

Just spits out what various parties, primarily congress, ask it to spit out. If you request the CBO to put out a piece stating the the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, it will do so.

A November 2010 report by the CBO estimated that the ARRA (Stimulus) policies had the following effects in the third quarter of calendar year 2010:

• They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1. 4 and 4. 1 percent, But annually adjusted inflation for Q3 '10 and Q4 '10 was approximately 4, which seems to put real GDP growth at. 1%

Wahoooo! Look what a couple trillion can buy you!

• Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0. 8 percentage points and 2. 0 percentage points, Punter hit the nail on the head. Esten, why are there 7 million fewer people in the labor force? Real unemployment is still close to 17.

• Increased the number of people employed by between 1. 4 million and 3. 6 million, and.Please show me any reliable source that shows 1. 4 to 3. 6 million jobs were created by the stimulus.

• Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2. 0 million to 5. 2 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers). [Congressional Budget Office. 11/2010]Those full-time-equivalents must be like imaginary pay checks that all those people allegedly helped by the stimulus are receiving.

Spend some time in America, outside of the Bay Area, and tell me that you think we are on the right track economically.

Rock on a table. Out!

Stan Da Man

03-07-11, 01:59

You can't help but chuckle that the Congressman Republican Leader of the House now agrees with the Obama Administration:

"I think raising the debt limit is the responsible thing to do for our country, the responsible thing to do for our economy. If we were to fail the increase the debt limit, we would send our economy into a tailspin." (WSJ 3/4/11)

This is exactly what most of the Democrats and President Obama have been saying for months on end.

Welcome to the real world, Congressman Boehner. Pop quiz:

Which right-wing, nutbag tea partier said this while voting against Raising the debt ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the USA Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

* * * * *

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities.

That's right, it was Ron Paul. I always knew he was crazy.

Strike that: It was Barack Obama, when he voted against raising the debt limit in 2006 as a Senator.

http://geekpolitics.com/obama-on-raising-the-debt-ceiling/

I definitely agree with him on many of these statements, particularly the first sentence:

'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. '

Wild Walleye

03-07-11, 12:31

Moreon:

You seem to be somewhat misinformed, not that I am surprised by this.

According to the extremist right. Wing REPUBLICAN Tea party politicians nearly all have been screaming about cutting the government debt limit, NOW. (Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, etc)I think that we've cleared up the 'screaming' part as that is the domain of the left. As for those advocating CUTTING the debt limit, while I would be in favor of such a move, I am not certain that there are too many pushing to actually reduce it at this moment. The debate, as it relates to current legislative matters under the purview of the new Republican congress, is whether or not to raise the debt limit.

Evidently that shows you're out of touch with your own partyThank you for pointing out the fact that I am not a party man.

foolWhat a pithy jibe, devastating in both its brevity and effect.

I never said that the current spending was sustainable, did I? .I have never seen anything from you other than lock-step agreement with the left wing and certainly nothing critical of US govt spending levels.

However, we are trying to get out of the worst recession since the 1930'sOnce again, the Left is proving to us that increased govt spending is not a cure for recession.

The most recent data now shows that unemployment is 8. 9% but we have a way to go still."A way?" Wow, now you are the master of understatement. Even Christina would blush at publishing that unemployment number.

All those naysayers can now jerk-off about the Obama stimulus package not working or contributing to the nation's recovery. (including you, Wallyeye)It has proven itself to be an unmitigated disaster. More than just waste of money, it has served to distract the nation from recovery. Worse yet, the increases in taxes, regulation and spending (which includes stimulus) have made the private sector unwilling to expand. The private sector is the only thing that can get us out of this mess. Further, Obama's hands are covered with the blood shed by the middle east uprisings in that his quantitative easing is at the root of what started as protests over food prices.

Moreon, generally when I encounter a leftie such as yourself (I. E. Poorly informed, woefully lacking in facts, and incapable of high-level reasoning or deductive thought) , they tire of being proven wrong so often and consistently and slink away seeking someone meek for a debate partner. I guess I should be impressed by your willingness to lead with your chin, time and time again as well as you sense of ego which clearly doesn't seem to diminish in light of your failures.

Moveon

03-07-11, 16:55

Tiny12

03-07-11, 17:52

Moveon, As you say, the Heritage Foundation is a think tank. It's not Boeing or Exxon or the United Auto Workers. So, who cares? If Ruth Ginsburg's husband had been paid $700, 000 by the Brookings Institution you wouldn't say a thing. BTW, I'm not a fan of either Thomas or Ginsburg.

Wild Walleye

03-07-11, 18:06

It has now been revealed that Judge Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose secret sources of income for 13 years on required federal forms according to a recent newspaper article published in the L. A. Times, 3/6/11. Included was $700,000 (between 2004-2007) that his wife earned from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank group)."Secret sources" The facts that Ginni was at the Heritage Foundation, since 2000 (following a stint with Dick Armey) and served as the Heritage Foundation's liaison to the White House were and are widely known. How is any of this secret? Does anyone expect the spouse of an important governmental player, with the exception of the case of the first lady, to work for free?

The issues of conflicts of interest have been raised by the left since before his confirmation was complete.

If the issue is filing incorrect statements, the issue should be dealt with accordingly. What were your previous posts on Rangel?

Throughout these years, Judge Thomas has been stating all along that his wife did not earn any income. In addition, his wife, Virginia Thomas, also received money from various groups that had importance and consequences in upcoming decisions that came before the Supreme Court itself.

Now if this Argentina, no one would pay notice or care. In fact, it's likely the norm. However, a Supreme Court Justice in the USA is obligated to recuse himself from any case 'in which his impartiality might be reasonable questioned. ' Apparently, this law mandates recusal when he knows that 'his spouse has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. '

Naturally, the financial forms are meant to forge a compete transparency and to assist the public and the Supreme Court in determining any conflicts of interest.

What was the response by Judge Clarence Thomas? He states that he 'inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. ' Come on, now. You have a distinguished record and a very smart person. Do you really think we buy that? What part of the English language on the instructions was so difficult to understand or interpret?

Yet, last year, Judge Clarence Thomas rejected a defense in a case brought before the Supreme Court (Jerman vs Carlisle) that the violations were due to misunderstanding of the federal law and were just 'bona fide errors. ' In other words, ignorance and misunderstanding of the law or instructions will 'not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally. '

So where does this leave you Judge Clarence Thomas? So he's been throwing Supreme Court cases for under $200k / year? Clearly, this is not Argentina.

Good luck with this one.

Moveon

03-07-11, 20:12

"Secret sources" How is any of this secret? Does anyone expect the spouse of an important governmental player, with the exception of the case of the first lady, to work for free?

If the issue is filing incorrect statements, the issue should be dealt with accordingly.

So he's been throwing Supreme Court cases for under $200k / year?*I never said it was a secret or that there was "secret sources" did I?

* The fact that his failure to DISCLOSE all 13 years is what so surprising and disturbing coming from a member of the Supreme Court. On top of this, Judge Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself from any case held in front of the bench that had connections to his wife's income. (get it??)

*Nor did I say she should work for free. Did I? Again and again, you are missing the point.

*Judge Clarence Thomas withheld important financial information required by law and then used reasoning that was previously dismissed (by him) in an earlier case brought in front of the US Supreme Court. How satirical.

* Who cares how much he is paid? If he feels he is underpaid, maybe he should go into private practice then. That it totally inconsequential. In any case, he most likely makes well over that in just speaking fees indirectly paid for by right-wing militia wannabes just like you.

Rev BS

03-07-11, 21:20

It was rumoured that Dick Cheney wet his pants at a Halliburton board meeting over the missed opportunity to invade Libya. With eyes flashing, and his jaw sticking out like the Jungfrau Alps, spit flying all over Rumsfeld, he shouted,"Man, I would have love to have spread Gaddaff's ass cheeks, spread some barbecue sauce, and give him a Libyian oil lube job".

The way Gadaffi has been looking on tv, I wonder if he had heard the same rumour.

Punter 127

03-07-11, 21:27

What was the response by Judge Clarence Thomas? He states that he 'inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. ' Come on, now. You have a distinguished record and a very smart person. Do you really think we buy that? What part of the English language on the instructions was so difficult to understand or interpret?
Tim Geithner said he used TurboTax to prepare his returns for the years in question where he failed to pay self-employment taxes — even though he collected reimbursement from his employer, the International Monetary Fund.Perhaps TurboTax Tim helped Thomas fill out the forms, who better to help you with such things than the Treasury Secretary?

Wild Walleye

03-07-11, 22:01

Perhaps TurboTax Tim helped Thomas fill out the forms, who better to help you with such things than the Treasury Secretary?He was getting advice from the same folks as the aforementioned Tim, Rangel and all the other Obama appointees who had book keeping errors.

What Moreon seems to miss is that he, unlike Obama's cronies must have paid taxes on the income, thus declaring it to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreon: so just whose eyes was he pulling the wool over?

I think that is a pretty poor attempt to insinuate corruption, especially the kind that is endemic, although not the exclusive domain of, liberals like: Willie Jefferson, Dodd, Murtha, Blago, etc, etc

Wild Walleye

03-07-11, 22:03

Stan Da Man

03-07-11, 22:26

It has now been revealed that Judge Clarence Thomas had failed to disclose secret sources of income for 13 years on required federal forms according to a recent newspaper article published in the L. A. Times. 3/6/11. Included was $700, 000 (between 2004-2007) that his wife earned from the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank group). Throughout these years, Judge Thomas has been stating all along that his wife did not earn any income. In addition, his wife, Virginia Thomas, also received money from various groups that had importance and consequences in upcoming decisions that came before the Supreme Court itself.

Now if this Argentina, no one would pay notice or care. In fact, it's likely the norm. However, a Supreme Court Justice in the USA is obligated to recuse himself from any case 'in which his impartiality might be reasonable questioned. ' Apparently, this law mandates recusal when he knows that 'his spouse has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. '

Naturally, the financial forms are meant to forge a compete transparency and to assist the public and the Supreme Court in determining any conflicts of interest.

What was the response by Judge Clarence Thomas? He states that he 'inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. ' Come on, now. You have a distinguished record and a very smart person. Do you really think we buy that? What part of the English language on the instructions was so difficult to understand or interpret?

Yet, last year, Judge Clarence Thomas rejected a defense in a case brought before the Supreme Court (Jerman vs Carlisle) that the violations were due to misunderstanding of the federal law and were just 'bona fide errors. ' In other words, ignorance and misunderstanding of the law or instructions will 'not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally. '

So where does this leave you Judge Clarence Thomas? Hardly surprising that this guy would continue to distort things.

What do liberals think of whether Thomas and Scalia have had conflicts of interest? Even they Agree that this is pure distortion politics from liberal smear groups. Here's what the New York Times printed, from the liberal former clerk to liberal Justice Souter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13feldman.html

Funny thing is, after this noted liberal law clerk called out these notorious lefty groups for mounting a weak, smear campaign, what did they do? They attacked him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/l20scotus.html

This is just par for the course for the left. When the Supreme Court properly ruled that Bush won, they claim he stole the election. Now, they're trying to pre-empt the process. They know ObamaCare is likely to be stricken down when challenged, so they're trying to get a head start on attacking the legitimacy of the decision to bring it down. It's just like the Dem legislators going on the run in Indiana and Wisconsin. If they can't win by playing by the rules, they claim that the game wasn't fair, and they refuse to play. Tsk, Tsk.

Wild Walleye

03-07-11, 23:27

Hardly surprising that this guy would continue to distort things.

What do liberals think of whether Thomas and Scalia have had conflicts of interest? Even they Agree that this is pure distortion politics from liberal smear groups. Here's what the New York Times printed, from the liberal former clerk to liberal Justice Souter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13feldman.html

Funny thing is, after this noted liberal law clerk called out these notorious lefty groups for mounting a weak, smear campaign, what did they do? They attacked him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/l20scotus.html

This is just par for the course for the left. When the Supreme Court properly ruled that Bush won, they claim he stole the election. You know as well as anyone when you try to nail down these greased pigs, they'll flee the squared circle (see Wisc. And numerous other locales).

Now for the insightful heart punch:

Now, they're trying to pre-empt the process. They know ObamaCare is likely to be stricken down when challenged, so they're trying to get a head start on attacking the legitimacy of the decision to bring it down. It's just like the Dem legislators going on the run in Indiana and Wisconsin. If they can't win by playing by the rules, they claim that the game wasn't fair, and they refuse to play. Tsk, Tsk.Anything you hear about any of the supreme jurists, who are true to the constitution, is an attempt by the left to soften up the beachhead for the case of Obamacare. There is only one reason why Obama doesn't want the case to go to the supremes, its unconstitutional. Other than that, the law is fine. Therefore, the left will try to discredit those on the bench that are partial to the rule of law and its root, the constitution.

Since they can't win on the merits of the law, they have to steal a victory by reducing the justices to a smaller number that includes a majority of liberal activists. There is an excellent, nonpartisan argument that Kagan should recuse herself from presiding over adjudication on the subject of Obamacare (Moreon and Esten, that means she shouldn't sit in judgment 'cause she's likely tainted (sorry, again biased). That said, I doubt that she will or that her left-wing benefactors (including the guy that put her in her current job, for which she is woefully unqualified) will allow her to recuse. They will take any and all shots, no matter how poorly conceived or structured to try to cast doubt upon sitting US Supreme Court justices.

Gee, that sounds like a group that is out for the best interests of the country. I can't believe I didn't get behind them sooner.

Wild Walleye

03-07-11, 23:45

*I never said it was a secret or that there was "secret sources" did I? Once again, I erred thinking that you could read and that you had actually read the drivel that you posted. Sorry. My bad.

* The fact that his failure to DISCLOSE all 13 years is what so surprising and disturbing coming from a member of the Supreme Court. On top of this, Judge Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself from any case held in front of the bench that had connections to his wife's income. (get it??)No, I don't get it. Considering that Justice Thomas has had the left crawling up his ass since before his confirmation hearings started, I doubt that anything other than clerical errors escaped you and your constitution-hating brethren.

*Nor did I say she should work for free. Did I? Again and again, you are missing the point.Please, point out any instance in which I missed the point (provide evidence, if you don't mind). There are lots of things that I do, I'm prone to distraction, I argue politics to the point that others leave the room, I expect BBBJ and I never miss the point.

*Judge Clarence Thomas withheld important financial information required by law and then used reasoning that was previously dismissed (by him) in an earlier case brought in front of the US Supreme Court. How satirical.How satirical? I have to wonder if you know what satire is. As I previously mentioned, Justice Thomas clearly has declared all of his and his wife's income to the federal government. They have absolutely no expectation of privacy as it relates to that information. Therefore, one (not a biased cool-aid-drinker like yourself) would conclude that deception was not at the root of the mistake.

As for the latter issue, I doubt that you would now an affirmative defense from an excuse if either or both bit you on the ass.

* Who cares how much he is paid?Apparently, you do. Your post was intended to make the reader believe the Justice Thomas has ignored his own conflicts of interest for financial gain.

If he feels he is underpaid, maybe he should go into private practice then.I'd normally say nice non sequitur, but I have absolutely no reason to believe that you would know what that means.

That it totally inconsequential.How so? That is the entire substance of your poorly conceived post: abdication of one's responsibilities for financial gain.

In any case, he most likely makes well over that in just speaking fees indirectly paid for by right-wing militia wannabes just like you.You prove my point. You are a total queef. You just undercut your entire argument. Why did you bother making it in the first place?

I'll tell you, there was a day when debating liberals was a challenge (although not a particularly difficult one). However, that day has come and gone and apparently all liberals with an IQ over 40 have ducked out of sight. Maybe it would be better if we just got together to eat some paste and make ink stamps out of potatoes.

Esten

03-07-11, 23:53

Please respond to my deficit comment as it pertains to WHO has been putting the budget together since 2007? I know. You can't! LOL. Was your turn dude and you're boys blew it. LOL. It may be a while till you get the keys to the bus again dude. Better enjoy the free ride for the next 18 months or so. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.

Ps. Oh! I forgot! It had to be George Bush's fault! IALOTFLMAODems held Congress since 2007.

Wait a sec. Oh crap, you got me. You win! Your in-depth analysis has defeated me! LOL

Wild Walleye

03-08-11, 00:01

Dems held Congress since 2007.

Wait a sec. Oh crap, you got me. You win! Your in-depth analysis has defeated me! LOL

Oh wait, you are onto something! Obama's February 2011 budget deficit is greater than the entire budget deficit for 2007.

Esten

03-08-11, 01:04

I haven't read up much on the Supreme Court justices, but this guy's wife is quite interesting.

Apparently Virginia Thomas is:
- a consultant to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank;
- the founder and president of an advocacy group associated with the Tea party, Liberty Central;
- the head of Liberty Consulting, Inc.

Liberty Consulting promises to give 'voice to principled citizens and the tea party movement in the halls of Congress through governmental affairs efforts'.

And I'm supposed to believe that such political activism by a Supreme Court justice's spouse doesn't pose a blatant conflict of interest? Oh my.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention Moveon.

Toymann

03-08-11, 05:16

Dems held Congress since 2007.

Wait a sec. Oh crap, you got me. You win! Your in-depth analysis has defeated me! LOLCome on Esten, you got to do better than this? You started this conversation with you're statement that Bush was responsible for the deficit. Right! Both the democratic house and senate have set and passed the budget (until recently) since 2007. As WW points out, the exacerbation of these events have escalated dramatically under Obominations watch. Please elaborate how it's all W's fault. Inquiring minds want to know. Yes dude, sometimes the fastest way to get from point A to point B is a straight line. The dem's have been setting the country's operating deficit since 2007. Don't ya just hate the facts buddy? Tick! Tick! Tick! Regime change is just around the corner. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Rev BS

03-08-11, 17:27

Take your pick, America.

Poster boys for fat wallets and gigantic egos.

Wild Walleye

03-08-11, 18:24

Moveon

03-08-11, 19:54

But if we're looking over the maps for a place to put boots on the ground, I (once again) vote for Libya. They have shit loads of oil.____________________________________________________________________________________________.

Once again, you have proved your self to be another neocon with a hand gun up your ass and cow dung between the ears. It's your type of hillbilly, gung-ho mentality that got the US in a needless war in Iraq that cost our economy trillions of dollars and needless loss of life.

Sure, it's easy to say let the U.S. put "boots and the ground" without thinking of the long-term consequences, the diplomatic implications, and the perverted morality of such a decision.

Just because Libya has oil reserves and their central government has been weakened, it's ok to send troops into a sovereign nation and start exploiting the oil reserves of another nation and people?

Dude, get back to your horse ranch in Montana or whatever backward state you're from. I would be embarrassed walking around Buenos Aires near you or any other city in the world hearing such nonsense.

Wild Walleye

03-08-11, 21:05

Once again, you have proved your self to be another neocon with a hand gun up your ass and cow dung between the ears. It's your type of hillbilly, gung-ho mentality that got the US in a needless war in Iraq that cost our economy trillions of dollars and needless loss of life.Just think, the trillions spent on Iraq put a lot more people to work than the trillions wasted by Obama.

Sure, it's easy to say let the U.S. put "boots and the ground" without thinking of the long-term consequences, the diplomatic implications,Of course, I thought that through. Libya only has 20% of the population of Iraq and the world's 9th largest, proven oil reserves. If we can steam roll Iraq in three weeks, we should be able to do the same to Libya in 4. 2 days. All we then do is cordon of the oil producing areas with a border fence (like the one we are not building on our southern border) and start pumping that black gold out as fast as we can.

and the perverted morality of such a decision.Now wait a minute, I didn't say anything about fucking their women.

Just because Libya has oil reserves and their central government has been weakened, it's ok to send troops into a sovereign nation and start exploiting the oil reserves of another nation and people?Those cock suckers have been asking for it since the first Barbary War!

Dude, get back to your horse ranch in Montana or whatever backward state you're from.Are you sure you don't work for NPR? You have many of the same ignorant attitudes and it's pretty easy to get one over on you.

I would be embarrassed walking around Buenos Aires near you or any other city in the world hearing such nonsense.An embarrassment of riches your are unlikely to experience. If it ever came to pass, I would certainly wear my "I'm with stupid" t-shirt.

Moveon

03-09-11, 00:26

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 416042]

Of course, I thought that through. Libya only has 20% of the population of Iraq and the world's 9th largest, proven oil reserves. If we can steam roll Iraq in three weeks, we should be able to do the same to Libya in 4. 2 days. All we then do is cordon of the oil producing areas with a border fence (like the one we are not building on our southern border) and start pumping that black gold out as fast as we can.

An embarrassment of riches your are unlikely to experience.

____________________________________________________________________________________________.

There's an old Roman saying, Wallyeye:

"He who gives himself airs of importance, exhibits the credentials of impotence."

Esten

03-09-11, 01:07

That has had the good fortune to make the acquaintance of Justice Thomas. From my limited interaction with him, I found nothing that would contradict the fact that he is a good and honorable man.

Esten, Moreon and the left hate Justice Thomas because he is black and a conservative. If either of you has anything substantive to share about him, please do, but spare us a continuation of the racially motivated attacks of the left.

He's black, conservative, appointed for life and married a white girl, get over it. I don't hate Justice Thomas, there was not a single hateful thing in my post. I am sure he is an upstanding fellow, but the political activism of his spouse does cast doubt on his impartiality. I'm surprised such spousal activities are tolerated at the level of a Supreme Court justice.

Your claims of hate and racial motivation here are about as feeble as your previous posts that I hate the poor. You are grasping at straws.

Rev BS

03-09-11, 02:46

That has had the good fortune to make the acquaintance of Justice Thomas. From my limited interaction with him, I found nothing that would contradict the fact that he is a good and honorable man.

Esten, Moreon and the left hate Justice Thomas because he is black and a conservative. If either of you has anything substantive to share about him, please do, but spare us a continuation of the racially motivated attacks of the left.

He's black, conservative, appointed for life and married a white girl, get over it. I am conservative, and I am glad he is there to help preserve the conservative values of this country, but if ever there was a prime example of affirmative action at work, Clarence Thomas would be it. At best, he is an average thinker and interpreter of the law.

Punter 127

03-09-11, 06:59

Would someone please teach Moveon how to post with a quote.

Moveon [/Quote] must be at the end of the quote.

You also might want to take a look at the BB code list.

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode

WorldTravel69

03-09-11, 07:11

Punter 127

03-09-11, 07:21

Energy Policy: As the White House goes to court to defend its self-imposed drilling moratorium, it floats the idea of tapping our strategic petroleum reserve to lower rising prices. How about the oil offshore and in Alaska?

Listening to mainstream punditry, you'd think $4 gas is due solely to Mideast unrest and global demand. Those are factors, but so are our self-imposed restrictions on supply.

The administration at least acknowledges that the law of supply and demand exists, with White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley telling NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that the White House is considering tapping into the nation's strategic petroleum reserve to counteract upward price pressure caused by fear of supply disruptions from Mideast unrest.

"The issue of the reserves is one (option) we are considering," Daley said. All matters have to be on the table." All options? Does that include opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, ending a de facto drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico and lifting a seven-year ban on drilling off our coasts?

We think not, for as Daley was uttering those words the administration was speaking out of the other side of its mouth by going to court to appeal a judge's order to act on several Gulf of Mexico deep-water drilling permits. That appeal was made Friday, the same day the national average for a price of self-serve unleaded hit $3. 51, up 32. 7 cents from two weeks earlier.

The Obama administration appealed an order by District Court Judge Martin Feldman, who on Feb. 17 gave the administration and Interior Department 30 days to decide on five pending deep-water drilling permit applications. He later added two more permits to his order.

It was Feldman who issued an injunction against the administration's total ban on deep-water drilling after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, calling it "heavy-handed, and rather overbearing." The administration had even doctored a report by experts it convened on offshore drilling safety to make it seem as if they approved of the moratorium, which they later said they did not.

When the administration rearranged a few words and phrases and reinstated the moratorium, Feldman found Interior in contempt. In his current order, Feldman said the delay in issuing permits since last year's oil spill was "increasingly inexcusable."

As for a possible oil crisis, it is we who have dug the hole we're in. We could in the short term start issuing those drilling permits being held hostage and in the long term exploit the domestic oil and gas reserves that dwarf anything Saudi Arabia and OPEC may have.

As Jane Van Ryan of the American Petroleum Institute states, the SPR "was established to protect the United States against an interruption of petroleum supplies, such as occurred after the hurricanes Katrina and Rita."

It was not established to respond to or mask the consequences of a deliberate administration policy to have energy prices "necessarily skyrocket" in a futile pursuit of so-called "green" energy, a policy designed to create an artificial shortage orchestrated by an energy secretary, Steven Chu, who once said gas should be at $8 a gallon.

The administration's energy policy, or lack of one, is inexcusable and outright hypocritical — admitting we need to increase supply to mitigate price hikes at the same time it works to restrict supply to make prices go up. We have plenty of oil here in the USA Unfortunately, all our dipsticks are in Washington, D. C. At the risk of being called Sid I decided to post this entire article rather than a link because the site doesn't leave articles up very long.

Did anybody noticed that during this last flight to safety that traditional safe havens of the Swiss franc and the yen benefited, but the US currency suffered. Is the US Dollar in danger of collapsing?

WorldTravel69

03-09-11, 07:45

Sorry! You Have We Don't!
We do not have it.

But the only a person that can help me and some of us in Buenos Airiies is the only person, T. L. WOULD BE THE MAN.

No Gas problems for him and You And Me.

Especially us on a tight budget for him and Your "son on a tight buaget.

At the risk of being called Sid I decide to post this entire article rather than a link because the site doesn't leave articles up very long.

Did anybody noticed that during this last flight to safety that traditional safe havens of the Swiss franc and the yen benefited, but the USA currency suffered. Is the USA Dollar in danger of collapsing?

WorldTravel69

03-09-11, 07:58

Buenos Aires was his First Choice, but you had some issues.

DR is not that Bad, but has turned a little unsafe.

How many have you been there?

I Have Photos of the Country, If you would like to see them.

If not what is the Japanese word for goodbye?

At the risk of being called Sid I decide to post this entire article rather than a link because the site doesn't leave articles up very long.

Did anybody noticed that during this last flight to safety that traditional safe havens of the Swiss franc and the yen benefited, but the US currency suffered. Is the US Dollar in danger of collapsing?

Wild Walleye

03-09-11, 13:14

I am conservative, and I am glad he is there to help preserve the conservative values of this country, but if ever there was a prime example of affirmative action at work, Clarence Thomas would be it. At best, he is an average thinker and interpreter of the law.That he is quite intelligent, although I am certainly not in a position to determine if he belongs in Mensa. However, I do believe that he has what is necessary to be an excellent jurist, temperance when treading uncharted territory and deference to the Constitution. Over-intellectualizing the Constitution, selective interpretation, parsing and reading-into the Constitution have all done us a disservice and have helped lead us to our current problems.

Stan Da Man

03-09-11, 16:32

Same as in All Countries:

How guys missed the best foreign film?

Last Year. 2010.

"The Secret is in Their Eyes."

Sex and Politico's in Buenos Aires. Same as Home.

Now on Starz. Com.

I am sure you guys can buy a copy at your local pirate newstand.

Check the internet for Something like in the "El secreto-de-sus-Ojos".

http://screencrave.com/2010-03-07/os...o-de-sus-ojos/

Not sure it belongs in this thread but, I agree, great movie. I've seen it several times. Very easy to rent at Netflix.

But, in my opinion, if you want to see a better Argentine movie with Ricardo Darin, who is a very good actor, you can't go wrong with Nine Queens. It's akin to Oceans 11 but with a good plot and better acting.

Speaking of affirmative action, I can't really comment on Clarence Thomas. I haven't met him and don't know much about him. But, I do know Sonia Sotomayor. If you want to talk about affirmative action appointments, she's it. Her picture is there in the dictionary. She's a nice lady. A little crazy in a Weird Aunt Ethel sort of way. But, she's utterly unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court. I can't tell you that Clarence Thomas is less or more qualified because, again, I don't know him. But, I can tell you that Sotomayor would rank in the bottom 10% of the lawyers I know in terms of qualifications, and I am completely leaving ideology out of this. That appointment was an utter disgrace.

Wild Walleye

03-09-11, 18:53

The ultimate example of affirmative action is in the White House. Were Barry not black, none of us would have ever heard of him.

Rev BS

03-09-11, 21:05

The ultimate example of affirmative action is in the White House. Were Barry not black, none of us would have ever heard of him.I don't know what you ate this morning, but your sacarsm exceeds your ingenuity.

As with the Mideast uprisings, the time was right for Obama who happen to be black to be president. Now, had he been a darker shade of black akin to "shinining black" and had the swagger of Idi Amin, he might not have been elected. As such, he was still not "white" enough for a segment of American society, that segment that is awaiting the second coming of George Wallace. Unfortunately for that segment, they might have to annex some state and declare a new country as the United States is now a melting pot and is here to stay that way.

No offense.

Stan Da Man

03-09-11, 22:10

I don't know what you ate this morning, but your sacarsm exceeds your ingenuity.

As with the Mideast uprisings, the time was right for Obama who happen to be black to be president. Now, had he been a darker shade of black akin to "shinining black" and had the swagger of Idi Amin, he might not have been elected. As such, he was still not "white" enough for a segment of American society, that segment that is awaiting the second coming of George Wallace. Unfortunately for that segment, they might have to annex some state and declare a new country as the United States is now a melting pot and is here to stay that way.

No offense. I think his point is that many people likely voted for Obama for reasons other than the merits. I don't know whether you call that guilt or a bending-over-backwards effort to demonstrate a progressive attitude, or affirmative action. I heard so many among my circle of friends claim that Obama would never win because there were just too many Americans who were prejudice. It was always the other guy Not them who was too prejudice to vote for a black man. I strongly disagreed then because I don't think there are many other guys Like that in the USA any more. In fact, I think the dynamic works the opposite way."I'll show that I'm not racist by voting for the black candidate." At least in my opinion, there was more of that sentiment than stereotypical racism at play. Or, to the extent there was overt racism at play, McCain had a better claim to being a victim. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama, to a degree that far outstripped their normal allegiance to the Democrat party. There's one likely explanation for that. And, to the extent that either of these sentiments influenced someone's vote, then Obama wasn't elected on the merits, at least as to those whose vote was a product of those sentiments. Whether that's affirmative action is another matter entirely.

But, I personally don't think that's why he got elected. He got elected because:

1. He is a very, very good speaker and teleprompter reader.

2. He made many promises that people wanted to believe, even if they should have known he would never keep them.

3. He was running against an extremely weak opponent in John McCain.

4. The country was very ready for a change after 8 years of George Bush, including many in Bush's own party who felt that Bush betrayed conservative and Republican principles, and that McCain was not much better. I'm in this latter camp.

Before I get jumped on for the above: I realize this is all subjective and matter of opinion. I don't purport to have a corner on the market as to why voters did what they did. Admittedly, the above are just my speculation. But, I do think there is something to the idea that Obama picked up many votes for reasons other than the merits. I just think he would have won regardless of color.

Wild Walleye

03-10-11, 04:35

Just to be clear, race is a non-factor in my day to day life, despite the fact that I have interracial interactions virtually every day. I don't think of people in terms of their race or creed nor I do not distinguish my friends by those categories. That doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on the politics of race.

I don't know what you ate this morning, but your sacarsm exceeds your ingenuity.What is an example of affirmative action? A person from a 'protected' minority getting a job for which he / she is unqualified, due in part to his / her minority status.

As with the Mideast uprisings, the time was right for Obama who happen to be black to be president.Agreed, the timing was right. However, his being black was not coincidental with his election, it contributed significantly to his election. If he was Barry the white guy from Chicago, no one would know his name. I also doubt that too many white, dope-smoking, under performers get to transfer from Occidental to Columbia University. You might also wonder how many white, male, non-honors students get accepted to Harvard Law School? If his academic record supported anything other than the benefits of affirmative action, I think that they would be public.

Now, had he been a darker shade of black akin to "shinining black" and had the swagger of Idi Amin, he might not have been elected.You mean "double-dunked?" You might be right about that, I hadn't really considered it.

As such, he was still not "white" enough for a segment of American society, that segment that is awaiting the second coming of George Wallace.I never once heard anyone say that he wasn't white enough. However, it was clear from Sharpton and Jackson that he wasn't black enough, from their perspectives. I travel all over the US to places big and small and while I am sure there are plenty of folks with racial biases (there's at least one in the White House) , I don't think that there is a large portion of the US that would be in favor of more institutionalized racism (to be added to affirmative action, of course). Of all the people I know, I can't think of any that I would suspect would vote against a candidate solely on the basis of his skin color. There definitely aren't any that would admit it to me, if they felt that way.

Unfortunately for that segment, they might have to annex some state and declare a new country as the United States is now a melting pot and is here to stay that way.If there is such a contingent, I would expect that it is very small. That said, America is actually becoming less of a melting pot because many new comers never assimilate (I. E. They don't melt) , they are just foreigners living here.

No offense.Why would I be offended?

Member #4112

03-10-11, 16:49

After 26 months in office who is Barack Obama, we still don't really know. For those who believe he is a racial socialist bent on turning the US into a second European nanny state, such as myself, perhaps a second consideration is in order. Please consider the following:

Candidate Obama swore to close Gitmo and stop the 'illegal' military tribunals. President Obama made one of his first presidential orders that Gitmo be closed and the secession of trials by military tribunal. Now 26 months later there is no sign of Gitmo being closed and Obama has issued a second presidential order suspending his earlier order and permitting military tribunals to proceed.

Candidate Obama railed against the CIA program of predator attacks in Pakistan instituted by President Bush as illegal and a violation of international law, yet President Obama has not only embraced the tactic but has greatly increased the operational tempo of the program.

Candidate Obama railed against the war in Iraq as a 'bad' war and that Afghanistan was the 'good' war we should be fighting. President Obama remained on track with the Iraq draw down program established by President Bush for the 'bad' war and initially did little to combat our enemies in Afghanistan the 'good' war.

Candidate Obama railed against the Iraq war and refused to admit President Bush's surge turned the war around and led to a successful conclusion of the conflict. President Obama first personally handpicked 'his' general to run the 'good' war in Afghanistan but had to dismiss him later after the general complained about the political way President Obama was running the war. President Obama then turned to President Bush's general (Petraus) to conduct the war after sacking his own handpicked general.

President Obama even went so far to adopt President Bush's tactic of a 'surge' to reverse our losses in Afghanistan, the same tactic he refused to acknowledge as successful in Iraq yet he now employs in Afghanistan with the same results. Additonally he has backed off any hard deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan just as Bush refused any hard deadline in Iraq during most of the war.

Candidate Obama demanded universal healthcare and President Obama with a Democratic majority in both houses pushed it through. While this very unpopular law cost them the House in 2010 and probably will cost them the Senate and Presidency in 2012, the bill was not nearly as all encompassing as the healthcare law proposed by First Lady Hillary Clinton.

Candidate Obama acknowledged his lack of foreign policy experience and brought Biden on to remedy this short coming. Now in the light of the unrest sweeping the middle east and President Obama and his appointees inability to speak with one voice (Obama says one thing, Clinton another and Gates still another) , coupled with Obama's constant equivocation on what his 'policy' is making it difficult for anyone to know where he stands since he is constantly changing his stance. At least with Reagan and Bush everyone friend or foe knew where they stood – with Obama no one knows.

Candidate / President Obama has attempted to make every Democratic wet dream come true. So does this make Obama a wild eyed socialists or just another Big Government, Tax and Spend, Liberal Democrat who believes the answer to all ills is bigger government?

So long as his radical friends were helpful he used them but as soon as they became a problem and / or once he reached his goal (being elected) the threw them under the bus (Ayers and Wright are just two examples)

I have come to the conclusion there is no 'real' Barack Obama to stand up, only the sham who has for years promoted himself from one position to the next higher position. A gifted reader of a teleprompter, he promotes the liberal ideas of his party but has shown he has no real core beliefs of his own beyond self promotion. He has no problem using people to attain his goals then disgarding them, the same with "beliefs". IMHO he represents a hollow being full of sound and fury but of no substance.

Toymann

03-10-11, 17:01

I have come to the conclusion there is no 'real' Barack Obama to stand up, only the sham who has for years promoted himself from one position to the next higher position. A gifted reader of a teleprompter, he promotes the liberal ideas of his party but has shown he has no real core beliefs of his own beyond self promotion. He has no problem using people to attain his goals then disgarding them, the same with "beliefs". IMHO he represents a hollow being full of sound and fury but of no substance.Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Stan Da Man

03-10-11, 18:15

After 26 months in office who is Barack Obama, we still don't really know. For those who believe he is a racial socialist bent on turning the US into a second European nanny state, such as myself, perhaps a second consideration is in order. A good post. But, I'm not sure it means there is no "real" Barack Obama. Instead, one might interpret it as: He was incredibly naive on the campaign trail.

The first four or five points you made pertain to Iraq, Afghanistan or Gitmo. On war-related topics, there's no doubt he hasn't followed through on his campaign promises and / or he's done the exact same thing as the predecessor who he railed against. But, I just think this shows how inexperienced, idealistic and naive he is. On the Gitmo point, though, please note that he recently acknowledged that he has failed to close it, but he promised that he will, in fact, close it. This will be a campaign issue. If he hasn't closed it by next June or so, he will be accused of being either naive or a liar. It's one thing to make hopey changey promises before you know all the facts, but he recently reaffirmed all that. He can't claim to be naive any longer.

If you don't believe he's naive, then perhaps another description might fit."He's a politician." He'll say anything to get elected and re-elected. I think this also may be apt, but I'm not sure I believe he was smart enough to know that he couldn't fulfill all his promises. With most politicians, folks have a certain amount of skepticism. The difference with Obama was that he was better able than most to convince folks that he really meant what he said and would follow through. I think that's mostly because he believed it. When he didn't on most things, it became obvious he either was a hypocrite or foolish or both, and that's what brought you the 2010 election results. His base was disillusioned and stayed home. The significant, lone exception was ObamaCare. And, he would have done better fulfilling nearly any other campaign promise other than that one. It was a disastrous first two years, but there's still plenty of time for him to turn that around.

Member #4112

03-10-11, 19:49

Stan you could be right, but I think you are just being charitable about his naivety. I still believe he has no values or principles beyond promoting himself.

He got the "Big Job" but is totally unprepared for what it requires. The Peter Principle in action. Promoted one rung above his competence, perhaps several rungs above it.

There is a vast difference between campaigning and governing and he has no concept of what the word means as evidenced by his continuing to campaign for several months after he was sworn into office.

I believe 2012 will be a case of 'fool me once shame on me, fool me twice. ' I don't believe there is anything he can do to overcome the negative perception he keeps creating as evidenced by his declining poll numbers. I expect him to be in the upper 30's by election day and no one can win re-election from there.

Stan Da Man

03-11-11, 00:30

[Sigh] This is what passes for journalism from the Associated Press these days:

"MADISON, Wis. – With the labor movement suffering an epic defeat in Wisconsin and perhaps other states, union leaders plan to use the setback to fire up their members nationwide and mount a major counterattack against Republicans at the ballot box in 2012."

Full article here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions

Would someone tell these ignoramuses that unions have been mounting a major attack against Republicans for the PAST 30 YEARS!

Despite all the talk of corporate donors and the Koch Brothers, unions are easily the largest campaign contributors each year.

99% of their campaign contributions go to Democrats.

What does the media think that is? A subtle hint? A waste of the other 1%

So now the union bosses are going to get the union lackeys out for a vote? Good luck with that. They're already the vast majority of Democrat support. Unless they go with the Chicago tradition, vote early and vote often, there's not much more vote to get out.

Esten

03-11-11, 01:40

Punter 127

03-11-11, 02:06

Finally a lesson in leadership, A great day for Wisconsin and a great example for America.

Thank you Gov. Scott Walker!

Esten

03-11-11, 02:25

Come on Esten, you got to do better than this? You started this conversation with you're statement that Bush was responsible for the deficit. Right! Both the democratic house and senate have set and passed the budget (until recently) since 2007. As WW points out, the exacerbation of these events have escalated dramatically under Obominations watch. Please elaborate how it's all W's fault. Inquiring minds want to know.I've explained this before, including the post you are referring to. Did you just gloss over the following:

The major components of our current deficit / debt situation are mostly due to Bush's legacy, not Obama. The Stimulus and other recent spending are large but temporary, and more importantly, are outsized by the ongoing impact of the Bush tax cuts, unfunded wars and economic downturn tax revenue loss resulting from conservative ideology under Bush.

I've posted this link a couple times before, and here it is once again, see Figure 1:

Critics Still Wrong on What's Driving Deficits in Coming Years.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

That's only about the fifth time I've posted that link. Toymann please spend some time reading it.

As I've said before, it's not all Bush's fault. That's the Republican mantra. When I called it "Bush's debt", I explained that the debt is a legacy of conservative ideology under Bush. The most important of these ideologies being on taxation and de-regulation.

Two importants points to remember:
1. Deficits have two components: revenue and spending.
2. These two components are subject to existing laws, and are not entirely adjustable by any given Congress.

If we are to assign 'blame', the most meaningful way to look at things is to see where deficit components have come from. Toymann, do some research on what our recent deficits would have looked like without the following conservative-inspired or caused items:

- Two unfunded wars.
- Unfunded Medicare Part D.
- Bush tax cuts.
- Federal rescue efforts for Financial Crisis.
- Loss of tax revenues from Great Recession.

You will see Toymann, when you look at the facts, Republicans and conservative ideology are responsible for most big-ticket items impacting federal debt. Without these items, we would be running budget surpluses. Bush (as in the Bush presidency) has been a disaster for average Americans.

Jackson

03-11-11, 03:23

Bush (as in the Bush presidency) has been a disaster for average Americans.Of course, two+ years later, and it's still George Bush's fault!

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks,

Jackson

Punter 127

03-11-11, 06:29

Bush (as in the Bush presidency) has been a disaster for average Americans.I wouldn't exactly call Obama a God-sent gift, actually his policies are a disaster for us all.

Especially the 'War On The Poor'

Energy: Those on the left who say they care most for the least fortunate see the soaring price of gasoline as positive — despite the fact that those with the lowest incomes are hurt the worst.

Since January 2009, when President Obama was sworn in, the average price of a gallon of regular-grade gas has rocketed from less than $2 to $3. 53.

During this period, Obama's administration has placed an illegal ban on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, refused to permit deeper exploration into our rich fossil fuel reserves and pushed $2. 3 billion in a useless green energy initiative.

But then, this is the president who is comfortable with rising prices that discourage energy use and higher taxes on the oil and gas industry that will kill jobs and eventually be paid by consumers.

It was Obama who, as a candidate, warned that anyone who opened a coal-fired power plant on his watch would face bankruptcy. It was he who lectured us about driving SUVs and advised us not to keep our homes at 72 degrees at all times.

And it was Obama who appointed secretaries of Energy and Interior who a few years ago said they were OK with pump prices in the $8 to $10 range.

According to the federal Energy Information Administration, the price spike on this president's watch will cost the average USA household an additional $700 a year, not including the costs of goods and services being driven higher by spiraling energy prices.

This form of taxation goes especially deep in a struggling economy. Some families won't feel the pinch. But for many, $700 is the equivalent of a monthly car or house payment.

For those at the bottom of the income ladder, an additional $700 a year can be devastating. These Americans are being hit by a stiff tax that could have and should have been avoided. Does the White House not care about them?

The presidency of George W. Bush was plagued by high gas prices for a short time. But by the time he left office they had fallen sharply.

Obama should look back at what Bush did — such as urging the development of our own ample energy resources — and do the same. That's not too much to ask.

Punter 127

03-11-11, 08:43

Only 1 American in 7 has faith a lasting economic recovery has taken hold and a plurality say they are personally worse off than they were two years ago.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-10/americans-in-poll-show-little-confidence-with-plurality-perceiving-decline.html

Jackson

03-11-11, 13:22

I wouldn't exactly call Obama a God-sent gift, actually his policies are a disaster for us all.

Especially the 'War On The Poor'Don't forget the impact that the Cash for Clunkers program had on the poor.

As a gift to the environmentalists (the same group advocating for the higher gas prices), 3 million mostly serviceable used cars were destroyed so that middle class yuppies with credit could buy new, more fuel efficient cars. Unfortunately, this also eliminated the country's inventory of cheap used cars, as experienced by anyone trying to buy a decent "previously owned" vehicle today. With the same demand chasing a decimated inventory, the servicable $1,000-$2,000 used cars simply don't exist.

Or let me say it another way: What used to be a $1,000-$2,000 used car is now a $3,000-$5,000 used car.

If you still don't understand the ramifications, then ask yourself this question: What income group most needs to purchase cheap used cars at the "Buy Here, Pay Here" places? The rich, the middle class, or the poor?

Another burden on the poor, and another 3 billlion dollars flushed down the toilet!

Get it?

Thanks,

Jackson

Wild Walleye

03-11-11, 13:59

As I've said before, it's not all Bush's fault. That's the Republican mantra.Not sure if I am a republican, since I have always said that Bush is not a conservative and that he lacked any sort of backbone when it came to spending.

When I called it "Bush's debt", I explained that the debt is a legacy of conservative ideology under Bush.Spending more and increasing the size and scope of government are in no way a parts of conservative ideology. Neither the concept of large federal deficits nor more than a fraction of our current federal deficit can be attributed to Bush. That said, he deserves the blame for enabling congress to spend recklessly throughout his tenure as president.

The most important of these ideologies being on taxation and de-regulation.The only actual deregulation that took place was the lowering of standards within the banking industry to enable and force lenders to make bad loans and the lowering of reserve balance requirements. All of which contributed to the financial collapse. While none of these were Bush's doing, we know from whence these changes came, he is responsible for those that occurred during his watch.

Two importants points to remember:

1. Deficits have two components: revenue and spending.

2. These two components are subject to existing laws, and are not entirely adjustable by any given Congress.

If we are to assign 'blame', the most meaningful way to look at things is to see where deficit components have come from. Toymann, do some research on what our recent deficits would have looked like without the following conservative-inspired or caused items:

- Two unfunded wars.

- Unfunded Medicare Part D. Very expensive endeavors, we'll never agree on the first, the latter would not have been signed into law by a conservative president. Bush is not a conservative.

- Bush tax cuts.False. US federal tax receipts grew from $1, 991. 1B in 2001 to $2, 524. 0B in 2008, a real growth rate of 27%

If you wouldn't mind, please educate me on how the tax cuts reduced tax receipts.

- Federal rescue efforts for Financial Crisis.Agreed. Money wasted by the federal govt under both Bush and Obama that should not have been spent.

- Loss of tax revenues from Great Recession.Lower tax receipts in 2009 and 2010 did occur, however. 2011 tax receipts are projected to exceed 2008 receipts by approximately 2% with the Bush tax cuts still in effect.

You will see Toymann, when you look at the facts, Republicans and conservative ideology are responsible for most big-ticket items impacting federal debt.

Without these items, we would be running budget surpluses. Not true. The tax cuts did not result in reduced federal tax receipts. Tax revenue has increased markedly over the period of time since they went into effect.

During Bush's tenure spending increased from $1, 789B to $2, 983B, representing 67% real growth in spending, which we all know is controlled by the Congress. Again, there is no excuse for Bush accepting these increases. If you subtract $200B for the cost of the wars for FY 2008, federal spending was $2, 783B or a 55% growth in spending from the beginning of Bush's term. Since Obama has been in office, spending has increased to $3, 834B for 2001. However, only about $150 million of that is for the wars. Therefore, since Obama took office, he has overseen a 32% increase in federal spending. It is also worth noting that one party controlled the congress during the bulk of the spending increases (2006-2010) , during which time federal spending has increased a whopping 55% (excluding the cost of the wars) growing from $2, 272B in 2005 to $3, 520B in 2010.

Bush (as in the Bush presidency) has been a disaster for average Americans.That is your opinion, to which you have every right. I've never been a big fan of Bush, except regarding his national security efforts, however, my opinion is that Bush's presidency, with all of its warts, was a hell of a lot better for America than Obama's. There seem to be a few people who agree with me that showed up at the polls last fall and I suspect that they will show up again in 2012. We shall see.

Member #4112

03-11-11, 16:38

Too bad you did not read further than the first paragraph. I guess for liberals the facts constitute "distortions" or is it never let the facts get in the way of a good story?

The contrasts I made between Obama the Candidate and Obama the President or well documented, ie facts. They form the basis of my opinion Obama is unqualified to be president, bring only one skill set to the office and that is self promotion. He has no 'core' beliefs beyond what needs to be said to get what he wants at that moment, just another Big Government, Tax & Spend Liberal Democrat and a true 'politician' no morals or beliefs beyond himself.

Your statement of Obama's superior intellectual abilities is a joke at best. Do you really believe this BS? While I agree HE thinks he is the most intelligent person in the room, any room, the fact is he is usually the least. Even those in his own party have complained about 'he has his own world view' regardless of the facts and they find it more and more difficult to deal with him and these are fellow democrats! Are you sure he is not Daffy Quadify's cousin?

FYI Einstein, deficits have only ONE component – spending more money than you take in!

Definition. Budget Deficit:

The amount by which a government, company or individual's spending excees its income over a particular period of time.

Wild Walleye

03-11-11, 17:46

The fact is Obama is more intelligent and pragmatic than your average politician. He has correctly identified America's main problem -- accelerating plutocracy -- and is ready to take concrete steps to address it.Everyone wants to think that there is something special about their guy. I concede that he is probably smart enough to get out of both Columbia (although who couldn't pass poli-sci?) and Harvard Law. We will probably never know if he was 'smart' enough to get into either on his merits, alone.

After the epic disaster of conservative ideology from Bush's presidency, the Great Recession was ended within Obama's first year,You can keep saying that until you are blue in the face, however, a significant plurality of the American public disagrees.

followed by passage of historic healthcare and financial reform.Neither of which does anything to address the root causes of the problems that they are supposed to fix. Both are beautiful, stinking albatross corpses. Expect the former to be slung around Obama's neck come 2012, while the latter will probably be ignored by both parties.

The 111th Congress was one of the most productive and progressive in decades.To the grave detriment of the American public and our national, financial well being. The 111th was productive only in terms of needless government expansion and spending.

From my previous post:

'It is also worth noting that one party controlled the congress during the bulk of the spending increases (2006-2010) , during which time federal spending has increased a whopping 55% (excluding the cost of the wars) growing from $2, 272B in 2005 to $3, 520B in 2010. '

The great lengths to which Obama's opponents go to attempt to paint him as a failure, are a sign that the truth may be just the opposite.Do mean like naming Iceland, 'Iceland' or are we talking naming Ugly Betty, 'Ugly Betty'? Me thinks the latter.

One look at Doppel's piece below and you know this took some time and effort to put together. The obvious distortions in it are also a sign that crafting a credible smear against Obama is not straightforward.Whatever.

The recent move to the center was predictable.Please provide actual evidence of such aforementioned move to the center. While he may have provided some minor lip service, he has done nothing of the sort nor do I expect him to. He is an ideologue not a pragmatist.

He realizes his legislative achievements are enough for one term,That is likely all that he will get, in terms of both presidential terms and legislative 'accomplishments'

and the focus must be on preserving them with a 2012 win.His defeat in 2012 will be due in large part to the public's desire for someone new to 'undo' the damage BHO has inflicted on the country. They certainly did in 2010.

He is also setting the stage for an inevitable choice in 2012: balancing the budget through spending cuts alone, or a more reasoned approach of spending cuts and tax increases. Right, that is why he submitted a budget with no cuts at all. Wow, what budget 'balancer' he turned out to be.

Some liberals are not pleased about Obama's more centrist tone, but this is all about pragmatism and strategy.Bull, it isn't even enough lip service to be called tone.

I expect Obama to prevail in 2012, Based upon your track record for being wrong almost all the time, I expect you to continue to be wrong on this subject.

and my hope is he spends more time in his second term talking about how free market capitalism is only making the rich richer at the expense of the middle class and poor.That doesn't seem to be helping his first term or his prospects for a second term. I hope he keeps on doing what he is doing, failing. Clearly BHO hasn't been taking his tiger blood because he isn't winning.

Stan Da Man

03-11-11, 19:21

For your viewing pleasure:

A good, somewhat humorous video explaining public sector unions: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/10/your_public_sector_unions_at_work.html

A funny video on Wisconsin unions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmWtx-dWEqE&feature=related

And, finally, a video demonstrating what it's like to argue with Esten and Moreon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYNukv5rWCY&feature=related

Moveon

03-11-11, 20:41

Republicans and conservative ideology are responsible for most big-ticket items impacting federal debt. Without these items, we would be running budget surpluses. Bush (as in the Bush presidency) has been a disaster for average Americans.AMEN, Esten!

It's funny that none of the deviant and fear-filled neo-conservatives that regularly post in this forum mention that the US had a $150billion dollar surplus in Social Security in the year 2000. Naturally, this was right before George W. Bush took office.

Rev BS

03-11-11, 21:04

Some of the recent posts have me cringing. They remind me of the days of the cold war when Pravda used to spill out the dangers of capitalism and democracy. Pure propaganda.

Rev BS

03-11-11, 23:13

Here we go again, oil prices sucking your dollars out of your pockets before you can shelter an x amount for your mongering needs. It is the question that many Americans refuse to face. The good old days are over. It's like somebody teling me that I am ugly, it is just too much to take, so I just shrug it off.

Can we Americans sustain our lifestyles in the way that we have become accustomed to for the last 50+ years, or, do we need to refocus and adjust to the new realities. Everyday, consumerism and big business just attacks the naive and the innocent. An example, airlines are now recording hugh revenues from luggage surcharges. Banks and credit cards have become loan sharks. I laugh at the check-out lines at the grocering chains, Americans are racking up astronomical bills there with no consciience to what they buy and how much they eat. Young adults have to stay with the parents longer (not a bad thing) , and are more dependent on their parents' inheritance for a good future.

To me, these issues are much more critical than who is in Washington. America will rebound, but politics and ideologies are killing America right now. For the individual, being overweight, indulgent and sassy will mean disaster.

Punter 127

03-12-11, 00:25

AMEN, Esten!

It's funny that none of the deviant and fear-filled neo-conservatives that regularly post in this forum mention that the US had a $150billion dollar surplus in Social Security in the year 2000. Right before George W. Bush took office. Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.

Esten

03-12-11, 01:51

Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.Funny you mention that, I read Krauthammer's article on this today. I couldn't believe what he wrote on solving Social Security:

"Back-of-an-envelope solvable: Raise the retirement age, tweak the indexing formula (from wage inflation to price inflation) and means-test so that Warren Buffett's check gets redirected to a senior in need."

He's proposing we take benefits away from wealthy people, and give them to poor people. Doesn't he understand that this is REDISTRIBUTION?

Unbelievable, the man is a SOCIALIST!

Punter 127

03-12-11, 03:10

Funny you mention that, I read Krauthammer's article on this today. I couldn't believe what he wrote on solving Social Security:

"Back-of-an-envelope solvable: Raise the retirement age, tweak the indexing formula (from wage inflation to price inflation) and means-test so that Warren Buffett's check gets redirected to a senior in need."

He's proposing we take benefits away from wealthy people, and give them to poor people. Doesn't he understand that this is REDISTRIBUTION?

Unbelievable, the man is a SOCIALIST! That's a bit of a stretch, IMHO or should I call it spin?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/565640/201103101838/Will-Voters-Buy-Hoax-That-Is-Social-Security-.htm

Moveon

03-12-11, 06:00

Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.HA. HA! Hehehehe-

According to previous comments by the esteemed Militia members of this forum, social security is currently bankrupt!

Or, was this the typical mis-information by these same "patriots?"

We should just be eternally thankful that George W. Bush's quest to privatize it went nowhere.

Punter 127

03-12-11, 09:49

HA. HA! Hehehehe-

According to previous comments by the esteemed Militia members of this forum, social security is currently bankrupt!

Or, was this the typical mis-information by these same "patriots?"

We should just be eternally thankful that George W. Bush's quest to privatize it went nowhere. Apparently you didn't read Mr. Krauthammer's article. Why is it I'm not surprised?

Do you really think name calling and insults make the verbal vomit you spew more palatable?

IMHO those kind of remarks will only lead to conflict, and judging from your writings and demonstrated menial computer skills.... Well lets just say that's treacherous water for a none swimmer.

Debate, discuss, and disagree all you want but we don't need the name calling and insults, again that's just MHO.

Wild Walleye

03-14-11, 13:00

HA. HA! Hehehehe-

According to previous comments by the esteemed Militia members of this forum, social security is currently bankrupt!

Or, was this the typical mis-information by these same "patriots?"

We should just be eternally thankful that George W. Bush's quest to privatize it went nowhere. Clearly, moreon is unable to engage in reasoned debate due to a combined lack of reason and intelligence. In light of his shortcomings, he compensates by using inordinate amounts of intellectual dishonesty, which can catch one off guard, given the aforementioned dearth of intelligence.

Would you please identify for me what the SS 'trust fund' is, where it is deposited and what the assets and liabilities of the 'trust fund' are? Would you also mind telling us how the assets of the trust fund are invested and what the expected returns are on those investments?

Thanks. Looking forward to your response.

Moveon

03-15-11, 16:37

Would you please identify for me what the SS 'trust fund' is, where it is deposited and what the assets and liabilities of the 'trust fund' are? Would you also mind telling us how the assets of the trust fund are invested and what the expected returns are on those investments?Who said anything about a trust fund?

Moveon

03-15-11, 16:52

Well, I knew after a while, the same neocons that had the brilliant idea of invading Iraq would need to find another reason to get into another war.

Yup, you guessed it. Paul Wolfowitz. Bush's favorite advisor cannot just say no, it seems.

According his newspaper article last week, he states: "It is both morally right and in America's strategic interest to enable the Libyans to fight. And in preventing Gadhafi and his sons from restoring their reign of terror (blah, blah, blah)."

Basically, what Republican Senator John McCain and many Tea Party idealists like Sarah Palin, etc.

But wait just one minute.

What about the budget deficit?

Is this not the TOP PRIORITY of this nation?

These are the same Republicans who say that the US is so broke and that we need to cut spending on domestic services that actually help our tax payers.

Heck, no problem finding the money for wars and military adventures.

No problem at all.

Wild Walleye

03-15-11, 17:03

Moreon wants to stifle all points of view that don't align with those of our glorious leader. Problem is, our glorious leader is AWOL and has failed to lead on any substantive issue from the budget to Egypt, from Libya to Japan. Therefore, I guess every point of view is in violation of Moreon's thought police.

Well, I knew after a while, the same neocons that had the brilliant idea of invading Iraq would need to find another reason to get into another war.

Yup, you guessed it. Paul Wolfowitz. This scholar cannot just say, no it seems.

According his newspaper article last week, he states: "It is both morally right and in America's strategic interest to enable the Libyans to fight. And in preventing Gadhafi and his sons from restoring their reign of terror (blah, blah, blah)."What position does Wolfowitz hold in this administration? Why shouldn't he be free to express his opinions?

Basically, what Republican Senator John McCain and many Tea Party idealists like Sarah Palin, etc.Please provide any evidence supporting your claim that either McCain or Palin has advocated invading Libya.

But wait just one minute.

What about the budget deficit?

Is this not our nations TOP PRIORITY? Not if you ask Obama. The most important thing for him is videotaping his NCAA picks so that they can be played on ESPN. He's far more interested in being a celebrity than he is in being a leader.

These are the same Republicans who say that the US is so broke and that we need to cut spending on domestic services that actually help our tax payers.Why do you use the plural? Neither McCain nor Palin were part of the Bush administration.

If Obama didn't blow $5T on Democrat give-aways, we wouldn't be in this problem, despite the expense of the wars.

Heck, no problem finding the money for wars and military adventures.

No problem at all. Considering Obama has given away and wasted more money in two years than the country has spent on both wars, combined, should give you a certain amount of pause. However, I doubt your yap ever stops flapping long enough for any form of contemplation.

Moveon

03-15-11, 17:49

Why shouldn't he be free to express his opinions? Sure. It's a free country, last time I checked. It's bizarre though, that after the Iraq fiasco, he wants more of it.

Please provide any evidence supporting your claim that either McCain or Palin has advocated invading Libya. They are all for advocating helping the rebels with arms, munitions, no fly zone, etc. Look it up.

Why do you use the plural? Neither McCain nor Palin were part of the Bush administration.They are all REPUBLICANS who wish to spend MORE of our tax dollars on wars and now, a civil war in Libya.

If Obama didn't blow $5T on Democrat give-aways,Yes, I know Obama health care is a giveaway. It can only help the needy and middle-class. Something you cannot comprehend or accept, I'm afraid.

However, I doubt your yap ever stops flapping long enough for any form of contemplation. I've got your "contemplation" swinging, sir.

For all those deficit-obsessed Republicans: Help me understand how you can spend more money on wars or indirect foreign military intervention- while at the same reducing the budget deficit???

Esten

03-16-11, 00:58

I'd say Krauthammer's Realistic
That's a bit of a stretch, IMHO or should I call it spin?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/565640/201103101838/Will-Voters-Buy-Hoax-That-Is-Social-Security-.htm

Krauthammer's ideas on Social Security means testing may be realistic, but that is irrelevant.

It's wrong to take other people's money. Especially when we take it from people who earned it, and give it to those who were too lazy to save for their retirement. Taking from one to give to another is THEFT.

Furthermore, punishing the job creators is bad for the economy.

Get it?

Wild Walleye

03-16-11, 10:46

They didn't teach leadership at Community Organizer College.

Egypt, Libya and Japan all look to the US for leadership in dealing with their plights. The entire US looks to Washington for some leadership on deficit reduction. In both cases, what do they get? Obama's picks for the NCAA. I thought he was against going to Vegas. Looks like his only solution to all of the world's problems is to provide us with his divine insight into who will win so that we can go lay down a bet on it.

I'll lay down a bet that if things don't improve demonstrably (I. E. Better than fake unemployment numbers) by April 1, 2012 the Handicapper in Chief is going to have plenty of free time to be on ESPN, play golf and do all those other things that are more important than the wants and needs of the American people and fidelity to the Constitution.

Matt Psyche

03-16-11, 11:34

I don't know what you are talking about. The nations are not like perto rico.

Egypt, Libya and Japan all look to the US for leadership in dealing with their plights.

Punter 127

03-16-11, 12:49

Krauthammer's ideas on Social Security means testing may be realistic, but that is irrelevant.

It's wrong to take other people's money. Especially when we take it from people who earned It, and give it to those who were too lazy To save for their retirement. Taking from one to give to another is THEFT.

Furthermore, punishing the job creators is bad for the economy.

Get it? It's a shame there's no demand for left-wing comedians, (many unemployed now) besides it would be really hard to upstage the clown that's in the White House right now.

Get it?

Stan Da Man

03-16-11, 14:04

Hopefully, most of you have read about the latest NPR debacle. Trying to take money from the Muslim Brotherhood while claiming that the Tea Party is scary and that they don't need the federal money they beg for each year. This, of course, was a follow-on to the ACORN revelations.

The latest one is much bigger. I should have seen this coming. http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped/2011/mar/15/TDOPIN02-us-stunned-by-latest-undercover-sting-ar-905677/

Wild Walleye

03-16-11, 15:54

What is abundantly clear is that Obama is wholly unqualified for the position of POTUS. He is derelict in the execution of virtually all of his duties and of the oath he allegedly swore upon entering office. Remember how he butchered the oath during the inauguration? Perhaps that wasn't a mistake.

Obama is a creation of the media and the Left, the American public had this phony POS foisted upon us as the second coming. Some of us saw through it from the start, unfortunately not enough saw through the charade. Those who criticized Obama for his inexperience, left-wing radical associations, extreme positions (when he wasn't busy voting 'present') and incoherence on important issues were called racists. Further, Obama received preferential treatment by the media because he is a minority and he is one of their own creations. He was never scrutinized by the main stream media. Not one member of the MSM asked him a single, difficult question nor did anyone in the MSM follow up on any major flaws pointed out by the public. This whitewashing (for lack of a better word) of the record continues to this day.

I could write a book on this but let me give you a few examples:

Obama's monetary and fiscal policies contributed in a significant way to the uprisings in the middle east. His intentional devaluation of the dollar assisted in creating a spike in food prices, which was the genesis of the first uprisings in Tunisia. As the contagion spread to Egypt, Obama, amidst an incoherent and inconsistent stream of messages coming from his administration (Biden, Clinton, Obama, etc) fanned the flames of revolution (not democracy, because it was never clear that the rioters had that objective in mind) and participated in handing the country over to military rule, which is no different than it was before, there is just a different boss.

Moving on to Libya, where due to this administrations dawdling (the most generous term I can come up with) we have already missed any opportunity to play a role in either deposing Qaddafi or enshrining him. We have done nothing to further or protect American interests in the area. To the contrary, by giving the anti-government rebels a glimmer of hope, Obama has led them to slaughter. The remaining rebel forces should be beaten back out of their last strongholds over the next several days and Qaddafi will further entrench himself as Colonel-King. The oil spigots will come back on line within 3-6 months and we'll be back to the status quo.

The Obama administration has turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia's handling of its own uprisings. In large part, this is due to the fact that we have to. Due to leftist policies in America, we are beholden to middle east oil, for our survival. If we allowed drilling on the Northern Slope of Alaska, off-shore California and the Gulf of Mexico (remove some of the current restrictions) and without tapping shale oil in the Rockies, we could increase US domestic oil production by 5-6 million barrels per day which would more than double the amount of oil we currently import from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela (currently around 748 million barrels per year or 28% of our total oil imports).

How about transparency? When Obama promised transparency, the gullible (Esten, Moreon and the rest of the sheep) took it as a certainty that the Chosen One would be as pure as the driven snow and would remove the veil covering past, evil administrations dubious behaviors.

What he really meant was transparency for your body as you pass through a full-body scanner, manned by the oh-so-helpful and well-trained TSA. As I told you some time ago, the scanners are not intended to detect a weapon hidden under your clothes. Nor are the invasive searches designed to uncover weapons concealed ON one's body. The latter (invasive searches) are intended to drive you into the machines. The objective of the former (full-body scanners) is to search for weapons concealed IN your body as well as items (weapons, contraband, cash, etc) that may also be concealed on your body. The TSA recently revealed that the machines emit 10X the radiation that they are 'supposed' to. While the TSA will shrug this off as 'bungling' it is nothing of the sort.

Now Mr. Transparency wants to enable truly warrant-less wiretapping on US citizens by adding streaming and downloading internet content to the list of dangerous crimes that currently qualify for wiretapping. All in an attempt to curry favor with leftists in Hollywood and in the music industry.

If a republican president presided over any of these catastrophes, the media would be screaming 24/7 about the abuse of power and shredding of the constitution and relentless in its efforts to drive the president from office. But since Obama is a creation of the media and the Left they don't say a word.

While many Americans were fooled into voting for Obama, I don't think most will be fooled a second time. Despite poll numbers, which are artificially skewed in his favor, we are witnessing one of the most unpopular presidents in US history. I would caution anyone looking at popularity polls to consider this, when asked if they like Obama, even his critics (excluding me of course) are weary of saying 'no' for fear of being branded a racist.

If the republicans are smart, and true to the people that put them in office this past fall, they will oppose everything for which Obama and the Left stands. The opportunity to gut the federal government is here now, it will be gone in a few short months, when we will be back in a presidential election cycle. A government shutdown only closes nonessential services. If they are nonessential, why should we be paying for them? Shut down the government, we'd all be better off.

Moveon

03-17-11, 00:02

Egypt, Libya and Japan all look to the US for leadership in dealing with their plights.Are you kidding me? Spare us, please, with your childish beliefs.

Esten

03-17-11, 01:05

It's a shame there's no demand for left-wing comedians, (many unemployed now) besides it would be really hard to upstage the clown that's in the White House right now.As you may have noticed, my last two posts on Krauthammer were merely repeating conservative talking points about wealth redistribution. In fact two of our very own resident conservatives believe this amounts to Socialism (Stan) and theft (Jackson). Their silence on Krauthammer's Social Security proposals is deafening.

Those talking points are funny stuff indeed.... hard to take seriously. Socialism and theft? Too much ! LOL

As far as left-wing comedians, I'd say they are doing well. Colbert and Stewart are quite popular. In contrast to those right-wing comedians.... yeah I can't name any either. Unless you count Beck and Palin.

Esten

03-17-11, 01:33

Speaking of Colbert, check out the video segment where he talks about Fox News coverage of the Wisconsin protests:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/376076/march-02-2011/wisconsin-prank-call-bill

You know Fox News had been trying to portray the union protestors as violent, to smear them and influence public perception against them (no surprise). Well in a Fox News piece where O'Reilly is asking another reporter about the Wisconsin protestors, they play video showing a protestor pushing somebody. Problem is, it's not video from Wisconsin, it's from another rally in another state. The truth is that the Wisconsin protestors were overwhelmingly peaceful, and Fox News had to resort to other file footage, but presented it in a story on the Wisconsin protests. Fox News has a history of using misleading video footage.

Colbert also mentioned that Wisconsin Republicans have sponsored a bill to ban prank calls. I thought it was one of Colbert's jokes, but nope, it's true. I guess it would be fair then to ban posing as someone you're not, to get 'undercover video'.

Tiny12

03-17-11, 02:46

As you may have noticed, my last two posts on Krauthammer were merely repeating conservative talking points about wealth redistribution. In fact two of our very own resident conservatives believe this amounts to Socialism (Stan) and theft (Jackson). Their silence on Krauthammer's Social Security proposals is deafening.Esten, I'm not sure there's an argument to be had between you and the libertarians on this site about social security. Krauthammer wants to change who gets what from a massive shell game. That's what social security is and will remain unless politicians grow some gonads and fix it, instead of trying to appeal to the AARP crowd. I'd argue you need to do away with it entirely, and replace it with something like what Singapore or Chile has. A mandatory pension system. A defined contribution plan, not a defined benefit plan.

Punter 127

03-17-11, 08:37

As you may have noticed, my last two posts on Krauthammer were merely repeating conservative talking points about wealth redistribution. In fact two of our very own resident conservatives believe this amounts to Socialism (Stan) and theft (Jackson). Their silence on Krauthammer's Social Security proposals is deafening.

Those talking points are funny stuff indeed. Hard to take seriously. Socialism and theft? Too much! LOLI'm of the same school of thought as Stan, and Jackson Social Security is a Socialistic piece of shit. However we appear to be stuck with it and we must find a way to keep it afloat, that's why I said Krauthammer is realistic, NOT because he or I think it's a good program.

As far as left-wing comedians, I'd say they are doing well. Colbert and Stewart are quite popular.Who? :confused:

In contrast to those right-wing comedians.... yeah I can't name any either. Unless you count Beck and Palin.There you go again. :rolleyes: ... How about Dennis Miller he seems pretty right leaning these days.

Wild Walleye

03-17-11, 15:09

Are you kidding me? Spare us, please, with your childish beliefs.You are completely devoid of intelligence or integrity.

Q: Why did the Egyptian opposition leaders snub Hillary?

A: Because Obama dithered and delayed through the crisis and in the end did nothing, other than his previous contributions to instability in the region.

Q: Why did the Libyan rebels reach of for the POTUS, rather the former POTUS George Bush?

A: Because Obama dithered and delayed through the crisis and in the end did nothing, other than his previous contributions to instability in the region.

Q: Why do you think Obama is saying that we feel for the Japanese and will help, even though they can afford to do it themselves?

A: Because Japan has looked to US for help and Obama doesn't want to give it. He just wants to pay lip service to the pain and suffering and hope that he can dither and delay through the crisis and in the end do nothing.

Your disdain for your own country has left you with a very distorted and inaccurate view of the world. I imagine that the fact that you are illiterate interferes with your ability to absorb information other than what is broadcast on MSNBC.

Wild Walleye

03-17-11, 20:31

The Do-Nothing White House has sat on its hands for 31 days on the issue of Libya.

Gaddafi has warned the rebels that his forces are coming to Benghazi within hours and there would be no mercy. Considering that they can take care of mopping up what is left of the rebels from the ground, I wouldn't waste my breath trying to get the UN to approve a "no-fly" zone.

It is startling that Obama's inability to form an opinion and make a decision not only cost him his Secretary of State but also earned himself a competitor for the Democrat nomination for 2012. He also provided his 'new' rival with more than adequate ammo to displace him on the ticket.

Who was it that predicted a Hillary run in 2012? Oh yeah, me!

Wild Walleye

03-18-11, 12:04

Or so says the London Daily Express.

One thing they left out is that he is so weak that the women in his life run roughshod over him. We all know he's henpecked by Michelle but, what you may have missed is how Sarah Palin has shaped his policy toward Libya and how Hillary forced his hand in asking the UN for permission to bomb aspirin factories.

Palin articulated an approach to Libya last month, shortly after hostilities broke out. Obama sat on his hands for 31 days. Hillary effectively tendered her resignation based on Obama's dawdling. Obama adopted the Palin plan and had his minions take it to the UN.

I guess all those critics were right, Obama is so smart and wonderful it doesn't matter if he has any other qualifications for office.

Not to repeat myself but he is so brilliant that Hillary is running circles around him making him look foolish and reconfirming for the world that the 'man' has no balls. Our president is a Eunuch. Make no mistake, the Clintons haven't gotten over how Hillary got swept off the stage on the way to the Democrat nomination and despite what she may tell Wolf Blitzer, they want back in the WH and they want it bad. They are about as subtle and forgiving as the teamsters. However, I must say that Hillary's timing is exquisite for someone who is normally a little more ham-fisted. She now can say that she left in disgust (over any issue: in action, spending, deficits, even healthcare. Which is laughable) , take credit for the only evidence of testosterone in his admin ('war' footing on Libya) and completely distance herself from all of the garbage and baggage associated with Obama. As I pointed out back when Hillary accepted the spot at State, she's going to do it for two years or so to stay in the news, improve her foreign policy credentials and stay away from the legislative cesspool (ergo her coincidental trip to the other side of the world during the '10 midterms) and when the time is right she'll pop her chute (or jump on her broom) and exit the Obama administration. She will then let things percolate for a little while before acceding to the 'demands' of her 'adoring public' (read as daily coverage from Tina Brown and her ilk and artificial evidence of a fawning constituency) and 'reluctantly' enter the presidential race.

Solo uno!

Matt Psyche

03-18-11, 18:20

Very objective and logical opinion. Thank you very much.

Q: Why do you think Obama is saying that we feel for the Japanese and will help, even though they can afford to do it themselves?

A: Because Japan has looked to US for help and Obama doesn't want to give it. He just wants to pay lip service to the pain and suffering and hope that he can dither and delay through the crisis and in the end do nothing.

Rev BS

03-18-11, 20:59

Tiny12

03-19-11, 15:52

One thing they left out is that he is so weak that the women in his life run roughshod over him. Indeed, Obama is listening to Hillary Clinton instead of Robert Gates on whether to become involved in Libya. Walleye, I agree with you the majority or most of the time, but not on this. Maybe you can educate me, how is it in the USA's best interests to become involved in Libya? Why should our tax dollars be spent there? Why should we risk the lives of our pilots? I think I recall, maybe incorrectly, that you were concerned that a revolution in Egypt might result in a new, terrorist-friendly government. Do you believe Gadaffi would be up to more mischief than a new revolutionary Libyan government, and if so why?

Punter 127

03-21-11, 02:04

Let's bomb them gal dang Libyans! Who's with me?! From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli!Looks like Barack Hussein Obama II (aka Barry) and Hillary Rodham Clinton have come around to your way of thinking.

Wild Walleye

03-21-11, 14:05

Looks like Barack Hussein Obama II (aka Barry) and Hillary Rodham Clinton have come around to your way of thinking.I don't think either is motivated by the plight of the Libyan people. Neither has articulated whom it is that we aim to help. Neither has conveyed to the American public why this is in America's best interests. Therefore, I will make the leap that the lobbing of cruise missiles into the desert and onto an occasional aspirin factory is political theater.

I think that Hillary is looking at this as a way to become the democrat nominee in 2012 or possibly 2016. She and her minions are making sure that the press portrays her as the pivot point in the process and that it was she that drove BHO to act.

I think that Obama's interests in Libya, are limited to burnishing his image with independent voters and making himself look less wimpy. While the action offends the left, he is unlikely to lose them 'en masse' since they are stuck with him as their only choice (even if Clinton were to run for the nomination, it would be difficult to argue that she is to the left of BHO). The Obama gambit here is spend a couple hundred million (of the taxpayers' money) on cruise missiles and jdams, as undeclared campaign funds to buy a few moderate voters.

Member #4112

03-21-11, 15:32

Wild Walleye

03-21-11, 16:24

Wild Walleye

03-21-11, 16:39

IMHO if he was going to do this why not a month ago when a forceful response would most likely have induced Daffy Quadiffy to flee when the "rebels" were at his door step and his military was still trying to decide which way to jump? No we wait a month for the situation to deteriorate and pull a 'Bill Clinton' with the cruise missile strike.I agree.

Keep in mind that we don't have any idea who or what would rise to take power of Libya in the absence of Qaddafi. Chances are that whatever filled his spot in the vacuum that would likely follow his demise, it is unlikely that it will be pro-American.

Therefore, one must wonder why the monthly-long delay? Waiting until the 'rebels' (I. E. The opposition to Qaddafi. Whatever that comprises) have essentially lost, before entering the fray, is either ineptitude (if your goal is to assist the rebels) or sinister (if your goal really isn't to help the rebel but only make it appear that you are trying to help the rebels while actually perpetuating the existing rule). If I was a cynic, I'd say Obama is putting on a show for the 'world' get some street cred' for lighting up a few desert brothers, weaken Qaddafi (but don't finish him off) and let things continue under his regime. All in the name of electoral politics.

The thing is, sticking a toe in the water has never been a good method for involving oneself in overseas military conflicts. In the real world, things aren't so neat and clean. Obama thinks he can break a few things and cut and run. I think that the realities on the ground will not play out so well for Obama.

I think that this must be the first Nobel Peace Prize recipient to launch 120+ cruise missiles on a sovereign nation.

Esten

03-22-11, 01:51

Esten

03-22-11, 02:12

... means knowing when not to lead.

Obama has handled Libya just about right. 70% of Americans support the no fly zone, but few are interested in seeing the US be the world's policeman yet again. The delays appear to have expanded and consolidated the coalition under terms that European countries will lead the effort after establishing the NFZ. Sounds good to me.

Even Republicans are giving Obama some faint praise, while getting in their lame digs on how he should have acted sooner, or how he needs to explain things better. Which is odd since I've heard Obama's statements on the US role several times and it seems quite clear to me. Just more weak political posturing from the right.

The Do-Nothing White House has sat on its hands for 31 days on the issue of Libya.

Gaddafi has warned the rebels that his forces are coming to Benghazi within hours and there would be no mercy. Considering that they can take care of mopping up what is left of the rebels from the ground, I wouldn't waste my breath trying to get the UN to approve a "no-fly" zone. Wahhhhhhhhhh!!!! Obama didn't burst into Libya sooner and crush Gaddafi and show the world we're number one. Wahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

He took a more strategic approach with Libya, one you have evidently been unable to grasp.

Tiny12

03-23-11, 00:39

I guess I'm to the left of Esten on Libya. I don't understand how it's in the best interests of the United States to become involved there. In terms of his support for terrorism, Gadaffi learned his lesson years ago. We have no idea whether a revolutionary government that takes his place would be better or worse for western interests. We don't even know for sure whether a new government would be better or worse for the people of Libya. I don't think the taxpayers' dollars are wisely spent there.

Tiny12

03-23-11, 00:49

They have clearly come out and labelled wealth redistribution as Socialism and Theft. If you think wealth redistribution can be a realistic option in certain circumstances.Supposedly the "average" American believes the wealthiest 20% should control 32% of the wealth of the country. I don't know how you get from where we are now to that point without socialism and theft. Besides the moral dimension, the average person ends up worse off under governments that are highly redistributionist, as I've pointed out here before. If redistributionists ever come to control the USA I'm leaving and not looking back.

Esten, One thing you've failed to consider when you highlight inequality and play down socialism in America is how big government has become. Government expenditures at the federal, state and local levels now account for 42% of GDP, up from 36% during Bush's administration and 32% during Reagan and Clinton. The government controls a huge part of the economy.

There are huge expenditures for social security, medicare, medicaid, education, food stamps, unemployment, etc. that make the country more equal in terms of consumption, although not necessarily in terms of income or wealth.

My question, how big a part of the economy should government be, if 42% isn't enough? Maybe 50%? 70%? And why isn't the trend towards bigger government (towards the government controlling more and more of the economy) a trend towards socialism?

Punter 127

03-23-11, 11:47

I'm of the same school of thought as Stan, and Jackson Social Security is a Socialistic piece of shit. However we appear to be stuck with it and we must find a way to keep it afloat, that's why I said Krauthammer is realistic, NOT because he or I think it's a good program.Whether SS is a good program or not is beside the point.

I was talking about wealth redistribution. In the context of SS, it could be reformed any number of ways. Not all approaches involve wealth redistribution.

You and Krauthammer seem to be in support of an approach that involves wealth redistribution. With the reason being that this approach (means testing) is sensible and realistic. I fully agree. This is not the only example where Republicans support wealth redistribution, I've posted polls before that show most Republicans favor progressive taxation.

Data like this demonstrates that not all conservatives are pure ideologues. Just some.

Punter you may be of the same school of thought as Stan and Jackson on SS, but not necessarily on wealth redistribution. They have clearly come out and labelled wealth redistribution as Socialism and Theft. If you think wealth redistribution can be a realistic option in certain circumstances, you differ from them. Make no mistake, I completely agree with Jackson and Stan, and I'm absolutely against wealth redistribution, if I had the power SS as we know it now would end tomorrow today!

But I'm also realistic and I know we are stuck with SS and I believe we should work with the assets that are available. That is the only reason that I agree with the suggested changes, and for me it's a bitter pill to swallow. SS is a prime example of failed socialism.

You are using smoke, mirrors and spin to change the subject from SS to wealth redistribution, the subject at hand is (was) rather or not SS is broke, and why the Obama administration is in debt denial.

Have you read Krauthammer follow up article?

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/566527/201103181807/Social-Security-A-Classic-Case-Of-Debt-Denial.htm

Canitasguy

03-23-11, 16:53

Americans, including registered voters, favor Obama's re-election in 2012 by a large percentage.

A new poll released today by the Pew Research Center shows 48 percent of the respondents want Obama re-elected, while 35 percent prefer a Republican and 16 percent are undecided.

Among registered voters. 47 percent favor Obama and 37 percent prefer a Republican.

Looks like not many of those misguided citizens stop by these pages and enjoy the wisdom of Jackson, WW, Stan and company and adopt the Obama is a cretin argument.

Nope! Looks like Esten rules!

Esten

03-24-11, 01:26

You are using smoke, mirrors and spin to change the subject from SS to wealth redistribution, the subject at hand is (was) rather or not SS is broke, and why the Obama administration is in debt denial.Go back and look at my first post on Krauthammer, and then my followup post. The whole point of my posts on Krauthammer to begin with was to point out an example of a conservative supporting wealth redistribution.

You can go ahead and talk about SS all you want. But don't accuse me of changing the subject when I have been consistently discussing wealth redistribution from the beginning.

Punter 127

03-24-11, 01:41

Go back and look at my first post on Krauthammer, and then my followup post. The whole point of my posts on Krauthammer to begin with was to point out an example of a conservative supporting wealth redistribution.

You can go ahead and talk about SS all you want. But don't accuse me of changing the subject when I have been consistently discussing wealth redistribution from the beginning. No I'm not joking you talked more about wealth redistribution than you have about the problems with SS, which is what my post which you replied to was about. But we can move on because this conversation is of little value anyway.

Esten

03-24-11, 01:51

Besides the moral dimension, the average person ends up worse off under governments that are highly redistributionist, as I've pointed out here before. If redistributionists ever come to control the USA I'm leaving and not looking back.Of course there is a downside to excessive redistribution, just as there is a downside to insufficient redistribution.

Do you support the continuing trend of the wealthy elite extracting more and more of the wealth in this country? While the middle class and poor have very limited, or no, share in the increasing wealth?

We have a distribution problem. But we also have limited ability to address the root distribution problem. Therefore redistribution must be part of the solution.

Esten, One thing you've failed to consider when you highlight inequality and play down socialism in America is how big government has become. Government expenditures at the federal, state and local levels now account for 42% of GDP, up from 36% during Bush's administration and 32% during Reagan and Clinton. The government controls a huge part of the economy.

There are huge expenditures for social security, medicare, medicaid, education, food stamps, unemployment, etc. That make the country more equal in terms of consumption, although not necessarily in terms of income or wealth.

My question, how big a part of the economy should government be, if 42% isn't enough? Maybe 50% 70% And why isn't the trend towards bigger government (towards the government controlling more and more of the economy) a trend towards socialism? Government grows in proportion to the failures of the private sector. Why should we not have a strong government to address those failures? I don't have a magic number for you. But I can tell you that in a country with as much wealth as the US has, I fully support a strong government to look out for the basic needs of those that the private sector leaves behind.

Wild Walleye

03-24-11, 17:27

Back to his drivel supporting the redistribution of wealth and his wet dream of turning the USA into a socialist utopis. Good luck with that.

Not to pull you out of your leftist fantasies, but you blew right by one of the best posts which succinctly asked the essential question regarding Libya.

I don't understand how it's in the best interests of the United States to become involved there. Thank you, Tiny. While I have poked fun by suggesting (in jest. Sort of) that we should take Libya over for its oil, I think that I have been consistent on saying that whatever it is that we do away from our own shores needs to be in America's best interests (end of story).

No one in this administration has even attempted to articulate how this farce is in our best interests. BHO, the great constitutional scholar went to the UN for permission to wage war forgetting both the Constitution and his own declaration a few short years ago where he emphatically stated the he believed that the US president does not have the authority to commit the military to action. His vice president said much the same in stating that if Bush goes into Iraq without congressional approval he will take it upon himself (Biden) to impeach Bush (Biden, after spending how many years in the congress was unaware that the House is the party responsible for impeachment).

Wild Walleye

03-24-11, 19:20

... means knowing when not to lead.Thus confirming my suspicion that both you and BHO, know not that for which America stands.

Obama has handled Libya just about right. 70% of Americans support the no fly zone, but few are interested in seeing the US be the world's policeman yet again.His deft handling of the situation surely is responsible for a 17% favorable rating for his handling of the military (which happens to be much higher than I would have expected) and only 50% support for the action in Libya (guess 20% of your folks thought the no fly zone was in Wisconsin).

The delays appear to have expanded and consolidated the coalition under terms that European countries will lead the effort after establishing the NFZ.If they spent so much time figuring it all out before going public, why haven't they figured it out yet? Why is our secretary of defense saying that we are "doing it on the fly?"

Sounds good to me.Deploying billions of dollars and thousands of our military forces to an undefined military action with no strategy, no objectives and no exit. What about all the civilian Libyan casualties? Sounds good to you?

Are you also in favor of BHO's kill teams in Afghanistan who have clearly committed atrocities far worse than Abu Ghraib?

Even Republicans are giving Obama some faint praise, while getting in their lame digs on how he should have acted sooner, or how he needs to explain things better.Like I said, I am not a republican. I have no praise for Obama, not for delaying in making a decision and not for the decision that he made. He has failed miserably.

Which is odd since I've heard Obama's statements on the US role several times and it seems quite clear to me.His statements do not reflect reality. More than 50% of all combat sorties have been flown by American crews. The only active carrier involved is US flagged. All command and control has come from American military leaders based in US facilities. If there is a transition, command and control will still originate from US facilities. A preponderance of assets and personnel involved are US. Further, almost all of the weapons technology deployed is US in origin. All of it I am sure opposed by the likes of Esten and Obama.

Just more weak political posturing from the right.So, a recitation of indisputable facts is posturing?

Wahhhhhhhhhh!!!! Obama didn't burst into Libya sooner and crush Gaddafi and show the world we're number one. Wahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!! I think I have been pretty clear that before we help bounce Mubarak, Qaddafi and the like, we need to determine what is in AMERICA'S BEST INTERESTS! Turning Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood is not in America's best interests neither is assisting 'rebels' (two types in Libya those sympathetic to Al Qaeda and those sympathetic to Iran) in Libya.

He took a more strategic approach with Libya, one you have evidently been unable to grasp.What I can't grasp is describing sitting on ones hands for 31 days as a strategic approach, UNLESS your strategy was to ensure an outcome where the 'rebels' are too weak to win and Qaddafi is left too weak to exact revenge on the populace.

The depths of your intellectual dishonesty have no bounds.

Member #4112

03-24-11, 19:59

WW, I hate to contradict you but currently the French have deployed the Charles de Gaulle, their only operational aircraft carrier, to support the no fly zone and ground strikes. You are correct as more than 50% of the strike packages deployed over Libya are US with the English & French making up the rest. Nearly all the aerial refueling is being done by US tankers, not to mention 98% of the 120+ cruise missiles launched were US, nearly all the intelligence and command and control is coming from US assets. Not sure how we are going to 'not lead' when the bulk of the import assets are US.

To this day Obama, Hillary, and Gates are still giving conflicting signals. No wonder no one can comprehend Obama's strategy – he doesn't have one and neither do Gates or Clinton. We are back to Bill Clinton's idea of military intervention, lob a few cruise missiles and call it good, but Obama one upped Billy boy by taking a vacation to Rio to boot.

I don't think we had any business being there, but if we were going in why wait 30 days for the situation to deteriorate when this same show of force in the opening days of the revolt would have pushed Daffy out and marginalized his military since early on they were waiting to see how the revolt would shake out.

Wild Walleye

03-25-11, 12:22

WW, I hate to contradict you but currently the French have deployed the Charles de Gaulle, their only operational aircraft carrier, to support the no fly zone and ground strikes.Good catch. I think that I read that they also have provided one C135 refueling plane to the effort as well. I had seen that the CDG was in Khor Fakkan back in January (they had been supporting our efforts in Afghanistan, sort of) , when I was in the UAE, although I didn't make as far as KF (no "C"). I doubt too many frogs got of the boat in KF, either. My bias against the French must have blinded me to the contribution of their only carrier, which is a pretty capable boat, considering its limited compliment of attack aircraft. I still blame the French, in part, for the loss of USAF captains Fernando L. Ribas-Dominicci and Paul F. Lorence who were killed during Operation el Dorado Canyon. As you may recall, the French denied us fly-over rights which forced our USAF F-111 crews, out of the UK (I think they were stationed at Upper Heyford) , to go around Spain and enter the Med through the Straits of Gibraltar, significantly increasing flight time (adding 2, 600 miles, round trip) and stress on our crews which may or may not have played a roll in the downing of the captains' F-111 ostensibly by a Libyan SAM over the Gulf of Sidra. Interesting that one of our 'wayward' munitions nearly took out the French Embassy in Libya (which was probably rife with materials designed to help Qaddafi with his quest for weapons of mass destruction). Maybe the French can make up for screwing us back then. They could start with returning the remains of Capt. Lorence to his family.

You are correct as more than 50% of the strike packages deployed over Libya are US with the English & French making up the rest. Nearly all the aerial refueling is being done by US tankers, not to mention 98% of the 120+ cruise missiles launched were US, nearly all the intelligence and command and control is coming from US assets. Not sure how we are going to 'not lead' when the bulk of the import assets are US.I think we are on the same page. It's more 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! ' Good thing NATO is taking over since we aren't directly associated with them (other than paying most of the bills, providing most of the assets & personnel).

To this day Obama, Hillary, and Gates are still giving conflicting signals.To the US public, to Congress (if they are even speaking to congress) , to the world, to our allies, to the rebels and to Qaddafi.

No wonder no one can comprehend Obama's strategy – he doesn't have one and neither do Gates or Clinton.Dopple wins the prize! You are correct, sir! That way, no matter what the outcome, Obama will say that is what he set out for (apologies for ending the sentence with a preposition but I am being lazy, should have been stated as 'that, for which he set out').

We are back to Bill Clinton's idea of military intervention, lob a few cruise missiles and call it good, but Obama one upped Billy boy by taking a vacation to Rio to boot.Don't you think that you are being a little harsh on the Chosen One? After all, he cut his Spring Break '11 short by 2 full hours to get back to the White House and not communicate with the US public nor Congress, nor our allies, nor. Well, you know where I am going with this.

I don't think we had any business being there,Agreed. A surprise attack, dropping a bunch of bombs on Qaddafi would certainly have been appropriate considering the litany of Libyan led and sponsored attacks on US interests and those of our allies (and those of a bunch of pussies for whom we are always standing tall): Pan Am 103, Rome & Vienna airport attacks, the Gulf of Sidra Incident, La Belle nightclub bombing, Pan Am 73, everything Abu Nidal is responsible for, and the list goes on.

but if we were going in why wait 30 days for the situation to deteriorate when this same show of force in the opening days of the revolt would have pushed Daffy out and marginalized his military since early on they were waiting to see how the revolt would shake out.He was busy voting present and doing his NCAA polls.

Wild Walleye

03-25-11, 12:28

WW, I hate to contradict you but currently the French have deployed the Charles de Gaulle, their only operational aircraft carrier, to support the no fly zone and ground strikes. Dopple, you were not contradicting me. You were pointing out and correcting an error that I had made in my previous post, which I appreciate. It also gave me an opportunity to grind my axe for the French. I don't even like capitalizing their "F" although, I must say, I find many French women to be quite alluring.

Member #4112

03-25-11, 12:44

WW, please don't get me wrong about the French, until their current president, the French were the best trained surrender monkeys around.

You know they had to cancel the ending fireworks display at Euro Disney because a contingent of French soldiers tried to surrender to some German tourists after the display on opening night!

Also, I have some great French military firearms for sale, they are in pristine condition since they have only been dropped once!

As I stated in my prior post, not sure how we are going to turn over control when nearly everything out there from the front line, intelligence, command and control, resupply and support are ours. Good cut on NATO, combat by consensus, while we pay the bills.

The best show in town now is watching the left wing media twisting in the wind defending Obama regarding the Libyan adventure. I guess they don't have mirrors anywhere near them as there is no way they could look at themselves in one after what I've seen them spewing, and to think these are the same folks who crucified Bush.

Esten

03-26-11, 03:07

Punter 127

03-26-11, 09:33

The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people. It's unacceptable and outrageous for Gaddafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.We do, why?

And what makes you think the rebels are seeking freedom, we don't know anything about them?

If we follow your thinking, we're going to have one hell of a busy schedule ahead of us.

When we went war with Iraq George W. Bush was labeled a war monger by the Left-Wing Nuts and the media.

Now Obama bombs the fuck out of a nation that's in a civil war and you and the liberal media want to paint him a humanitarian.
Can you say hypocrites?

There is NO imminent danger in Libya and we have no vital American interest there. This abuse of executive power should be stopped at once!

Wild Walleye

03-26-11, 14:32

If only the Left believed in God (any god) :

The United States has a moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppressionThen they could pray for the innocent people of Libya. As far as US military intervention, the threshold is America's 'Best Interests' through the prism of America's national security.

America does not have a moral obligation to protect and arm foreign combatants engaged in civil unrest or civil war, where the loyalties of such combatants are unclear or clearly allied against US interests. In fact, the US has a moral and constitutional duty not to assist such parties and if such parties present a danger to US national security, take appropriate steps to mitigate the problem (I. E. Nuke 'them back to the stone age).

and self-government for their people.Ha! Boy, I can recall the chorus of support Bush received from the left (and its propaganda organ, the main stream press) for espousing such extreme, right wing views.

You are so f-ing confused, it is quite entertaining to watch. Thanks for the laughs.

It's unacceptable and outrageous for Gaddafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.Before I agree with you, please reconsider this statement with the name Saddam Hussein inserted in place of Qaddafi. What are your thoughts on that version?

Now, I agree with both parts of your statement. However, I believe that we disagree as to how the latter should be effected. Since there has been no case made (not even attempted-nothing but silence) that attacking Libya is in America's best or national security interests, I am against our intervention. Like I previously stated, lob some bombs on Qaddafi's compound and call it a day, Executive Orders 11905, 12036 and 12333 be damned.

That said, I do not think that Obama's actions visa vi Libya are in any way unconstitutional. I am not a big fan of the War Powers Act (something I share with every president since and including Nixon) , given that I have clearly stated my belief in the Constitution (clearly many of the most significant portions of the WPA are unconstitutional).

If we follow your doctrine (call it the Obama-forced-by-the-warbird-bitches Doctrine) then I expect that we will soon send troops into, or at least will institute no-fly zones and destroy the war-making abilities of Darfour, Syria, Bahrain, Russia, China, Wisconsin and a whole bunch of other places (as punter pointed out).

Esten

03-26-11, 17:20

The last statement I posted was a quote from John Boehner's official statement on Libya.

I knew you guys would get all upset if it came from me. LMAO!

Republicans are all over the map in their reaction to events in Libya. Twisting in the wind. Some defend it, some oppose it, some just ask what's in it for me?

I am on the record for supporting Bush's decision on Iraq and Afghanistan. Just as I support Obama on Libya. Too bad Bush was a collosal failure on the home front.

Guys, stop watching Fox News and seek professional deprogramming.

Tiny12

03-26-11, 17:47

Esten, A couple of questions,

1. Say you were dictator of the USA. Or you could persuade Congress, the President and the judicial system to do what you say. How would you make the country more equal?

2. Why do you support Bush's decision on Iraq? And do you believe it was a good idea in hindsight?

Thanks

Punter 127

03-26-11, 18:08

A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of USA missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N. Y.) , Donna Edwards (Md.) , Mike Capuano (Mass.) , Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) , Maxine Waters (Calif.) , Rob Andrews (N. J.) , Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas) , Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D. C.) 'all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president's actions' during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.

Saturday's conference call was organized by Rep. John Larson (Conn.) , chairman of the Democratic Caucus and the fourth-highest ranking party leader. Larson has called for Obama to seek congressional approval before committing the United States to any anti-Qadhafi military operation.

'They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress, ' one Democrat lawmaker said of the White House. 'They're creating wreckage, and they can't obviate that by saying there are no boots on the ground. . There aren't boots on the ground; there are Tomahawks in the air. '

'Almost everybody who spoke was opposed to any unilateral actions or decisions being made by the president, and most of us expressed our constitutional concerns. There should be a resolution and there should be a debate so members of Congress can decide whether or not we enter in whatever this action is being called, ' added another House Democrat opposed to the Libyan operation.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html Looks to me like both parties are all over the map, as is the US military.

I am NOT a Republican or a Democrat but I am an American and I strongly oppose this action!

Show me a threat to the US or US interest an then I might support it.

Obama may or may not have violated the War Powers Resolution but it sure looks to me like he circumvented its intent.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) was a United States Congress joint resolution providing that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the United States is already under attack or serious threat.Could someone please point out where the United States was under attack or serious threat.

Wild Walleye

03-26-11, 18:39

The last statement I posted was a quote from John Boehner's official statement on Libya.

I knew you guys would get all upset if it came from me. LMAO! I don't think there is anything in my post that would qualify as upset. The fact that it came from Boehner doesn't change my perspective on the situation at all. Further, I don't know what Boehner's position on the action in Libya is, although I have read that he is asking the WH for clarity and not getting it. Coming from you however, the statement needs to be interpreted through a the Esten-prism of lock-step follower of Reverend Obama. Esten, one word of advice, if you find yourself surrounded by 917 fellow followers with sweetened drinks in their hands, don't drink it.

Republicans are all over the map in their reaction to events in Libya. Twisting in the wind. Some defend it, some oppose it, some just ask what's in it for me?Because they are republicans, they must all have the same opinion on an issue? Sounds like you would prefer a totalitarian regime, oh wait a minute, that is what you'd prefer.

In fact, there appear to be democrats who are confused too, the most confused individual appears to be Obama who states that Qaddafi must go, Qaddafi may stay, Qaddafi must go, its up to the Libyan people if Qaddafi stays all within 24 hours of one another. That plus the lack of a strategy, objectives, leadership, scope and / or breadth of the military operations in Libya and a complete failure on the part of the administration to communicate any of those aspects, or more importantly how such a mission relates to the interests of America, makes it completely understandable how both supporters and opponents of the president could be confused.

Me? I'm not confused.

I am on the record for supporting Bush's decision on Iraq and Afghanistan.I doubt it, in either case and frankly don't care. The Libyan situation and the US government response to it are not analogous with either Afghanistan nor Iraq.

Just as I support Obama on Libya.While you are free to do so, I don't think you had any choice.

Too bad Bush was a collosal failure on the home front.I know, I miss those days of sub 6% unemployment, economic growth and a moderately sound (although by no means as extensive as I would prefer) homeland defense perspective.

Guys, stop watching Fox News and seek professional deprogramming.Hmmm, coming from someone whose tinfoil hat apparently only receives MSNBC and transmissions emanating from deep space, that is laughable.

Wild Walleye

03-26-11, 19:05

Looks to me like both parties are all over the map, as is the US military.

I am NOT a Republican or a Democrat but I am an American and I strongly oppose this action!

Show me a threat to the US or US interest an then I might support it. Agreed.

Obama may or may not have violated the War Powers Resolution but it sure looks to me like he circumvented its intent.The unvarnished version is that The War Powers Act is a flaming piece of shit. It originated as a knee-jerk, congressional (no secret as to who the overwhelming majority party was) response to Vietnam and evolved into an doubly-unconstitutional power grab, which was never signed into law by any president (it was enacted by a super majority, veto override. The 'doubly' element refers to the two ways in which it is unconstitutional. First, the War Powers Act, if it was ever enforced according to the way it is written, changes (I. E. Amends) the Constitution via an act of Congress not via the methodology for amending the Constitution clearly enumerated within the Constitution itself. Secondly, the WPA rests the power for making war away from the Executive Branch and bestows it upon a single house of congress (very important to note that it does not bestow it on both houses). There is absolutely no confusion among anyone who actually has an understanding of the Constitution and its development and execution that the Founders explicitly did not place the power for making war with congress because they knew what a cluster fuck that would be.

Therefore, upon challenge it is likely that the combination, of the methodology through which the WPA was enacted and the content that it enacted, would be declared unconstitutional. The courts, rightly so, have avoided taking up the WPA preferring to leave it to the executive and legislative branches to work out. In order to avoid a potential constitutional battle on the subject, no president has ever conferred legitimacy upon the WPA. To his credit, thus far it seems that the colossal failure in the WH is maintaining that streak.

Could someone please point out where the United States was under attack or serious threat.Oooh, ooh, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter, pick me!

I can. We have been under constant attack, for some time now, by a group call Al Qaeda.

Oddly enough, the current and soon to be former resident of the WH, is arming rebels, in Libya, who are allied with Al Qaeda (as pointed out by someone herein, some time ago). Further, Al Qaeda seems to be acquiring our weapons via the rebels and their presence in Libya.

The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if we started helping to overthrow our allies in the region in order to hand them over to Islamofacisists in order to create sharia-compliant, radical theocracies. Oh wait, we've been there and done that in Egypt. Oops.

Moveon

03-26-11, 20:01

Too bad Bush was a collosal failure on the home front.Esten,

I know you'll get a kick out of this clip of George W.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDE9U0j_gns

Punter 127

03-26-11, 22:29

Could someone please point out where the United States was under attack or serious threat.Oooh, ooh, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter, pick me!

I can. We have been under constant attack, for some time now, by a group call Al Qaeda.

Oddly enough, the current and soon to be former resident of the WH, is arming rebels, in Libya, who are allied with Al Qaeda (as pointed out by someone herein, some time ago). Further, Al Qaeda seems to be acquiring our weapons via the rebels and their presence in Libya. Very good Wally, I was really speaking of threats from the current Libyan government, but I should have been more clear.
Now could you (or anybody) please explain why we are supporting the rebels in Libya.

The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if we started helping to overthrow our allies in the region in order to hand them over to Islamofacisists in order to create sharia-compliant, radical theocracies. Oh wait, we've been there and done that in Egypt. Oops.It looks like that's just what's happening in Egypt. Amnesty International is reporting; Egyptian women protesters forced to take 'virginity tests'.

Now is that the kind of freedom we're supporting these days?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/egyptian-women-protesters-forced-take-'virginity-tests'-2011-03-23

Wild Walleye

03-27-11, 23:49

Very good Wally, I was really speaking of threats from the current Libyan government, but I should have been more clear. I know what you were asking, of course I was being a smart ass. Threats from the current govt of Libya are next to zero, according to some guy named Gates:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/defense-secretary-libya-did-not-pose-threat-to-us-was-not-vital-national-interest-to-intervene.html

I'm not sure why his opinion is so important.

Now could you (or anybody) please explain why we are supporting the rebels in Libya.Nope. I haven't a clue. Especially given that the 'rebels' come in two stripes, those sympathetic to al Qaeda and those that prefer Iran (both terror organizations in my book).

It looks like that's just what's happening in Egypt. Amnesty International is reporting; Egyptian women protesters forced to take 'virginity tests'.

Now is that the kind of freedom we're supporting these days?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/egyptian-women-protesters-forced-take-'virginity-tests'-2011-03-23

You hit the nail on the head. We helped over throw our ally, who was no saint but at least he was fingering all the ladies under the guise of religion.

Wild Walleye

03-31-11, 02:15

I guess we have summed it all up

Moveon

04-01-11, 03:25

After listening to the latest improbable statements from the esteemed Republican, Anne Coulter, I hereby believe she should volunteer herself to clean up the leaking Fukushima Daiichi nuclear site in Japan.

Without any protection, of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FNFF61E_Dg

Good luck, my dear.

Rev BS

04-01-11, 06:29

Wild Walleye

04-01-11, 11:57

With unemployment high, Trump's rant on China and OPEC will resonate with many American "patriots". Rather than laying the blame on ourselves and our livestyles, well, we can just flip the responsibilities to Un-American interests. So expect favorable reactions and increased media attention on Trump and his agenda. We are after all, an instant gratification society.

I personally think Trump is a putz and has almost no chance of getting anyone's nomination let alone being elected POTUS. I'd vote for him over Obama but that is like making the choice to eat bugs versus starving to death. That said, keeping with your gambling metaphor, I think he is a wild card in this electoral hand.

As I have seen over the years, there are some people that can get 'it' done in large part due to the way their brains are wired. It may well be a personality defect or deeply-rooted insecurity, but they can get past 'no' without breaking a sweat. Trump's brand of this 'mojo' might be good for the commercial real estate market and the like but it certainly isn't presidential. He makes Bill Clinton look like he has class. That combined with many of his past actions, positions and contributions are irreconcilable with the type of record that will be required to do well in the early Republican primaries. Just look back at Rudy's campaign for '08. As far as the class of '08 candidates, he was likely the one with the 'right stuff' for the US, when taking into consideration the truly serious issues that were confronting the country back then and continue to plague us today. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't banging the drum exclusively for Rudy but considering what a bleak field it was from both sides, of the bunch he was probably the one best prepared and capable of driving the bus. I wonder if his minister is buddies with Qaddafi? He washed out almost immediately upon the commencement of primary season. One caveat is that if Florida had been the first primary in the 2008 nominating calendar, Rudy probably would have done much better and MIGHT possibly have had the momentum to win the nomination. The first handful of primaries and the media coverage of their results directly impact the candidates fund raising abilities and dictate who stays and who goes.

While I believe he has no chance in hell of getting the nomination, despite the fact that I am sure he thinks he COULD (not will) win the Oval Office, I love his emerging candidacy. He maybe cheesy, but he isn't stupid. I don't think he really wants to be president, but I think he knows full well that he can be perhaps the most powerful flame thrower in the coming electoral cycle thereby increasing his already broad celebrity, scoring an ambassadorship (to a country with hot babes like the Ukraine) and further enriching himself (hard to do while in the WH). Because of his very high name recognition, reputation for outlandish behavior and immense wealth, people listen to him. Whether that is in hopes of seeing a great train wreck or because they like him doesn't really matter. Almost everything that comes out of his yapper is going to be covered. That is why I think his back-handed doubts about Obama's birth certificate and religion are having a deleterious effect on Obama in the eyes of the public. There is no one in the main stream media that can brand Trump a birther. He's a rich dude calling them like he sees them and while doing so in very clear terms he is connecting with the public. I see his candidacy to be analogous with sending in the cruise missiles and stealth bombers to soften up the opponent's defenses before the main attack.

His time to effectuate this is finite and will start to dwindle if he performs poorly in the first few primaries, although his staying power doesn't have to be dictated by donor contributions since he can self fund a losing campaign. However, if Florida stands by its plans to have the first primary in the nation, Trump could stick around for a few more rounds. Many of the latter primaries usually hop in line like lemmings and follow the path set out for them by the first few bell-weather states. Therefore, just by winning Florida you might win a handful of other states.

In any event, the likelihood of me supporting Trump, who is in no way a conservative, is remote at best, but I am certainly enjoying the results of his campaign thus far.

Myself, since there has been no great president since Nixon, I don't mind giving the new kid on the block a chance to throw the dice.

Despite what was said about Nixon, there were things about him that were extraordinary. Like all men, he also had his flaws. In my book, I don't rank him as great nor do I dismiss him based upon what the media had to say about him. I happen to believe the Reagan was a great president (surprise).

However, allowing one's vote to be swayed cavalierly by single issues or slogans like "Change for the Sake of Change" and "Hope and Change" and "Yes, we can" has contributed greatly to the mess that this country is in. Regardless of party affiliation, we do a great disservice to America, her legacy and her future when we 'roll the dice' with our presidential ballots.

Stan Da Man

04-01-11, 16:43

Stan Da Man

04-01-11, 16:54

Donald Trump is a piece of sh*t. The only reason this joker is here, now, is because the only thing he cares about is self-promotion. That may be true of most politicians, but this guy adds an exponential factor. The guy has filed for bankruptcy so many times that he makes the airlines look good. He's a media working girl, plain and simple. The faster Republicans and conservatives can kick this knucklehead to the curb, the better. At best, he's a needless distraction. At worst, he'll try to turn things into a three-ring circus with himself as ringmaster. Now is not the time to waste time on this idiot.My, would you look at that auto-correct feature. Apparently, you can't say wh*re on this message board. Et tu, Argentina Private?

Instead, the sanitizer cleans it up and makes it "working girl," so Donald Trump is not a media wh*re but instead a media working girl. How PC are we going to go with this thing?

Hmmmm. How many of George Carlin's words will get past the sanitizerator. Let's see:

Ass, balls, cocksucker, ****, fuck, motherfucker, piss, shit, tits.

Jackson

04-01-11, 17:49

My, would you look at that auto-correct feature. Apparently, you can't say wh*re on this message board. Et tu, Argentina Private?Hi Stan,

Yes, you are correct in your observation.

The word wh*ore is used soley to denegrate women, and that's not what this website is about.

Now, having explained this, I'm sure that you would agree with my decision in this regard.

Thanks,

Jackson

FYI, George Carlin's 7 words you can't say on TV are: "Shit", "piss", "fuck", "cu*nt", "cocksucker", "motherfucker", and "tits".

J

Stan Da Man

04-01-11, 19:00

Hi Stan,

Yes, you are correct in your observation.

The word wh*ore is used soley to denegrate women, and that's not what this website is about.

Now, having explained this, I'm sure that you would agree with my decision in this regard.

Thanks,

Jackson.

FYI, George Carlin's 7 words you can't say on TV are: "Shit","piss","fuck","cu*nt","cocksucker","motherfucker", and "tits".

JYep. I added two from Lenny Bruce at the beginning. And, I assume the comment about wh*re was meant to be facetious. I know many women and men who are quite proud, even nigrated, when called a wh*re. Probably another word you can't say on television right there.

Jackson

04-01-11, 19:10

know many women and men who are quite proud, even nigrated, when called a wh*re.In my personal experience, I've found that most women don't like to be called "wh*ore" while they're still dressed.

Thanks,

Jackson

Moveon

04-02-11, 00:05

On the offset of the Libyan revolution:

Interviewer: What would you do about Libya?

GINGRICH: "Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive. This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with."

-now that the US intervened he states:

GINGRICH: "I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces."

Hmmm...

I wonder if the US was to withdraw, what would he say then?

Rock Harders

04-02-11, 06:26

Wildwalleye-

Please do everyone a favor and just admit that you are either President or on the Board of Directors of several of the USA's most prominent right-wing Hate Groups. We already know that you can't get it up without your Imperial Wizards' cloak or your NRA membership card in clear view. Not to mention the poster on the wall of your office featuring Barry H Obama wearing a towel on his head with a lit fuse attached to the end of it. Everyone knows BHO was really born at the Great Mosque in Mecca but we'll let those Liberal ACLU types pretend he was born in Hawaii until we can prove otherwise, won't we?

Suerte,

Rock Harders

El Perro

04-02-11, 10:22

In my personal experience, I've found that most women don't like to be called "wh*ore" while they're still dressed.

Thanks,

JacksonAin't it the truth. I have found that "sweet little whoare" works best, particularly when they are looking up at me from a kneeling position. It often helps if you have a smile and your face, if not a leering grin.

Wild Walleye

04-02-11, 14:02

Wildwalleye-

Please do everyone a favor and just admit that you are either President or on the Board of Directors of several of the USA's most prominent right-wing Hate Groups. If believing in America, the greatness of her legacy and the potential greatness of her future fall into your definition of hate, then I am guilty as charged. If you wouldn't mind, please cite some specifics of the 'hate' you believe that I have articulated.

What you are really saying is that because I chose to clearly state my adamant opposition to the current president's politics, philosophy and agenda, based upon substance, I am somehow espousing hate. The ultimate objective of this type of mischaracterization is to denigrate the speaker, devalue the content of his opinions and stifle his willingness to proffer his opinions. While this may affect some, I don't foresee it silencing me.

The only clear cut examples of hatred being expressed and acted out are coming from the left. We constantly hear about republicans as the victims of death threats, comparisons to Nazis and like, about which nothing is done. Alternatively, the left makes up stories of hatred that are clearly false and they are allowed to stand such as the racism claims against the Tea Party.

We already know that you can't get it up without your Imperial Wizards' cloak or your NRA membership card in clear view.I also like to wear my holster with my Airsoft pistol in it.

Not to mention the poster on the wall of your office featuring Barry H Obama wearing a towel on his head with a lit fuse attached to the end of it. Now, in addition to being a generalist-hater, I am also a racist and anti-Muslim. Considering the number of close personal friends, business partners and associates that I have from many diverse backgrounds, I must be good at hiding it.

Everyone knows BHO was really born at the Great Mosque in Mecca but we'll let those Liberal ACLU types pretend he was born in Hawaii until we can prove otherwise, won't we?In addition to all of the above charges, you are now attacking me for being a Birther, something I am not, nor do I believe that Obama is a Muslim, I actually think that he is a godless ideologue, but that is an argument for another day. As far as his birth certificate, I think that it is pretty clear that he does not have an actual Hawaiian birth certificate. Since one could not be found, they chose to use the certificate of live birth. The lack of a birth certificate could have many reasons, I don't think that I have gone on record as saying that I think Obama was born outside the US but I also wouldn't say that the certificate of live birth proves anything. It isn't the arena within which I think that viable opponents should engage the president. There are too many excellent substantive fronts upon which one can successfully proceed.

I was merely pointing out that while I don't like Trump, I can appreciate the negative impact of his campaign on Obama's candidacy, because, and let me be perfectly clear (sounds better if I have reverb and if you could see me wagging my finger) on this, I am adamantly opposed to Obama, his policies, his agenda and his philosophies! Trump is well within his rights to bring up the issue of Obama's birth certificate and Obama is certainly entitled to defend himself. The easiest way to put all this to rest would be to provide the actual birth certificate, something he would have done long ago if he actually had one. Again, the lack of a birth certificate does not prove that he is foreign born. As far as one candidate questioning another's faith, I think it is kind of low and unseemly.

If I were in the fight, I'd focus on differentiating myself from him, going after things like his pro-muslim and anti-israel stances, his complete blindness and in action regarding multiple international crises and the like. I believe that one should play to their strength which in my case are based upon superior principles, ideas and policies. Clearly, Trump either doesn't subscribe to my approach and / or has an inferior core. I happen to believe that in his case, it is both.

Suerte,

Rock HardersPeace

Member #4112

04-02-11, 16:28

WW, what was it, a little over two years ago anyone who disagreed with Obama was a racist.

Now with a lack of defensible issues, lack of a foreign policy, lack of a domestic policy, lack of a fiscal policy, oh I'm sorry he does have all those things –'Hope and Change', anyone who questions Obama is a racist again – how refreshing.

From the 2010 elections and what is shaping up to be another 'shellacking' in 2012, I don't think the 'Change' really caught on. As for 'Hope' it is not a strategy, folks are figuring this out now.

Isn't it great how the Left is always ready to demonize their opponent s in the vilest terms but have a conniption fit if the Right says a word in defense or questions their motives?

Got to run and pick up my sheet from the cleaners and clean my M60 – big meeting tonight under the light of a burning cross.

Rock Harders

04-02-11, 17:57

Mongers-

Jackson just called me personally and told me that WallyWildeye has retired from his former role as Chairman and CEO of the the Aryan Nation and has now moved on to a much more prestigious and influential role as the President and Chair of the Philosophy, Political Science, and Economics Departments at both Bob Jones and Liberty Universities. WallyWildeye is the first person in history to be President of both of these highly prestigious and internationally respected universities and should be congratulated for his life-defining achievement. Some of the most popular classes that WallyWildeye teaches are PHIL101: Obama's Conspiracy to make America a Muslim nation, POSC 204: Shoot all Illegal Immigrants on Sight, and his personal favorite, ECON 407: America's Future under Feudalism.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Argento

04-02-11, 19:16

Wild Walleye

04-02-11, 19:20

Mongers-

Jackson just called me personally and told me that WallyWildeye has retired from his former role as Chairman and CEO of the the Aryan Nation After being called out on the fallacy of your personal attack, you decide to double down and add antisemitism, white supremacy and nazi sympathies to my personal foibles. Don't worry, I get it. When you can't engage on the subject at hand, attack the messenger. No sweat. I don't take it personally. After deprogramming, you'll probably feel better.

and has now moved on to a much more prestigious and influential role as the President and Chair of the Philosophy, Political Science, and Economics Departments at both Bob Jones and Liberty Universities.I'd probably feel more at home at Hillsdale. Liberals prefer places like Jim Jones University where all of their drones lap up the cool aid.

WallyWildeye is the first person in history to be President of both of these highly prestigious and internationally respected universities and should be congratulated for his life-defining achievement. Some of the most popular classes that WallyWildeye teaches are PHIL101: Obama's Conspiracy to make America a Muslim nation,I don't recall ever stating that. However, his policies are certainly sympathetic to many groups that wish to do us harm. Why is that?

POSC 204: Shoot all Illegal Immigrants on Sight,Not sure I have advocated this approach, either. How would one know that someone is an illegal immigrant upon sight? So far as I know, the left is the only part of the political spectrum perpetuating race-based politics.

and his personal favorite, ECON 407: America's Future under Feudalism.I can think of other courses that I would probably prefer to teach. However, your point is excellent. I completely agree with you that Obama is certainly attempting to lead the country to serfdom. However, it is not one where the traditional feudal structures, based upon distributed power amongst lords, would exist. Rather, just the opposite where all of the power is concentrated in a centralized government and vassalage would be replaced by becoming a government employee and serfdom foisted upon the rest of society, forcibly subjugated to and by the government. Good luck finding the landed gentry in any of Obama's futuristic visions. It would more than likely look like a Marxist, totalitarian regime resulting from the pursuit of the Left's objectives of workers' paradise and socialist utopia, neither of which can ever exist in the real world.

It might surprise to learn that this has been tried and proven to be catastrophic failures and centers of some of the greatest human rights violations known to man. Examples of where this has been tried and failed include the Soviet Union and its satellites, East Germany, Cuba and North Korea. I predict that Communism in China will fail and evolve within the next ten years. An observation to give some perspective (not to in anyway confer anything other than disgust upon the Nazis), the Marxists in Russia persecuted and killed (democide, as defined by RJ Rummel) many times the number of people than those persecuted and killed by the Nazis (genocide). Most of the estimated 110 million victims of Marxist democide were inflicted in the pursuit of leftist ideals such as the workers' paradise (Marxist-Leninists) and or for the peasantry (Maoists). The most common, communist, state social institutions were/are various types of unions. While the list of former communist and far leftist/socialist countries is quite long, the list of former capitalist countries seems to be quite short.

I doubt that many of the victims of communist democide would consider my positions in anyway hateful. Unfortunately, none of them were available for comment at the time of this writing.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to crank up the NSBM, make some cocktails (molotov, of course) and get some more swastika tattoos.

Punter 127

04-03-11, 11:48

Understanding Libya.

Libya/Iraq video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yAyCdfOXvec)

Why Obama is better than Bush.

Obama/Bush video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCJrN3-fAK0&feature=related)

It's all so clear now! :rolleyes:

Moveon

04-07-11, 23:18

I guess viewers here in the US got tired of all the black helicopter conspiracy theories that this self-professed media clown was proclaiming on FOX NEWS every weekday. From the absurd to the ludicrous, he just couldn't stop his lunacy dribbles.

Ratings took a massive dump this year (-32%) and since he managed to insult every minority out there (except the TEA Party) , advertising sponsors left in droves as well.

It's my own impression that people stopped watching his shows with all the constant worldly doomsday predictions. None never came about, of course.

Well, his silly show will be ending later this year. Hopefully, FOX News will replace him with someone more sensible, more newsworthy and less opinionated.

Avatar2005

04-08-11, 04:22

Punter 127

04-08-11, 10:14

Well, his silly show will be ending later this year. Hopefully, FOX News will replace him with someone more sensible, more newsworthy and less opinionated.I hear Keith Olbermann might be available as a replacement.

Wild Walleye

04-08-11, 13:59

Moreon's cowardly avoidance of engaging on any substantive issue and preference for obfuscation and diversion via lighting backfires and proffering red herrings.

So the people that cast the blight of BHO upon the greatest nation mankind has ever known are more concerned with Glenn Beck, who by the way will only make something like $30 million this year (must be due to his lack of popularity as cited by Moreon) , than they are with critical issues facing the nation. Well, I guess that makes total sense. The guy they elected is more interested in golfing, vacationing and campaigning than he is in actually fulfilling the duties of the office, something that he swore he would do.

Moreon and his ilk must be beaming with pride at the amazing success of Hope and Change. In fact, its so good, they should rename it Shock and Awe, Part Deux. Some of the fantastic accomplishments of the most unqualified president in US history include:

Restoring US prestige around the world.

Closing down Camp Gitmo.

Ending military tribunals for captured terrorists.

Getting all of our troops out of Iraq.

Winding down our involvement in Afghanistan.

Refraining from unilaterally using US force to interfere with the internal politics of foreign nations.

Preventing the US military from abusing (let alone killing) innocent civilians in Afghanistan.

Not allowing the US Air Force to indiscriminately bomb civilians abroad.

Back our allies in the middle east like Mubarak in Egypt

Fight al qaeda everywhere we can around the world (unless we are backing them in Libya)

Support our troops (even when denying them pay during potential govt shut down)

Creating a post-racial society

Creating a post-partisan Washington.

Reducing the deficit and balancing budget by end of first term

Making health care available to all people in America (not all Americans) for less money.

Being the most transparent president in history.

Increasing exploration and use of US energy reserves.

Making the US energy independent via green jobs.

Keeping unemployment below 8, no I mean 9, no I mean 10%

Putting a laser beam focus on creating jobs.

Not resting until there are more jobs.

Funny how while he was not resting during his relentless pursuit of more jobs for Americans, he has golfed and vacationed his way around the world. In his spare time he has wracked up $5T in debt, destroyed any hope of an economic recovery, attempted to destroy the US healthcare industry, attacked Libya and is deliberately trying to shutdown the US government purely for political gain (trying to see if lightening can strike twice). Also while focused like a laser on jobs, he vacationed in Brazil giving them money and helping them take US jobs. Later on that same holiday, while gallivanting around LatAm, our Nobel Peace Prize recipient was ordering military attacks on a foreign nation but did not then and has not since had enough free time to communicate anything about our military involvement in Libya to the American people. Now, as a government shutdown looms; a situation for which BHO, Reid and Pelosi are indisputably, entirely responsible; he needs a little down time in Historic Williamsburg. I hope that they at least get to see the cooper make some barrels.

I guess if I was backing a guy who has amassed this record of success, I'd be looking for a diversion, too.

Esten

04-09-11, 00:27

If believing in America, the greatness of her legacy and the potential greatness of her future fall into your definition of hate, then I am guilty as charged. If you wouldn't mind, please cite some specifics of the 'hate' you believe that I have articulated.

WW:

I'm currently working on a documentary about the wave of Expats that have come to Argentina.

The most interesting common thread I've found from conducting interviews over the last few months is this:

"You can take an American out of America. But you can't take America out of an American!"

This is evidenced by the entrepenurial spirit I've seen in so many. Starting busineses. Working hard. And realizing their own version of the American Dream! The American Dream is still alive, but more elusive than ever. Wealth and power are increasingly controlled by a small minority - the rich elite - very wealthy individuals, Big Business and Wall Street. The rich have become richer and more powerful; they pull the strings as to who get loans and good paying jobs. Meanwhile the poor and middle class struggle even more.

Free market capitalism is turning this country into a Plutocracy.

Vote Republican and say bye-bye to the dream. Their policies enrich and empower the plutocrats. Some people mistakenly think the prosperity will "trickle down"; unfortunately what we have seen is that the plutocrat cares first and foremost only about their own profit and prosperity.

Rev BS

04-09-11, 15:39

Democracy, governed by election cycles, forces political leadership to focus on legislature on a short-term basis. Political stalemate becomes the norm, any significant legislature that require long-term planning usually dies out before becoming reality or gets reversed by the incoming regime. Meanwhile, Big Business is controlling the political landscape, while misleading Americans into the illusion that they all can have the American dream if they would just spent every future dollar they have. Ideology is for the most part, propagnda.

Like the unrest and upheavals in the Middle East, there will be a time when the ignored and rejected class in America will take to the "streets" and demand to be heard. America tries to preach democracy to the four coners of the world, so it is astonishing to hear that we should try to prop up Khadaffi.

Wild Walleye

04-09-11, 19:11

The American Dream is still alive, but more elusive than ever. Agreed. Govt interference in private industry is making it more difficult to succeed.

Wealth and power are increasingly controlled by a small minorityAgreed. Many of them are liberals serving in the US Congress who are dead set against any of us making real money and being able to survive, independent of their vision of government.

- the rich elite - very wealthy individuals, Big Business Esten says "blah, blah, blah. Hate the rich, hate the companies that employ Americans, blah, blah, blah"

and Wall Street.The denizens of which primarily donate to liberal candidates and causes.

The rich have become richer and more powerful; they pull the strings as to who get loansLike Chris Dodd and the other friends of Angelo (primarily liberals)

and good paying jobs.Although, once they got their waiver from Obamacare, McDonalds is looking to hire 50K new employees. Gee, I wonder why they are willing to hire after being exempted from massive, costly regulation whereas they weren't hiring while subject to it?

Meanwhile the poor and middle class struggle even more.Primarily because other than the above-mentioned, burger-flipping positions, there aren't any jobs!

Free market capitalism is turning this country into a Plutocracy.Markets can't be free if they are over regulated. Jobs won't be created if new hires are too expensive.

Vote Republican and say bye-bye to the dream.Based upon all of the information that you have provided thus far?

Their policies enrich and empower the plutocrats.I'm sorry, must have nodded off for a sec. Which party is massively expanding the govt?

Some people mistakenly think the prosperity will "trickle down"; unfortunately what we have seen is that the plutocrat cares first and foremost only about their own profit and prosperity.Individuals are unlikely to buck human nature and ignore their own self interests. That doesn't make them bad, does it? I know that you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed so I am not surprised that you get confused when branching out beyond monosyllabic words. Therefore, it is completely understandable that you have confused the concept of plutocracy with crony-capitalism, through which your beloved liberal politburo members are doing exactly what you accuse those in the free market of doing. What you leave out is that your ruling class is the only one with the power to actually effectuate it in the real world.

I know this is a long shot but do you think you could ever provide a substantive post?

You are so bereft of original thought that you should considering profiting by regurgitating the ideas of others. Maybe you should write bumper sticker slogans.

Member #4112

04-09-11, 21:53

Esten. Ever hear of George Soros? He bought and paid for the liberal smear media and bloggers here, just follow the money. He does not live here but just can't wait to screw up our country. But I guess you consider him some type of hero.

Black Shirt. Guess you totally missed the run up to the 2010 elections. American's were in the streets long before the Middle East uprisings, demanding an end to all knowing, all seeing, all controlling government, reduction in taxes and in the size of the government which was reflected in the 2010 mid-term elections where liberal democrats took a whipping.

While I am very disappointed in the Republican performance in the 2011 budget crisis, they did at least come up with a budget for 2011 six months after it was due at the end of September. Might I add the Democrats, who controlled significant majorities in the Senate and the House as well as the White House, punted the budget twice, once before the mid terms and then after.

One of the tasks MANDATED to the House and Senate is to pass a budget each year and the Democrats with majorities in both chambers FAILED TO COMPLETE THE BUDGET WHILE FINDING TIME TO PASS EVERY OTHER HAIR BRAINED PIECE OF LIGISLATION DURING THE LAME DUCK SESSION.

Charlie Rangel's excuse for failing to pass the budget was 'JUST DID NOT GET AROUND TO IT'.

Now the liberal democrats are again beating the scare tactic drums because it is all they have being totally bankrupt on both ideas and morals. All they got is the Republicans are going to kill the children, kill the old people, and now the latest the Republicians are going to kill the women.

Esten, Black Shirt, this speaks volumes about your party. Nuf Said!

Tiny12

04-10-11, 18:18

Meanwhile, Big Business is controlling the political landscape, while misleading Americans into the illusion that they all can have the American dream if they would just spent every future dollar they have. Black Shirt, I strongly agree with your post, except for the sentence above. There's no conspiracy. There are individual businesses that push for their particular tax loopholes. And, as Esten implies, the wealthy who, for example, push for ways of getting around the death tax. And there's an army of lawyers, lobbyists and accountants that help them do it. Both political parties are to blame. But the Democrats are the bigger offenders. Democrats are responsible for pushing up tax rates so that they can say that they're punishing the rich and the corporations. And then they promote loopholes like percentage depletion for the oil and gas industry (LBJ) or exemption from income tax for companies that set up in the Virgin Islands (Charles Rangel). Democrats are two faced, and this exercise has made our economy much less efficient than it would be otherwise. It's given us one of the highest marginal tax rates on business in the world, but because of loopholes, certain big businesses actually pay a pittance in taxes. The little guy just starting out or who doesn't let his business decisions revolving around tax avoidance loses out.

At least once in a while the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, come along with someone like Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich or Paul Ryan who wants to cut out the loopholes and level the playing field. And use part or all of the savings to cut marginal tax rates.

As to businesses who persuade the public to spend every future dollar to pursue the American dream, that is indeed a problem. But more of the blame lies with politicians than business and again the Democrats are the bigger offenders. There are Republicans proposing solutions that would increase our savings rate.

As Doppelganger says, the ignored and rejected are taking to the streets, witness the Tea Party.

Wild Walleye

04-10-11, 20:53

Tiny and Doppel beat me to the punch on pointing out that BS was right about people taking to the streets (how else are they going to get to the polls?) he is just wrong about who is taking to the streets and that to which they are objecting.

One of the major fallacies of US liberalism is the trope about income disparity. While Esten bellyaches that the poor are paralyzed by the income gap, the truth is that most productive poor people spend little or no time worrying about the 'haves' and most of the time working and figuring out how to put food on the table. The reality is, as pointed out numerous times by folks other than myself, that the poor in America are rich relative to much of the world's population. Even the unproductive poor in America are provided with free healthcare (don't even try to refute this fact. They are) and assistance for housing and food (something like 50 million Americans on food stamps). What the productive and potentially productive members of the financially challenged want is opportunity. An opportunity to get ahead through hard work is a hell of a lot more meaningful to them than having the government steal more money (that they will never see) from some rich guy.

Further, when you look at the portion of society chronically dependent upon the government (right where the left wants all of us to be) you'll still see more 60" 1080p flat screens than you can at a BestBuy. What is their motivation to take to the streets and vote? They are getting subsidized housing, free money to use at the grocery store and free healthcare. Sure, if you ask them if they want to loose all these freebies, they will say 'no. ' But they aren't working for or earning any of them. Something earned by an individual is inevitably more meaningful to him than a similar item bequeath to him.

Conversely, only about half of American citizens, who have attained the age of majority, pay any income taxes at all. While the greatest tax burden falls on those earning in the top 20% of Americans, the squeeze is felt by everyone (everyone who pays taxes, that is). In fact, the squeeze is probably felt more keenly by the folks earning less than $100k. While they pay lower marginal rates, they have considerably less disposable income than their wealthy counterparts. So they miss it when it disappears. As the government grows exponentially and takes more from its productive citizenry to finance its insatiable appetite, eventually the people being robbed will say enough is enough. That is exactly what happened last fall. It is what is continuing to happen now. What does it tell you that a significant majority of the US wanted the government shut down?

Talk about taxation without representation. The ultimate version of this took place in the last congress where 50% of the American public had absolutely no representation within the legislative or executive branches of government. You know what came of it? The people paying the bills got pissed. They voted and they got results (outcome of the election not necessarily the performance of these new repubs) and feel empowered to finally have a chair at the table (considering that they paid for the table, the chairs and the building that houses it).

Esten can continue to beat that dead horse ad nauseam (can't imaging he'll ever stop) but it won't make it true.

Rev BS

04-11-11, 12:55

"Streets" is in italics because I do not know when and how the American people will finally get tired of a Congress that is mired in bull-shit, that is self-serving on personal gain and party idiocy. America is falling behind every day, yet they always show up, looking like they have just come from the health spa, and making the same old speeches. I do agree that the Tea Party is a strong manifestation of public outrage, but it will be interesting to actually see how many of them have good financial disciplines privately. Many have been duped and addicted, so I will direct you to how we got to this point.

"Consumer Beware", so which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you do not think that American consumer is in the clutches of Big Business, you are very naive. From the lack of viable public transportation, to the people who depend on 7-11s for their culinary delights, the easy availability to leasing rather than buying cars, you can go on and on. Is it true that "instant gratification" and "attention deficit to be of American cultural origin? Maybe, that can be debated. So we had a damn good run, and now, we have to clean up after a night of debauchery. Still don't understand that if you make $300, 000 that you are not consider rich.

Just a personal note, I am neither angry or pessimistic about life. Nor do I choose to be categorized as either Republican or Democrat, just a concerned American.

Member #4112

04-11-11, 15:08

I define "rich" as being able to quit your day / night job or what ever you do to earn money but not have to change your life style.

HappyGoLucky

04-11-11, 17:19

Wild Walleye

04-11-11, 17:45

"Streets" is in italics because I do not know when and how the American people will finally get tired of a Congress that is mired in bull-shit,Agreed, if you are referring to the 11th Congress and those that preceded it. If you are speaking of the current Congress (the 112th) , I'd have to say that you are a little hasty in pronouncing judgment. While I too am concerned about their future performance, they have only been in office for around 90 days. They came up short on the cuts that they were supposed to get. Let's hope they do better and deliver on the 2012 budget (where there is a much bigger opportunity to cut).

Going into the 2010 midterms, congressional approval ratings were at their all-time low. The historic outcome of the midterms seemed to indicate that Americans were starting to pay attention to Congressional races and holding its members responsible for the condition of the country.

For the longest time (at least during my lifetime) district voters, regardless of party, tended to vote to reelect their representatives in both houses despite the low congressional approval numbers. You would hear the sentiment "throw the bums out" or "they are all thieves" and then they would go to the polls and reelect aforementioned bums and thieves. Ostensibly the reason for this apparent disconnect was that 'they' really felt those feelings about other members of congress and not specifically their members. Finally it seems that voters are starting to grasp that being good at bringing home pork might not be the best measure of one's representatives and that congressional behavior, as it relates to expanding the scope, reach and expense of government, is the responsibility of all members, including their own.

that is self-serving on personal gain and party idiocy. America is falling behind every day, yet they always show up, looking like they have just come from the health spa, and making the same old speeches.They are the Ruling Class. For far too long, they have not served the interests of America and her people but have served their own.

I do agree that the Tea Party is a strong manifestation of public outrage, but it will be interesting to actually see how many of them have good financial disciplines privately. I think that there are two distinct measures of commitment: the commitment of the elected officials to deliver as promised and the commitment of the voters to hold said elected officials accountable for their actions in Washington. For example, I believe that if the 112th Congress does not deliver cuts of a magnitude, previously unimaginable by the press, the newly empowered voters will unleash their wrath upon them.

Many have been duped and addicted, so I will direct you to how we got to this point.By this do you mean newbies to Congress who proclaim to be reformers going in to effectuate change and before long they are settling into the easy going lifestyle of American legislators, maintaining the status quo? If so, I couldn't agree with you more. One of the things that most bothered me about the 104th Congress. While they initially did some good in restoring fiscal restraint, many of them got too comfortable in Washington and lost thier way.

"Consumer Beware", so which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you do not think that American consumer is in the clutches of Big Business, you are very naive. From the lack of viable public transportation, to the people who depend on 7-11s for their culinary delights, the easy availability to leasing rather than buying cars, you can go on and on.You lost me here. Consumerism is definitely the primary driver of the US economy.

Public transportation is excellent and widely available in many places throughout the country. Where it is not available it isn't viable on its own and obviously hasn't had a patron saint or two in the government to overcome (throw money at) the fact that it is unsustainable in that particular market. This is in large part due to the individual preferences of Americans. We like to drive our cars and if we are driving our cars, we can fit into buses and trains. Why should we be forced to use or pay for transportation modalities we neither want nor utilize?

Eating a diet consisting of Nacho flavored Doritos, Dinty Moore Stew and Twinkies, procured at your local 7-11, is a personal choice. The fact that many consume diets like this. Despite potential health implications and the fact that a much more healthy diet could be purchased from a full fledged grocery store for much less money. Is indicative of poor personal decisions. That's it. You can't legislate away stupidity and ignorance. Look at Esten (sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation).

Is it true that "instant gratification" and "attention deficit to be of American cultural origin?I'm pretty sure that the Cro-Magnon figured out how to beat off, so I doubt America started or invented any of it. That said, the relative American wealth has enabled us many luxuries, of our own individual chosing.

Maybe, that can be debated. So we had a damn good run, and now, we have to clean up after a night of debauchery. Yes, time to clean up.

Still don't understand that if you make $300, 000 that you are not consider rich.You can consider that rich. Hell, you can consider anyone making over $75K rich if you want. However, I suspect that most people making $300k, especially those with families, don't think that they are rich. Doing well? Yes. Rich? No.

Just a personal note, I am neither angry or pessimistic about life. Nor do I choose to be categorized as either Republican or Democrat, just a concerned American.We're just two peas in a pod.

Rev BS

04-11-11, 17:51

I define "rich" as being able to quit your day / night job or what ever you do to earn money but not have to change your life style.Very good, I like it. But how to tell someone that they don't need spent $3,000 to fuck a porn-star when for the same money, they can go to Colombia or Thailand and fuck every day for 3 weeks?

Wild Walleye

04-11-11, 17:58

A variety of situations could ignite a critical mass in the EEUU ($10 dollars a gallon might be one). In the 60s it was Viet Nam, but that was because the youth didn't want to die in a fucking jungle for nada (no 9/11, no Bin Laden, no hate mongering except for the cold war and we weren't fighting Russia). Now 20% of the population is facing foreclosure and nothing happens because it's not affecting the youth (thanks to an unregulated free-for-all on Wall Street). The baby-boomers are too tired and scared to start burning banks down on Wall Street, and the up and coming yuppies are buying up the repos. Meanwhile, China owns all our debt and Walmart is their 7th largest trading partner because we don't make anything. How long can that last?We're going to find out, aren't we?

The fact that so many Republicans took seats in the last election is because the economy sucks and half the American public lack critical thinking skills.Then why didn't they just elect more Democrats?

They rely on their churches, Sarah Palin, and Glen Beck to tell them how to vote (against themselves). IMHO.I certainly respect your right to your opinion and doubt that you'd change your mind or have changed your mind on such subjects. However, I would like to point out a disservice that you are doing to yourself, if you really think this way. In Esten's case, he babbles left-wing propaganda in his sleep. Do you really think that the historic outcome of the 2010 midterm elections were due to Palin, Beck and churches?

Do you think that any of those millions of voters were motivated by the fact that a full 50% of the American public (including almost all of the people actually paying taxes) had absolutely no representation in the legislative or executive branches? Despite the fact that a large majority of Americans opposed Obamacare the leaders (BHO, Reid & Pelosi) of what is supposed to be a representative democracy forced Obamacare on us saying FU to the constitution, the history of the country and the voice of the voters. Do you think that anyone amongst those stupid voters felt honestly that $14T of debt is just too much?

If you are going to cast dispersions on the critical thinking capabilities of others, you might want to at least allude to having some of your own.

HappyGoLucky

04-11-11, 18:40

A return to the Clinton era tax structure on the super rich (the top 3%) was reasonable and necessary during such an economic downturn. But the Repbulicans vowed to eliminate unemployment insurance before Christmas if they didn't continue to get their $500 billion dollar tax break, per year. Instead they financed 7 years of war under Bush by borrowing more from China, and expect the middle class to pay the interest. Now they're blaming Dems and Obama for overspending.

You are obviously a smart person and a good writer Walleye, and are what I think of as one of the "true believers." I'll elaborate more on that another time. It's not negative.

We're going to find out, aren't we?

Then why didn't they just elect more Democrats?

I certainly respect your right to your opinion and doubt that you'd change your mind or have changed your mind on such subjects. However, I would like to point out a disservice that you are doing to yourself, if you really think this way. In Esten's case, he babbles left-wing propaganda in his sleep. Do you really think that the historic outcome of the 2010 midterm elections were due to Palin, Beck and churches?

Do you think that any of those millions of voters were motivated by the fact that a full 50% of the American public (including almost all of the people actually paying taxes) had absolutely no representation in the legislative or executive branches? Despite the fact that a large majority of Americans opposed Obamacare the leaders (BHO, Reid & Pelosi) of what is supposed to be a representative democracy forced Obamacare on us saying FU to the constitution, the history of the country and the voice of the voters. Do you think that anyone amongst those stupid voters felt honestly that $14T of debt is just too much?

If you are going to cast dispersions on the critical thinking capabilities of others, you might want to at least allude to having some of your own.

Jackson

04-11-11, 19:58

Instead they financed 7 years of war under Bush by borrowing more from China, and expect the middle class to pay the interest. Now they're blaming Dems and Obama for overspending.HappyGoLucky,

Within his first 30 days in office, Obama borrowed more money than the combined TOTAL cost of liberating Iraq and Afghanistan, AND the Hurricane Katrina cleanup.

I know, let me guess: You don't care.

Thanks,

Jackson

Stan Da Man

04-11-11, 20:29

Very good, I like it. But how to tell someone that they don't need spent $3,000 to fuck a porn-star when for the same money, they can go to Colombia or Thailand and fuck every day for 3 weeks?Now you're trying to tell other folks how they should spend their money. That's pretty popular among the many value mongers on this board, but I would resist the temptation. Their time with a porn star may be far more meaningful than the dozens of chicas they could nail in Columbia or Thailand for three weeks, especially since they don't have three weeks to do it.

The other side of the question about who is "rich" is this: About a year ago, we had someone on this board claiming he was too poor to afford health care in the US under the current system. He claimed that the recent rate increase he received had simply made a health insurance policy unaffordable and that he was forced to decline to renew his policy. He further claimed that ObamaCare was a necessity because people like him were priced out of the market.

At the time he was posting all this, he was simultaneously posting that he was on a two-week or one-month junket to Buenos Aires, where he was paying for pussy, going out to Hippopotamus, etc, and asking for help fixing his iPhone. So, he could afford airfare, hotels and apartments, P4P chicas, an iPhone, etc, but he was too poor to afford an increase in health insurance. If I recall correctly, the increase was something like $500, but my memory on the amount is a bit hazy.

So, don't tell me this guy is "poor" and that I should be paying for his insurance. I've got little time for those who claim that poor, ignorant Americans are being taken advantage of by insurance companies or even banks, who are "forcing" them to take loans. Or, that corporate America always figures out how to stick it to the little guy. The little guy in the US has it better than the little guy in every other country in the world, which is why they're all trying to figure out how to get here. The only time these folks take to the streets is when they can get three weeks off by protesting that their collective bargaining "rights" are in jeopardy, and when the union doctor will give them a note so they get paid for protesting. The only other time is when you threaten to close the border or, god forbid, actually check whether they're here legally. The average joes who are content to collect unemployment or welfare want nothing to do with the street unless someone is seriously threatening to cut off the gravy train.

Tiny12

04-11-11, 22:47

"Consumer Beware", so which came first, the chicken or the egg? If you do not think that American consumer is in the clutches of Big Business, you are very naive. From the lack of viable public transportation, to the people who depend on 7-11s for their culinary delights, the easy availability to leasing rather than buying cars, you can go on and on. Is it true that "instant gratification" and "attention deficit to be of American cultural origin? Maybe, that can be debated. So we had a damn good run, and now, we have to clean up after a night of debauchery. Still don't understand that if you make $300, 000 that you are not consider rich.

Say the city fathers fail to construct or maintain levees. Then a flood comes and wipes out the town. It's the rain's fault, right?

One of the reasons that capitalism works so well is because businesses compete to make money. That makes the economic system more efficient and productive and creates wealth for all. Government sets the rules. If a government does that wisely, society will benefit. If it doesn't, if politicians are corrupt or stupid or obsessed with obtaining votes instead of doing what's right, it won't.

Politicians shouldn't allow people to borrow to buy houses with no money down. They shouldn't offer guarantees for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages. They shouldn't offer homeowners deductions on interest expense. They shouldn't give businesses deductions for interest expense while charging tax on dividends (thus encouraging them to raise capital by borrowing instead of issuing equity). They shouldn't allow banks to charge interest rates that, after late fees, are effectively 30% per year on credit card debt. They shouldn't put people in charge of the Federal Reserve that are going to keep interest rates at or below the inflation rate year after year after year.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, they shouldn't encourage people to believe in massive Ponzi schemes like Medicare and Social Security. Why work hard and save your money for retirement or a rainy day? The government will be there for you, even when Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security account for 25% of GDP, and the proportion of retirees to workers is much higher than it is now.

Black Shirt, What you're describing is the biggest problem facing America. But the root cause is politicians, not businessmen. Or, actually, the individuals who elect politicians and who make stupid spending decisions.

Esten

04-12-11, 00:28

The little guy in the US has it better than the little guy in every other country in the world, which is why they're all trying to figure out how to get here.
The reality is, as pointed out numerous times by folks other than myself, that the poor in America are rich relative to much of the world's population. Well lookee here. This lame talking point trotted out twice in two days.

In other words, it's OK to pay American workers low wages with few benefits, and allow most of the prosperity to go to the wealthy, as long as those workers are better off than their counterparts in other countries.

How laughable, and shameless, for the rich elite (and their followers) to use the Third World as a benchmark for American workers.

Pathetic.

HappyGoLucky

04-12-11, 00:51

Hi Jackson. Long time no see.

With all due respect, look at the freaking mess Obama inherited after 8 years of Bush imperialism.

I just don't agree with wars for profit (i. e. defense contractors (e.g.Halliburton, Blackwater, Carlyle), oil companies, etc.) Our dependence on foreign oil is not by necessity but by design. I could go on for days with examples, but it's already widely known and recognized. We don't go around "liberating" every other f-up country in the world, and there's a reason for that. But you've got the degree in Political Science, so you already know all this. And BTW, I care as much as you do bud, but from a different perspective.

PS The Hurricane Katrina "clean-up" was a national embarrassment.

HappyGoLucky,

Within his first 30 days in office, Obama borrowed more money than the combined TOTAL Cost of liberating Iraq and Afghanistan, AND The Hurricane Katrina cleanup.

I know, let me guess: You don't care.

Thanks,

Jackson

Rev BS

04-12-11, 01:22

Say the city fathers fail to construct or maintain levees. Then a flood comes and wipes out the town. It's the rain's fault, right?

One of the reasons that capitalism works so well is because businesses compete to make money. That makes the economic system more efficient and productive and creates wealth for all. Government sets the rules. If a government does that wisely, society will benefit. If it doesn't, if politicians are corrupt or stupid or obsessed with obtaining votes instead of doing what's right, it won't.

Politicians shouldn't allow people to borrow to buy houses with no money down. They shouldn't offer guarantees for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages. They shouldn't offer homeowners deductions on interest expense. They shouldn't give businesses deductions for interest expense while charging tax on dividends (thus encouraging them to raise capital by borrowing instead of issuing equity). They shouldn't allow banks to charge interest rates that, after late fees, are effectively 30% per year on credit card debt. They shouldn't put people in charge of the Federal Reserve that are going to keep interest rates at or below the inflation rate year after year after year.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, they shouldn't encourage people to believe in massive Ponzi schemes like Medicare and Social Security. Why work hard and save your money for retirement or a rainy day? The government will be there for you, even when Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security account for 25% of GDP, and the proportion of retirees to workers is much higher than it is now.

Black Shirt, What you're describing is the biggest problem facing America. But the root cause is politicians, not businessmen. Or, actually, the individuals who elect politicians and who make stupid spending decisions. Thank you for your very intelligent post. The crux of the matter is that Politics and Big Business are like Siamese Twins. The electoral process demands massive funding and so the coupling is often made with the public's interests being compromised.

Singapore has show the world the meaning of responsible government in a global economy. Government public housing, healthcare, retirement funds work there. Neither Capitalism nor Socialism is a dirty work, they can co-exist. Our frontier days are long gone, it is a more complex urban enviroment that we exist in today.

Wild Walleye

04-12-11, 12:17

HappyGoLucky

04-12-11, 12:46

It seems that the super rich are getting even a greater share of the country's wealth. So far, Reagan style tricklenomics has failed to provide a fair and stable social structure. These quotes are from the Boston Globe:

"The only people being saved are the wealthy.

While unemployment remains at close to 9 percent, the average salaries for CEOs at 200 of America's largest companies rose 20 percent, to $11. 7 million, according to the New York Times. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that CEO bonuses at 50 major corporations rose 30. 5 percent last year, the biggest gain in three years, to an average bonus of $2. 5 million.

The rich have recovered so fast that their share of America's income is on track to break the all-time record. According to Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, the top 10 percent of Americans hoarded 46. 3 percent of the nation's income in 1932. That fell to around 31 percent in the 1950s and held steady into the early 1970s, due to a combination of World War II fiscal shocks, more progressive income and corporate tax policies, unions, and social programs. The top 1 percent had 19. 6 percent of the nation's income in 1928 and that fell to 7. 7 percent by 1973.

Then income for the wealthy roared back full circle. The share for the top 10 percent was back up to 45. 6 percent in 2008. For the top 1 percent, it was back up to 18. 3 percent in 2007.

If we had just ended the Bush-era tax cuts and returned to the Clinton years — which were booming ones for the economy — the Treasury said it would get back $3. 7 trillion over the next decade.

Meanwhile, the US Census last year said the rich-poor income gap reached record levels, nearly doubling gaps of the late 1960s. The United States is the richest nation on earth, yet we rank 97th in family-income equality, according to the CIA Factbook. Our inequality is so profound that we rank behind nations we associate with corruption, poverty, oppression, or collapsed governments — Nigeria, China, India, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Egypt, Burundi, Nicaragua, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Greece. The most economically equal country in the world is Sweden.

Even the CIA says the United States is now a nation where 'those at the bottom lack the education and the professional / technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20 percent of households. '

For all of those 'gains, ' we are sliding backward with each announcement of CEO pay. The gain for a few has become the great American loss."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/12/surprise_surprise_rich_get_richer/

as a means to permanently install leftists in the three branches of our government.

Which seems more cynical to you?

Wild Walleye

04-12-11, 13:47

It seems that the super rich are getting even a greater share of the country's wealth. So far, Reagan style tricklenomics has failed to provide a fair and stable social structure. These quotes are from the Boston Globe:

Blah, blah, blahIt must be true. This is typical of globe reporting, as is this:

Two boys are playing hockey on the Boston Common pond when one is attacked by a vicious rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy takes his hockey stick and scares the dog off, stopping the attack. A reporter who is strolling by sees the incident and rushes over to interview the boy.

"Young Bruins fan saves friend from vicious animal." he starts writing in his notebook.

"But I'm not a Bruins fan," the little boy replies.

"Sorry. Since we're in Boston, I just assumed you were," says the reporter and starts again."Red Sox fan rescues friend from horrific attack. ' he continues writing in his notebook.

"I'm not a Red Sox fan either!" the boy says.

"So, what team do you root for?" the reporter asks.

"I'm a Yankees fan!" the child beams.

The reporter starts a new sheet in his notebook and writes: "Little brat from New York kills beloved family pet."

Typical liberal rag and a true example of the use of talking points, as opposed to Esten's misguided attack.

Toymann

04-12-11, 14:03

It seems that the super rich are getting even a greater share of the country's wealth. So far, Reagan style tricklenomics has failed to provide a fair and stable social structure. These quotes are from the Boston Globe:

"The only people being saved are the wealthy.

While unemployment remains at close to 9 percent, the average salaries for CEOs at 200 of America's largest companies rose 20 percent, to $11. 7 million, according to the New York Times. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that CEO bonuses at 50 major corporations rose 30. 5 percent last year, the biggest gain in three years, to an average bonus of $2. 5 million.

The rich have recovered so fast that their share of America's income is on track to break the all-time record. According to Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, the top 10 percent of Americans hoarded 46. 3 percent of the nation's income in 1932. That fell to around 31 percent in the 1950s and held steady into the early 1970s, due to a combination of World War II fiscal shocks, more progressive income and corporate tax policies, unions, and social programs. The top 1 percent had 19. 6 percent of the nation's income in 1928 and that fell to 7. 7 percent by 1973.

Then income for the wealthy roared back full circle. The share for the top 10 percent was back up to 45. 6 percent in 2008. For the top 1 percent, it was back up to 18. 3 percent in 2007.

If we had just ended the Bush-era tax cuts and returned to the Clinton years — which were booming ones for the economy — the Treasury said it would get back $3. 7 trillion over the next decade.

Meanwhile, the US Census last year said the rich-poor income gap reached record levels, nearly doubling gaps of the late 1960s. The United States is the richest nation on earth, yet we rank 97th in family-income equality, according to the CIA Factbook. Our inequality is so profound that we rank behind nations we associate with corruption, poverty, oppression, or collapsed governments — Nigeria, China, India, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Egypt, Burundi, Nicaragua, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Greece. The most economically equal country in the world is Sweden.

Even the CIA says the United States is now a nation where 'those at the bottom lack the education and the professional / technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20 percent of households. '

For all of those 'gains, ' we are sliding backward with each announcement of CEO pay. The gain for a few has become the great American loss."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/12/surprise_surprise_rich_get_richer/

There is nothing Un-american about making money dude! So I am the CEO of a large public company and make killer results, enhancing shareholder value, and I don't deserve a BIG BONUS? This concept is what separates the US from socialist countries like Argentina. VIVA America baby. As the lawyers say "you eat what you kill"! Since when is there some rule that the wealth should be equally divided by the masses. THAT'S UN-American buddy. Guessing you never worked for yourself dude. Give it a try. You might like it or crash in flames. To the victor goes the spoils. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

HappyGoLucky

04-12-11, 14:23

I had my own business for 12 years, and did quite well. How we define the lines and limits of social responsibility and everyone contributing a fair share will determine the overall health of our nation.

The list of the biggest corporate freeloaders contains many of the largest energy / oil conglomerates. What a surprise.

http://front.moveon.org/3-which-corporations-are-the-biggest-freeloaders/?rc=recirctest

There is nothing Un-american about making money dude! So I am the CEO of a large public company and make killer results, enhancing shareholder value, and I don't deserve a BIG BONUS? This concept is what separates the US from socialist countries like Argentina. VIVA America baby. As the lawyers say "you eat what you kill"! Since when is there some rule that the wealth should be equally divided by the masses. THAT'S UN-American buddy. Guessing you never worked for yourself dude. Give it a try. You might like it or crash in flames. To the victor goes the spoils. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Stan Da Man

04-12-11, 14:36

Well lookee here. This lame talking point trotted out twice in two days.

In other words, it's OK to pay American workers low wages with few benefits, and allow most of the prosperity to go to the wealthy, as long as those workers are better off than their counterparts in other countries.

How laughable, and shameless, for the rich elite (and their followers) to use the Third World as a benchmark for American workers.

Pathetic. This perfectly illustrates, yet again, the difference between socialists and capitalists. Esten is a socialist. He is akin to the closet homosexual who has not yet made peace with himself, so he'll issue public denials about what he likes and believes. But, all the evidence is points in a different direction.

Esten doesn't quibble with the notion that our "poor" are better off than folks in other countries. He tries to suggest that these are third world comparisons, but no one mentioned the third world except him. My statement was that the poor are better off here than anywhere else. But, for Esten, that's not good enough if the rich are doing really well. It's not enough to take care of your poor better than anywhere else if Esten can look at the rich and say "they're making too much." That's the socialist in him. Again, he can issue as many denials as he wants, but someday he'll look in the mirror and have the spine to have that talk with mom and dad.

The difference between the socialist and capitalist mindset is best illustrated by an old joke:

An American capitalist, a French parliamentarian and a Russian socialist found an old bottle on the beach, opened it up, and saw a genie fly out. The genie was so grateful that he granted them each one wish.

The capitalist always admired his high school chum, who had accumulated great wealth. So, he wished for a mansion on the ocean, lots of money, cars, women, and all the other aspects of a wealthy lifestyle.

The parliamentarian wanted something similar. His cousin inherited a fortune, and he was always envious. So, he wished for a villa on the Mediterranean and limitless money and luxury.

When the socialist took his turn, he remembered his neighbor who was better off. He said,"My neighbor has a goat, and I don't have one. Kill my neighbor's goat!"

Esten can't be happy if others are doing better. He'd rather see the government force everyone to be equal, or "more equal" and that's the basic difference here. He will never be happy. That's because poverty, like wealth, is relative. It's meaningless if you simply say someone is poor. The only way to make sense of it is in relation to others. So, for Esten, it doesn't matter that our "poor" are doing better than the "poor" everywhere else, and it doesn't matter if today's "poor" are "rich" in comparison to the "poor" of 100 years ago. We need to compare them to the wealthy and then let the government try to equalize things.

I reject this view. In terms of economics, my view is that the government is responsible for providing a bare bones safety net, and to ensure that opportunities are available. Beyond that, government needs to get out of the way. The government should not be in the business of looking at how many cows or goats someone has. Whether people capitalize on opportunities is up to them, and it's not the government's business to try to even out the odds. Once a bare bones safety net is in place, and opportunities exist, the rest is up to the individual.

it's OK to pay American workers low wages with few benefits, and allow most of the prosperity to go to the wealthy, as long as those workers are better off than their counterparts in other countries.So, to answer your question: Yes.

HappyGoLucky

04-12-11, 15:02

Whether people capitalize on opportunities is up to them, and it's not the government's business to try to even out the odds. Once a bare bones safety net is in place, and opportunities exist, the rest is up to the individual.This is sort of what I meant by a "True believer." In concept, I agree, it just isn't working in the EEUU. Witness the Wall Street f-up.

Meanwhile prisons are exploding at an unprecedented rate in the USA because the social fabric is unraveling. The "right" wants to build more prisons and privatize the "business" but warehousing never works and is a terrible burden to the taxpayers.

I find it interesting that there are so many of the "right" mindset here. Who pressures the local PD to spend taxpayer money raiding the local AMP while gangs are gaining more control of the streets? I know a lot of guys in LE, and they just do what they're told, generally by the "right" who are always trying to legislate how we live our lives. Hence we are here, in beautiful wonderful Argentina with all its flaws and freedoms.

Jackson

04-12-11, 16:47

Meanwhile prisons are exploding at an unprecedented rate in the USA because the social fabric is unraveling. The "right" wants to build more prisons and privatize the "business" but warehousing never works and is a terrible burden to the taxpayers.LOL! The reason that our "prisons are exploding" is our idiotic drug laws, not because "the social fabric is unraveling".

I find it interesting that there are so many of the "right" mindset here. Who pressures the local PD to spend taxpayer money raiding the local AMP while gangs are gaining more control of the streets? I know a lot of guys in LE, and they just do what they're told, generally by the "right" who are always trying to legislate how we live our lives. Hence we are here, in beautiful wonderful Argentina with all its flaws and freedoms.HappyGoLucky,

Look around you. I don't believe you're going to find too many of those kinds of guys on this website.

I know that its standard leftist strategy to demagogue everyone who doesn't subscribe their unique brand of logic, and specifically to lump persons with different perspectives together and malign them as a group. However, it is completely inaccurate, not to mention manifestly unfair, for you to brand everyone who is fiscally conservative as right wing bible thumpers.

Kind of reminds me of the anti-commercial sex bigots who always try to aggregate consensual prostitution with slavery and child abuse.

==============================================

For the record, I am NOT a Republican, and I am NOT a conservative.

- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
- I am for health INSURANCE reform.
- I am for health JUSTICE reform.

I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.

Wild Walleye

04-12-11, 18:10

This is sort of what I meant by a "True believer." In concept, I agree, it just isn't working in the EEUU. Witness the Wall Street f-up.The Wall St. F-up didn't just come out of nowhere and appear on the corner of Wall & Broad one morning.

Meanwhile prisons are exploding at an unprecedented rate in the USA because the social fabric is unraveling. The "right" wants to build more prisons and privatize the "business" but warehousing never works and is a terrible burden to the taxpayers.Only a true believer (one that believes in bull shit) would make such a statement.

This is another misguided liberal rant. "Boo hoo, look at all the people in jail. It's obvious that they shouldn't be there because the crime rate is so low"

Check out the statistics over at the FBI. The incidence of violent crime (per 100k people) has dropped roughly 41% from 1990, a lovely time in the US when urban decay was in full swing, complemented by the crack cocaine epidemic. During that same period, the incidences of murder, rape and armed robbery have dropped 46.8, 30% and 48, respectively.

While both the nominal number of people incarcerated (not a good measure because it skews high because it doesn't account for population growth) and the real incarceration rate (adjusted for population growth) have gone up, those people weren't put there by the Tea Party, Glenn Beck or Wall Street. They were put there by their own criminal behavior. The fact that they were incarcerated and thus prevented from committing more crimes against innocent people resulted in lower crime rates. If you read those statistics the same way I do, it looks like the authorities have put an awful lot of the bad guys in jail, where most of them belong.

So exactly what is it that is causing the unraveling? Do you prefer the days of lower incarceration rates and higher crime rates?

I find it interesting that there are so many of the "right" mindset here. Who pressures the local PD to spend taxpayer money raiding the local AMP while gangs are gaining more control of the streets? I know a lot of guys in LE, and they just do what they're told, generally by the "right" who are always trying to legislate how we live our lives. Hence we are here, in beautiful wonderful Argentina with all its flaws and freedoms.Look at who has been running most of America's cities over the last 30 years and tell me how it is that the "right" is telling them to do anything. Politicians looking to curry favor with voters often crack down on things like prostitution purely for their own political gain.

Further, you should look at who is really trying to legislate and dictate every little part of your life. Who is saying what light bulbs you can use? Forcing you to use low-flow toilets? Driving little cars? Preventing you from sending your kid to school with a homemade lunch? Banning chocolate milk from school? Making happy meals illegal? Telling you what you can and can't do with your own property?

Like I said, there mustn't be too many reflective objects in your general vicinity.

Stan Da Man

04-12-11, 18:48

I find it interesting that there are so many of the "right" mindset here. I won't bother responding to your prisons argument. You've already been cut to shreds on that one.

The reason there are so many people from the "right" here is that reason generally wins out. There have been many, many people with a leftish perspective drop in now and again. They make their "points" and, generally, they are shown either to be wrong, fools, or both. Usually both. Then, most shuffle off, bleating like sheep.

Don't get me wrong, we have our village idiots who stick around no matter what: Esten, Moreon and a couple more. But, there are dozens of others from the left wing persuasion who have come and gone.

Looks like we've got another village idiot to me. Welcome aboard!

HappyGoLucky

04-12-11, 19:25

LOL! The reason that our "prisons are exploding" is our idiotic drug laws, not because "the social fabric is unraveling".That is certainly true, but not the only reason. Public education is at an all time low, and constantly under attack, i.e. losing funding.

HappyGoLucky,

Look around you. I don't believe you're going to find too many of those Kinds of guys on this website. Well, who wants to be called names? I don't mind debate; sometimes we learn something.

I know that its standard leftist strategy to demagogue everyone who doesn't subscribe their unique brand of logic, and specifically to lump persons with different perspectives together and malign them as a group. However, it is completely inaccurate, not to mention manifestly unfair, for you to brand everyone who is fiscally conservative as right wing bible thumpers. That was not my intent. My previous comments were in response to an assumption that the last election indicated a mandate for the Republican agenda. Clearly, the voters who elected Republicans had a variety of agendas, some of which were fiscal, but many of which relate to issues such as abortion, gay rights, immigration, etc. The ultra ultra rich have coopted votes by pretending to care about the "Bible thumper" issues, and are quick to enact laws which further restrict our personal freedoms (tougher drug laws, etc.), to garner support. To do justice to your point, there is probably no one on this board (the upper elite 3% of the mega rich, or even the upper 10% for that matter). I am in fact "fiscally conservative" but I also believe in taking care of our social infrastructure, as opposed to funding wars for oil.

Kind of reminds me of the anti-commercial sex bigots who always try to aggregate consensual prostitution with slavery and child abuse. I'm with ya on that one!

==============================================

For the record, I am NOT A Republican, and I am NOT A conservative.

- I am against The death penalty.

- I am against any Government support of religious organizations.

- I am for The legalization of recreational drugs.

- I am for The legalization of commercial sex.

- I am for A woman's right to choose.

- I am for Comprehensive sex education.

- I am for A foreign guest worker program.

- I am for A universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S Income.

- I am for Health INSURANCE Reform.

- I am for Health JUSTICE Reform.

I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent. There's nothing here I disagree with.

HappyGoLucky

04-12-11, 23:15

The Wall St. F-up didn't just come out of nowhere and appear on the corner of Wall & Broad one morning.True, it happend because of relaxed government regulation. No one disputes that.

Only a true believer (one that believes in bull shit) would make such a statement.

This is another misguided liberal rant."Boo hoo, look at all the people in jail. It's obvious that they shouldn't be there because the crime rate is so low" Well, I never said that. Although the sentencing structures are pretty messed up in a lot of states.

Check out the statistics over at the FBI. The incidence of violent crime (per 100k people) has dropped roughly 41% from 1990, a lovely time in the US when urban decay was in full swing, complemented by the crack cocaine epidemic. During that same period, the incidences of murder, rape and armed robbery have dropped 46. 8,30% and 48, respectively.

While both the nominal number of people incarcerated (not a good measure because it skews high because it doesn't account for population growth) and the real incarceration rate (adjusted for population growth) have gone up, those people weren't put there by the Tea Party, Glenn Beck or Wall Street. They were put there by their own criminal behavior. The fact that they were incarcerated and thus prevented from committing more crimes against innocent people resulted in lower crime rates. If you read those statistics the same way I do, it looks like the authorities have put an awful lot of the bad guys in jail, where most of them belong. Yes, I read the stats as you do. No argument there.

So exactly what is it that is causing the unraveling? Do you prefer the days of lower incarceration rates and higher crime rates?Of course not. The deterioration of the nuclear family and public education are large contributing factors, as is the lack of viable after-school programs and work-study opportunities.

Look at who has been running most of America's cities over the last 30 years and tell me how it is that the "right" is telling them to do anything. Politicians looking to curry favor with voters often crack down on things like prostitution purely for their own political gain.Yes, I couldn't agree more.

Further, you should look at who is really trying to legislate and dictate every little part of your life. Who is saying what light bulbs you can use? Forcing you to use low-flow toilets? Driving little cars? Preventing you from sending your kid to school with a homemade lunch? Banning chocolate milk from school? Making happy meals illegal? Telling you what you can and can't do with your own property?Yep, both sides have ideas about how we should live our lives, no question. On some of the issues you mention, members of both sides even agree. Regarding "little cars", there is technology today that can get 300 miles on one electric charge, and hybrid diesels that run on natural gas that don't pollute and cost half as much to operate as petroleum vehicles. So why don't the auto / oil industries make them widely available in the USA at an affordable price?

Like I said, there mustn't be too many reflective objects in your general vicinity.

HappyGoLucky

04-12-11, 23:21

I won't bother responding to your prisons argument. You've already been cut to shreds on that one.

The reason there are so many people from the "right" here is that reason generally wins out. There have been many, many people with a leftish perspective drop in now and again. They make their "points" and, generally, they are shown either to be wrong, fools, or both. Usually both. Then, most shuffle off, bleating like sheep.

Don't get me wrong, we have our village idiots who stick around no matter what: Esten, Moreon and a couple more. But, there are dozens of others from the left wing persuasion who have come and gone.

Looks like we've got another village idiot to me. Welcome aboard! I'm tempted to stay Stan, but I think I'll just bleat along.

Esten

04-12-11, 23:33

Within his first 30 days in office, Obama borrowed more money than the combined TOTAL cost of liberating Iraq and Afghanistan, AND the Hurricane Katrina cleanup.Jackson,

The Stimulus (ARRA) was a combination of spending and tax benefits. The cost of the tax benefits is $260B to date. But according to conservatives, tax breaks aren't spending, right?

Actual spending under ARRA is $374B to date. Like the Iraq war, it wasn't spent all at once.

The cost of the Iraq war is pegged around $700B for direct spending alone. Adding indirect costs, estimates get closer to $1T or higher.

Now if you want to include the ARRA tax breaks on the Democrat side, to be fair you need to also add the Bush tax breaks on the Republican side.

Whether you look at direct spending alone, or total impact on deficits, Republicans have contributed far more to federal debt than Democrats.

Esten

04-13-11, 00:30

It seems that the super rich are getting even a greater share of the country's wealth. So far, Reagan style tricklenomics has failed to provide a fair and stable social structure. These quotes are from the Boston Globe:Good article. I read a similar one yesterday. The media needs to spend more time covering this stuff. Of course Reagan tricklenomics failed, even George H. W. Bush called it voodoo economics. The remarkable thing is that Republicans still peddle this false hope, and millions of people lap it up.

Take a look at this interesting chart:

http://blogs.courant.com/susan_campbell/balance2.jpg

While unemployment remains at close to 9 percent, the average salaries for CEOs at 200 of America's largest companies rose 20 percent, to $11. 7 million, according to the New York Times. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that CEO bonuses at 50 major corporations rose 30. 5 percent last year, the biggest gain in three years, to an average bonus of $2. 5 million. This should warm the hearts of our capitalism-loving collegues.

The share for the top 10 percent was back up to 45. 6 percent in 2008. For the top 1 percent, it was back up to 18. 3 percent in 2007.Truly astounding.

If we had just ended the Bush-era tax cuts and returned to the Clinton years — which were booming ones for the economy — the Treasury said it would get back $3. 7 trillion over the next decade.That is the smartest thing we can do. With an additional surtax on capital gains for incomes over 200K.

Meanwhile, the US Census last year said the rich-poor income gap reached record levels, nearly doubling gaps of the late 1960s. According to Republicans, this trend is OK, as long as our poor are less poor than in other countries.

PS. HappyGoLucky you said in another post:

There's nothing here I disagree with.You really agree with Jackson's universal flat tax? I encourage you to revisit that one, and be highly suspicious. A flat tax would likely further widen rich-poor gaps, and potentially be a huge giveaway to the rich.

Esten

04-13-11, 01:09

This perfectly illustrates, yet again, the difference between socialists and capitalists. Esten is a socialist. He is akin to the closet homosexual who has not yet made peace with himself, so he'll issue public denials about what he likes and believes. But, all the evidence is points in a different direction.I laugh each time you bring this up Stan. Things are not so black and white. Developed countries have elements of both capitalism and socialism, including the US. Like most Americans, I believe in redistribution to address lopsided distribution. I've provided several examples of this before. Here's another one.

An NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll conducted Feb. 24-28 of 1, 000 adults listed 26 different ways to reduce the federal budget deficit.

The most popular: placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year (81 percent said that was acceptable) , eliminating spending on earmarks (78 percent) , eliminating funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says aren't necessary (76 percent) and eliminating tax credits for the oil and gas industries (74 percent).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41876558/ns/politics/

Stan. 81% of Americans are Socialists! I feel sorry for you, this must eat you up inside.

Member #4112

04-13-11, 10:15

Esten, according to your last post 81% of Americans think $1 million is "rich" now not $200K. Perhaps you should get a grip buddy because those lunk heads who fall in the $200K to $999K bunch are small business owners and if you bother to check it is small business that produces the most jobs, far more than "big" business.

Agreed on eliminating 'Ear Marks'. Perhaps you have not noticed but the new Republican Representatives have ALREADY done this, but not their DEMOCRAT counterparts who still cling to EARMARKS. Perhaps you guys need to get your house in order.

Agreed on unwanted weapon systems. Why are we buying weapons systems the military does not want, hey could it be politicians pushing it through? That would seem to be a no brainer, even for you.

Since I work in the Oil Patch, the elimination of tax credits for the oil and gas industries are OK if you understand the increase in operational cost originally offset by these credits will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for petroleum products. Can you say $8 to $10 a gallon gas. But this is probably just what Liberal Tree Huggers want. What they fail to understand is the accompanying unintended consequence of higher prices at the pump will push the price on all consumer goods up since they are all delivered by transport systems which depend on petroleum products.

So let's see what the 'score card' is for your poll, two tax hikes and two spending cuts. Of course one of the tax hikes will crash the economy with higher costs on petroleum products / consumer products and the other is Classic Class Warfare (Democrats should be proud since they have spoon fed this toxic idea to the public for 50+ years) , but at least the spending cuts make sense and have already been undertaken by REPUBLICANS (no Ear Marks and they have already cut the second engine program for the F35)!

Seems the general public is more in tune with the Tea Party than with the Democrat Party.

Esten, how about addressing Lyndon Johnson's Welfare Program, you know the entitlement that keeps growing and eating through more of the budget each year since 1964. Now remember Democrat Johnson promised us the Welfare program would eliminate proverty in American in a generation and yet we are now on the 3rd+ generation on welfare. The program has done nothing but breed dependency on the government while destroying peoples will to move up and out of poverty.

Wild Walleye

04-13-11, 14:09

Right before your very eyes you will see Esten the Magnificent speak completely out of his ass. Witness:

Jackson,

The Stimulus (ARRA) was a combination of spending and tax benefits. The cost of the tax benefits is $260B to date. Isn't it amazing folks? He just opens up that gap and out it comes!

Fact, the nominal cost of the scheme, when enacted was $787B. However, that was just an estimate of what the first round of spending in the initial years would cost and does not include the cost of all the 'stimulus' every year in the future into perpetuity or financial meltdown, which ever comes first. What's that you say? It's a one-time thing, right? Not exactly, you see, by design, the people who dreamed up, passed and enacted this atrocity did so in order to make it part of the base line spending every year going forward.

When asked: 'the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? . The true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2. 527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3. 27 trillion. '

That's just looking at the top 20. When you look at the whole program, growing at 10% pa, the present value of spending built into the base line budget (of this presumably, one-time stimulus) including just the next ten years, is over $12T, including more than $1T of additional expense of debt service, since every last dime of this is deficit spending. Further, the interest on the interest would be more than $100B. If prevailing treasury rates increase, so will the ultimate cost of this nation-destroying behavior.

But according to conservatives, tax breaks aren't spending, right?When you come from the perspective of a sane individual, when you take someone's money and later return some of it to them, of course subtracting out the costs associated with you handling it, it could never be considered spending. You would have to come from a perspective where all private assets are really government assets to consider reductions to the marginal tax rate to be spending. Oh, wait, that is your perspective.

Actual spending under ARRA is $374B to date.There he goes again folks! Look at that spew! Keep an eye on him, you don't want to miss the next one!

Like the Iraq war, it wasn't spent all at once.Esten has finally found something he likes about Bush. The Iraq war. Only because it is the only expense category remotely big enough to be noticed next to Obama's historic spending.

While the Iraq war has been going on for some time, future expenditures will only be incurred so long as we remain involved in the military conflict. Unlike the ARRA spending, Iraq War spending theoretically will go away, one day. Since it appears that Obama is dead set on continuing to prosecute the war, in an almost identical fashion to that of his predecessor, that day won't come soon.

The cost of the Iraq war is pegged around $700B for direct spending alone. Adding indirect costs, estimates get closer to $1T or higher. Just a drop in the bucket next to Obama's $12T. Maybe Libya will spiral out of control and he can ramp up costs there to help make Obama's global pay-off scheme look less gargantuan.

Now if you want to include the ARRA tax breaks on the Democrat side, to be fair you need to also add the Bush tax breaks on the Republican side.Only an idiot would consider allowing individuals to keep more of their own hard-earned cash to be a form of spending. Ooops, no offense."Do you get a free bowl of soup with that hat? It looks good on you, though."

Whether you look at direct spending alone, or total impact on deficits, Republicans have contributed far more to federal debt than Democrats.There it is ladies and gentlemen, the grand finale of Esten the Magnificent! I knew he could do it. Look at that doozie he just laid out there! Look at the steam coming off of that pile! An the smell! A round of applause everyone! He's terrific.

No need to let facts get in your way, you never have before. However, your beloved temporary, permanent stimulus spending (also known as the ultimate slush fund for Democrat pet causes and pay offs) alone, far out strips the aggregate debt accumulated by this nation, at any point throughout its history, prior to the 111th Congress. The fact that it is 100% deficit spending, as is all of the interest that will become due on this deficit spending, places the Democrats at the very top of the heap of profligate spenders.

I am certain that you will recall the overwhelming bipartisan support that ARRA had: "No Republicans in the House and only three Republican Senators voted for the bill. The bill was signed into law on February 17 by President Barack Obama"

A couple parting thoughts to put things into perspective:
- total US tax receipts for 2010 were $2.2T or roughly 16% of GDP (around $14T)
- US National Debt is about $14T (Esten, that is about 7 times what we bring in)
- 2011 budget, just agreed to, runs another $1.6T in debt
- There are no CBO projections showing any future years in which government revenues equal or surpass government expenditures, let alone reduce the deficit.
- Without annual surpluses, there can be no reduction of the national debt

If you could confiscate 100% of total US household income, every year, you still couldn't eliminate the deficit within a reasonable time frame.

Esten

04-14-11, 01:00

A new low, and this one's a doozy.

Fact, the nominal cost of the scheme, when enacted was $787B. However, that was just an estimate of what the first round of spending in the initial years would cost and does not include the cost of all the 'stimulus' every year in the future into perpetuity or financial meltdown, which ever comes first. What's that you say? It's a one-time thing, right? Not exactly, you see, by design, the people who dreamed up, passed and enacted this atrocity did so in order to make it part of the base line spending every year going forward.

When asked: 'the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the CBO find? . The true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2. 527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3. 27 trillion. '

That's just looking at the top 20. When you look at the whole program, growing at 10% pa, the present value of spending built into the base line budget (of this presumably, one-time stimulus) including just the next ten years, is over $12T, including more than $1T of additional expense of debt service, since every last dime of this is deficit spending. Further, the interest on the interest would be more than $100B. If prevailing treasury rates increase, so will the ultimate cost of this nation-destroying behavior. And were those ARRA provisions extended? Or are you just recycling a right-wing article from 2 years ago when Paul Ryan asked the CBO about hypothetical (non-existent) extensions?

Since we're relying on the CBO, do you know what their latest (Feb. 2011) estimate of ARRA's cost is? Here's some help:

www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12074/02-23-ARRA.pdf

"When ARRA was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019. CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to $821 billion."

$821 billion. Which as I previously noted is part spending and part tax benefits. A far cry from your $12T number.

Here's a number we can believe in, Walleye's credibility = ZERO

Member #4112

04-14-11, 11:33

Esten, according to the poll you cited 81% of Americans believe $1 Million is "Rich", maybe you should give your guy Obama a clue since he is still stuck with the $250K figure as "Rich".

I earn over $250K, own my own business, employ 22 accountants / CPAs / office staff, drive a 5 year old car and an 11 year old truck, live in a nice home but believe me I am damn sure not 'rich'. As one of those lunk head small business owners who would get caught in Obama's tax hike let me tell you what will happen.

I currently provide healthcare benefits for my employees, three weeks paid leave, paid continuing education allowance, and a 401 (k) which includes Safe Harbor contributions of 3% with an additional minimum of 3% and maximum of 9% in Profit Sharing depending on the profitability of the business year.

Well when Obama hits me with higher personal taxes here is what goes at a minimum: one week of paid leave, continuing education allowance and when ObamaCare kicks in probably healthcare as it appears to be cheaper to pay the fine than insure the employees but we still don't know for sure since HHS / IRS are still writing the rules.

As you can see we are back to the law of unintended consequences and if you think I am different you can believe this is already happening with other employers and will be exacerbated by a tax hike.

How about answering my question about Johnson's Entitlement program called Welfare.

Wild Walleye

04-14-11, 16:36

A new low, and this one's a doozy.

And were those ARRA provisions extended? They are part of the baseline of the budget Obama submitted. Therefore, they are part of the baseline in the eyes of all democrats in Washington. Why don't you take a class or two and learn how to read so that you aren't dependent upon MSNBC for all of your information.

Or are you just recycling a right-wing article from 2 years ago when Paul Ryan asked the CBO about hypothetical (non-existent) extensions?Considering that Obama has attempted to make them permanent through his proposed budget, I am afraid that I don't follow your attempt to dismiss the relevance of the issue as hypothetical.

Since we're relying on the CBO, do you know what their latest (Feb. 2011) estimate of ARRA's cost is? Here's some help:

www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12074/02-23-ARRA.pdf

"When ARRA was being considered, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that it would increase budget deficits by $787 billion between fiscal years 2009 and 2019. CBO now estimates that the total impact over the 2009–2019 period will amount to $821 billion." Cost of ARA to date, first two years is $862B, which is : 1) more than the original $787B. 2) an incomplete tally considering that some provisions of ARRA haven't even been spent.

$821 billion. Which as I previously noted is part spending and part tax benefits.Yeah, whatever, you can say it as often as you like. However, you will never make tax cuts into spending. Further, 'tax benefits' given to people who didn't pay the tax in the first place is nothing of the sort. Those are called transfer payments in reference of the transfer that occurs between the person who earned it to the person who did not.

A far cry from your $12T number.We'll see how much of ARRA becomes a permanent part of the baseline. I stand by my estimate as being much closer to the truth than your or the CBO's.

Here's a number we can believe in, Walleye's credibility = ZEROI've put out plenty of facts through my posts, you have yet to provide any factual refutation of any of them.

Here, see if you can factually refute the following:

I say that the sun rises in the west.

Stan Da Man

04-14-11, 23:00

Our Obfuscator in Chief was clearly channeling Esten last night. His most revealing line of the night, in criticizing Paul Ryan's Plan:

'There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. '

Spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts? Just how can the government possibly spend Anything through tax cuts?

This make sense, of course, only if you have a socialist perspective. According to Obama channeling Esten, everything really belongs to the government. So, by not taking it from "millionaires and billionaires" the government is really "spending" it.

By this perverted logic, Obama claims his proposed tax increases are really "savings."

And this is the guy liberals think is smart?

Member #4112

04-14-11, 23:36

According to a new Associated Press GfK Poll. 62% of Americans believe the answer to the deficient is cutting government spending / services while only 29% believe the answer is raising taxes.

Another interesting poll result was most whites believed their taxes were fain while most no-whites believed their taxes were unfair.

I am sure Moveon and Esten can find some reason this happened and I'll bet it has something to do with Bibles, Guns, Religion and white folks.

Another interesting figure is if the top evil 5% of the country, you know the evil rich, had 100% of their income taken in tax it would NOTeven pay for the deficit created by Obama's 2011 budget much less reduce the last two years of Obama's deficit spending.

IT'S THE SPENDING STUPID!

Esten

04-15-11, 01:43

More lies from the left
We'll see how much of ARRA becomes a permanent part of the baseline. I stand by my estimate as being much closer to the truth than your or the CBO's.

I've put out plenty of facts through my posts, you have yet to provide any factual refutation of any of them. According to Walleye:

Citing ARRA data from cbo.gov and recovery.gov is lying.

But making projections on hypothetical extensions is posting facts.

Walleye, it's been a pleasure exposing once again what a nutjob you are. And once again it is time for me to place you on ignore mode for awhile.

All the best,

Esten

Esten

04-15-11, 02:03

According to a new Associated Press GfK Poll. 62% of Americans believe the answer to the deficient is cutting government spending / services while only 29% believe the answer is raising taxes.

I am sure Moveon and Esten can find some reason this happened and I'll bet it has something to do with Bibles, Guns, Religion and white folks. The second I saw those numbers I knew it must be a poll that asks what the MAIN approach should be. I went and checked, and that is the case. The poll question was:

BUD3Z. In order to balance the federal budget, which should be the main focus of lawmakers?

And the choices were Increasing taxes, Cutting government services, Both equally, Neither, Don't know. You could only choose one answer.

Of course the polls have shown this preference for a long time. But what the polls have also shown consistently is that when you ask folks specifically about raising taxes on the wealthy, this also has majority support. So the polls show support for both spending cuts and tax increases on the wealthy, just more weighted on spending cuts.

This is exactly what Obama has proposed. A combination of spending cuts and tax increases, more weighted on the spending cuts.

Looks like Obama is very much in sync with Americans, certainly moreso than the one-sided GOP proposal of spending cuts alone.

Another interesting figure is if the top evil 5% of the country, you know the evil rich, had 100% of their income taken in tax it would even pay for the deficit created by Obama's 2011 budget much less reduce the last two years of Obama's deficit spending.We don't say the rich are evil, you do. And we agree spending needs to be cut, alongside increasing revenue.

Will get to your small business points later.

Wild Walleye

04-15-11, 02:06

According to Walleye:

Citing ARRA data from cbo. Gov and recovery. Gov is lying. Please don't make me explain for you what the CBO is, again.

But making projections on hypothetical extensions is posting facts.I am an American that can read and do arithmetic, the first entitles me to question anything and everything my govt does. The fact that I possess world-renowned financial analysis skills (that far exceed anyone in the employ of the CBO) doesn't hurt either.

Walleye, it's been a pleasure exposing once again what a nutjob you are.I don't recall exposing my nuts to you. However, I have been known to enjoy a little of the grape every now and then so, it is possible. Did you notice how much bigger righty is as compared to lefty? I think it's cause righty is so much more virile.

And once again it is time for me to place you on ignore mode for awhile.I think it was it Sun Tzu that said "When defeat is imminent, run like a pussy."

WorldTravel69

04-15-11, 04:56

Boring?

Fox News Sucks.

No Pussy.

Member #4112

04-15-11, 10:54

Esten, nice move with the "raise the taxes on the Rich" pitch from your poll.

Obama's recent speech pegged "Rich" as anyone making more than $250K while your own poll showed the vast majority of Americans believe "Rich" begins at $1 Million, which sets up my next point nicely.

Polls ask the general question 'Would you favor raising the taxes on the rich? ', but fail to designate what income level constitutes 'Rich', which rigs the poll from the outset, see the statement above on your cited poll.

I'm going to search for a more honest poll with these perimeters and see what the results are, but I can bet you now it won't be Obama's $250K.

Nice try though, I will give you that, but totally intellectually dishonest!

The polls clearly show reduction of government spending and services are at the top of the list to reduce the deficit.

Did you happen to see the movie "Best Little Wh*re House in Texas"? Your little faint with the "Rich" reminded me of the Governor's Dance. "Do a Little Side Step" in which every time the governor is asked a question after a long, rambling, almost unintelligible statement the only conclusion reached by those hearing the governor's response was 'it was a possible maybe'! That is you Esten to a "T"

By the way Texas is addressing its deficit and closing the gap with SPEMDING CUTS and NOT RAISING TAXES, we have to live within our means. Texas also does not have a state income tax!

By the way, still waiting on your response to;

1. Johnson's Entitlement Program called Welfare

2. Why a majority of whites believed their taxes were fair and a majority of non-whites believed their taxes were unfair.

Wild Walleye

04-15-11, 13:05

It seems to me, that Bill Clinton, back in 1993 defined the 'Rich" as those making more than $250, 000. You'll recall that was his millionaire's tax. That is if you made $250, 000, Bill Clinton and the Democrats thought you were a millionaire and were rich and therefore you had to pay more in taxes so that they could spend more.

Now, eighteen years later, BHO is trotting out the same dead horse. Only it is worse this time and more deceitful because he is using the nominal figure that Clinton arbitrarily chose way back when, and is taking advantage of the fact that most Americans don't understand what inflation has done to the value of their dollars. $250, 000 today doesn't buy what it used to. In fact, It takes $380K today to purchase the same amount as $250K did back in 1993. Further, $250K today is equivalent to about $165K in 1993. Therefore, Obama's definition of "Rich" is 34% lower than Clinton's. I thought Clinton's definition was supposed to protect middle class (democrat terminology) Americans from the soaking intended for just the "rich." How did all the people making between $250K and $380K become rich in Obama's world, while not even reaching the measurement set by Bill Clinton in 1993?

Jackson

04-15-11, 14:19

Member #4112

04-15-11, 17:08

Jackson, while the strict definition of a Millionaire is any person who amasses assets worth a million or more of a specific monetary unit, I don't think that is truly applicable in this case. I can also assure you when the polls are asking folks about rasing the taxes on Millionaires the folks answering the question are thinking in annual income and not total asset worth.

To be a millionaire in Argentina would not mean a whole lot, hell I would be willing to bet you are millionaire using Argentine Pesos.

But since we are talking about taxing current income, I like the earning a million + per year option. Just because an individual has amassed a million in assets over a life time does not mean he / she needs to get screwed by the government on his annual income. Let me give you some excellent examples of this, family farms and family businesses.

Are these people really 'millionaires' when the bulk of the assets are neither liquid and nor easily converted? While the total of all assets maybe greater than a million (dollars since we are talking about the US) most of these folks are lucky to make 1/10th of that in income each year. This was one of the reasons the death tax limits were raised, to keep the person's inheriting the family farms and businesses from having to sell off the assets to settle the bill with the IRS and keep a viable business in business instead of killing it off for taxes.

Also asset value does not take into account the affects of appreciation or inflation. What was $500K in 2000 is well over that in 2011, see my point? Since others have brought up Clinton and his assumption $250K was Rich in 1995 please consider this: $250K in 1995 when adjusted for inflation and the decrease in the buying power of the dollar would be equal to about $380K in todays dollars, a 52% increase since 1995.

Regarding the deficit, there is no way we can tax our way out of this mess. We got here due to fettered government spending and reducing that spending is the only way we are going to get out.

Wild Walleye

04-15-11, 21:09

You guys are stepping all over these definitions.

A "millionaire" as someone who has a net worth of more than a million dollars, not an individual with an annual income in excess of a million dollars.

The liberal assumption (not entirely without merit) is that an individual with an income in excess of $250, 000 per year most likely has a net worth in excess of one million dollars, and thus they are a millionaire.

Thanks,

JacksonJax:

I know what a millionaire is. Someone with a net worth between $1million and $999, 999, 999 (more would be a billionaire).

Bill Clinton declared that he would only tax millionaires. As it turns out, he then increased income taxes for those making $250K or more (we'll leave out the other regressive taxes that he put on everyone). The hurdle was one year's income not net worth. Therefore, if you earned $250k, you were subject to the millionaire's tax. This was acceptable to the liberal elites not because the assumption that those affected had amassed a million or more in net worth but that the number of people earning more than $250k per year was much smaller than the number of people who earn less than $250k per year. Therefore they could use this as fodder in their hopes to fuel class warfare.

Esten

04-16-11, 02:33

Esten, nice move with the "raise the taxes on the Rich" pitch from your poll.

Obama's recent speech pegged "Rich" as anyone making more than $250K while your own poll showed the vast majority of Americans believe "Rich" begins at $1 Million, which sets up my next point nicely.
Esten, according to your last post 81% of Americans think $1 million is "rich" now not $200K. Perhaps you should get a grip buddy because those lunk heads who fall in the $200K to $999K bunch are small business owners and if you bother to check it is small business that produces the most jobs, far more than "big" business.
Esten, according to the poll you cited 81% of Americans believe $1 Million is "Rich", maybe you should give your guy Obama a clue since he is still stuck with the $250K figure as "Rich".Doppelganger,

3 times you have repeated this claim that my poll shows that Americans define "rich" as $1 Million. But the poll I posted simply stated that 81% agreed with "placing a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year".

The poll question does not ask what Americans consider rich, in fact the word "rich" isn't even mentioned. It also does not tell us what level of support a surtax would have for incomes < $1 million.

You make stuff up, and then accuse me of being intellectually dishonest?

Get real man.

Rev BS

04-16-11, 04:09

There are millionaires, and there are multi-millionaires. And then, there is me, a millionaire in my dreams.

Member #4112

04-16-11, 12:27

Esten

04-19-11, 01:13

Esten, you are an avowed redistribution guy and believe the “rich” have too much and it needs to be taken from them and spread around to the “less fortunate”. As I recall most of your posts support Obama's belief $250K in annual income as “rich”, an idea he resurrected from Clinton circa 1995, see the previous post regarding purchasing power of $250k from 1995 to 2010.There are varying degrees of "rich" and everyone has their own definition. Why get hung up on the definition? The point is some people can afford to pay more taxes, and some people can afford to pay a lot more taxes. I don't support taxation for its own sake. I support it when it can address a valid purpose - such as to reduce poverty, or make housing more affordable, or fund college scholarships, or build infrastructure, or balance budgets and pay off debt, etc.

Now try to follow the train of thought here, since you are always harping on raising the taxes on the “rich” which is why you posted the poll results indicating a majority of Americans support raising taxes on individuals earning more than $1millon in annual income, the logical conclusion one could draw from your posting the poll was Americans believe $1Millon in annual income is “rich” which would tend to refute you $250k idea. Now that was not too difficult was it? Its called connect the dots.It's fair to say Americans likely consider $1 Million rich. But that says nothing about whether Americans also consider 750K rich, or 500K rich, or 250K rich, etc. The poll didn't ask what was the threshold for "rich". Get it?

I never said before whether I personally think 250K income is rich. Here is my opinion:
100K - well off
250K - very well off
500K - rich
1M - very rich

Something like that. And I also think all these groups can and should pay more taxes. I do well, and I could easily afford another 1-2% in taxes. Those 250K+ could probably afford another 3-4% in taxes. Those 500K+ could probably afford another 5-6% in taxes. And maybe a little more for millionaires. So perhaps a top tax bracket of 45%. And you've got to tax capital gains at those rates too (at least for higher incomes). Rich folks paying 15% on capital gains just ain't right.

By the way that $250k in annual income figure is for a couple filing a joint return. Got any nifty polls showing a majority of Americans believe that is “rich”. Go do the math on what it costs to send kids to a good college today and you will find out just how little $250K a year will get you. Somehow I don't think the wealthiest 2% are struggling.

When the top 25% of tax payers are paying 86% of the taxes but you still don’t consider that enough social engineering and want to take more. Now I consider that a bit lopsided.The taxes may appear lopsided because the INCOME IS LOPSIDED.

Still not answering the whites belived their taxes were generally fair but non-whites generally believed their taxer were unfair question or the Johnson's Welfare question I notice.Maybe later, I'm more interested in discussing how you feel you shouldn't have to pay more taxes. But a quick comment, I gather your point here is that tax revenue isn't spent wisely - it is "handed out" to people who are lazy or otherwise don't need or deserve it. If so, then make your case. How much money is the federal government spending to help people that don't need or deserve it? Data please.

Esten

04-19-11, 01:31

I earn over $250K, own my own business, employ 22 accountants / CPAs / office staff, drive a 5 year old car and an 11 year old truck, live in a nice home but believe me I am damn sure not 'rich'.Doppelganger is a member of the "Top 2%", and his argument for not raising his taxes is as follows.

He wants the definition of "rich" to be $1 Million. And then, only the "rich" should have their taxes increased.

Clever huh?

Member #4112

04-19-11, 10:41

Since when is $250K in the top 2% ?

Now you consider $500K in annual income "rich"

If tax payments are lopsided because income distribution is lopsided isn't this what you want to correct all the "earnings injustice" or is it you want more? You want more, I know.

I guess you are back to the "social compact" which requires the individual to surrender all or most of his rights to the state for safety and welfare - my friend it's called socialism and it always fails.

I guess the next thing I will hear from you is "Mother Earth" should be afforded the same civil rights as a natural person, you and Evo Morales must be having coca together every morning.

Still not answering the questions regarding race and taxes nor about Welfare.

If you want a waste of money by the federal government, EPA, IRS, Welfare, the list goes on.

Wild Walleye

04-19-11, 17:34

From the IRS:

The top 1% of taxpayers pay 38% of all income tax collected.

The top 5% of taxpayers pay 58. 7% of all income tax collected.

The top 10% of taxpayers pay 69. 9% of all income tax collected.

The top 25% of taxpayers pay 86% of all income tax collected.

The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 2% of all income tax collected.

In my opinion, federal government activity and spending should be as follows:

-The federal government should do only those things that the private sector can't (national defense, etc) , which includes supplementing private, charities so that as a just and moral society we can take care of those who truly can't fend for themselves (whether temporary or long-term). That's it.

I estimate that this should be about $1. 7T for FY 2011 (before we really start cutting and winding down long-term programs). That would leave an annual surplus of $500B which could be used to pay down the national debt. If we did that for 15 years in a row (and interest rates remained steady) we could pay off the national debt. So, if we cut the budget in half, we could payoff our accumulated debt in 15 years. That is f*cking staggering.

If we go with liberal tax & spend policies, we can continue spending and just tax the rich some more. In 2010, the IRS collected $899B in income taxes (contributed by only slightly more than 50% of Americans). If we use a rough thumbnail of estimate of 30% for the average federal tax, actually paid by taxpayers, that means that the productive half of America made approximately $3T in 2010. If we doubled the marginal tax rate to 60, the federal tax coffers would only increase by $899B or a little more than half of the annual deficit. Therefore, we are continuing to add to the national debt. If we took 100% of the income earned by productive Americans, we would theoretically increase the receipts by approximately $2T which would get us into a surplus of $300B, in fantasy land. Everyone would quit and become a ward of the state. Instead of 50 million people on food stamps it would be 300 million.

We also know that it is pure fantasy to think that Congress won't spend more next year. Every year federal spending grows faster than GDP and personal wealth. How will we ever catch the moving target?

The left is always shrieking about 'sustainability' when the put more regulation on businesses and unnecessarily drive up the cost of living and restrict our choice. Where is the left in pointing out that this simply isn't sustainable.

There are far too many instances where the government is doing something unnecessary. Every instance has a related cost.

Why is it 'fair' that any Americans pay for someone else's share of necessary federal spending let alone unnecessary federal spending?

Jackson

04-19-11, 19:59

It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes. There's your answer.

Stan Da Man

04-19-11, 21:39

It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes.
There's your answer.This fits perfectly with Esten's world view: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.". Karl Marx.

But, remember, Esten is not a communist, and he certainly is not a socialist. He can't be. If he accepted that label, it would mean that his whole world view has been a demonstrable failure.

So, we can call him a "redistributionist" or a "liberal" or a "taxocrat" or even a spade. But don't call him a socialist. It shatters his fragile self-image. And, do we really want to see Emperor Esten with no clothes?

Member #4112

04-19-11, 21:41

While Esten proposes the top 10% of income earners pay 100% of the taxes, the question is how much is 100%.

For liberals there is no limit to what government should provide therefore the amount needed pay that 100% from those top 10% of income earners outstrips their entire income so I guess Esten will have to expand that percentage.

As I pointed out in an earlier post if you took all the income of the "rich" in tax it would not even cover the addition to the deficit in Obama's 2011 budget much less cover the entire budget for 2011!

Esten reminds me of Capt."Red Legs" Terrel in the movie "The Outlaw Josey Wells", when Terrel declared "there aint no end to do'in right". For the liberal there is no end to what the government should provide.

Esten

04-20-11, 01:34

Predictable, one conservative posts something out of context, and his pals jump on with erroneous conclusions.

It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes.
There's your answer.You conveniently omitted my followup comment on 12-13-10:

My response to Jackson was focused on his question of what would be a fair proportion. I do not Advocate the top 10% paying all taxes. But not because it would be unfair. Not at all. They are already paying 70% of all taxes and still that only amounts to an 18. 71% rate. With a small rate hike, they could with little pain cover the other 30. That's fair because of the huge proportion of income wealth they already receive. Such a change would help reduce the extreme income inequality we have, but just a bit. The top 10% would still be earning far more than everyone else.

However there is something to be said for having some skin in the game. To Sysco's good point, people value something more when they have a stake in it. My proposal for what income taxes should be is along the lines of what I posted yesterday April 18. Not far off from the current system, but with incremental increases on those above 100K, which includes myself (broader than Obama's proposal). In fact I could be persuaded for increases on incomes <100K as well, but very slight.

Esten

04-20-11, 01:59

Doppel, see Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

2005 US Census Bureau data:
15.73% earn 100K or more (down to 6.24% in 2008)
1.50% earn 250K or more (2008 unavailable but probably lower %)

If you want a waste of money by the federal government, EPA, IRS, Welfare, the list goes on. Blah blah blah. This isn't even an argument, just complaining. Be specific on how much gets cut or scaled back, and how much money we save.

I currently provide healthcare benefits for my employees, three weeks paid leave, paid continuing education allowance, and a 401 (k) which includes Safe Harbor contributions of 3% with an additional minimum of 3% and maximum of 9% in Profit Sharing depending on the profitability of the business year.

Well when Obama hits me with higher personal taxes here is what goes at a minimum: one week of paid leave, continuing education allowance Let me get this straight. When your personal income taxes are raised a few percent, to preserve your wealth, you are going to shift the burden onto others, is that it?

Jackson

04-20-11, 02:16

Esten reminds me of Capt."Red Legs" Terrel in the movie "The Outlaw Josey Wells", when Terrel declared "there aint no end to do'in right". For the liberal there is no end to what the government should provide.What a great movie! More one liners than any other movie.

However, the title is "The Outlaw Josey Wales".

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten

04-20-11, 02:24

Good article on how much tax cheats cost you, me and America. According to the article, wealthy Americans "disproportionately cheat" on their taxes. I say we need a stronger IRS to chase down these criminals.

Tax evasion has cost the USA government $3 trillion over the past decade, Callahan says, citing IRS data."It is a major contributor to budget deficits and the accumulation of national debt since 2001."

Furthermore, every individual tax filer will have to pay an extra $2200 in 2010 tax to "subsidize" the tax cheats, according to Callahan.

In estimating the tax gap, the IRS found that the largest share of tax evasion—over 50 percent—was by individuals with business income," Callahan writes at OurFiscalSecurity. Org."A more detailed breakdown of losses in 2008 by the scholar John Slemrod and IRS analyst Andrew Johns found that the single biggest source of lost revenue was from proprietors of businesses who don't report the full amount of their income. Other big cheaters include professionals whose income comes through S corporations, partnerships, and real estate.

Full article:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/tax-cheats-cost-uncle-sam-3-trillion-cost-173224779.html

Jackson

04-20-11, 03:26

Predictable, one conservative posts something out of context, and his pals jump on with erroneous conclusions.

You conveniently omitted my followup comment on 12-13-10:

It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes.Esten,

I didn't post your statement out of context, it stands by itself, and...

I am NOT A Republican, and I am NOT A conservative.

- I am against the death penalty.
- I am against any government support of religious organizations.
- I am for the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am for the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am for a woman's right to choose.
- I am for comprehensive sex education.
- I am for a foreign guest worker program.
- I am for a universal flat tax on EVERYONE'S income.
- I am for health INSURANCE reform.
- I am for health JUSTICE reform.

I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

04-20-11, 11:00

Yes Esten, ogre that I am as my income diminishes I will reduce the BENEFITS I VOLUNARILY provide to my employees. They receive three weeks paid leave. 12 paid holidays, generous contributions to their 401 (k) and healthcare.

When I have employment openings they are filled quickly since I pay much better than my competitors in addition to the excellent benefits. Guess I'm not such an ogre after all. By the way, all my senior staff are in your defined 'well off' category.

Did I mention my state unemployment taxes tripled last year? I ate that one but there is a limit to how many cuts to my income I am willing to absorb. While we are talking about taxes, Federal income taxes are just part of the picture, there is employers matching Social Security & Medicare, state and federal unemployment tax, state sales tax, state property tax (no income tax in Texas) , state franchise tax and the list goes on. When you add them all up you have reduced your net income to about 50% or less of your gross!

By the way since it is my company, I founded it, I paid for it, all my assets are at risk in it and I will run it the way I see fit, which thank God I am permitted to do in this great country. I don't have to put up with the Esten's of the world telling me what to pay my employees, what to cut, what benefits to provide and what I should make when it's all said and done. Last time I checked, I have the American Dream. Seems you got a problem with that.

I f you feel motivated to build a company and give your profits away, please feel free but don't tell me how to run mine nor denigrate me for making a living.

Even Standard & Poors agrees we have a SPENDING problem! Get a grip and get real Esten!

Stan Da Man

04-20-11, 14:49

Even Standard & Poors agrees we have a SPENDING problem! Get a grip and get real Esten!In truth, S&P didn't say we have to cut spending problem to fix the problem. That would be too political for a ratings agency. They just said we need a solution. It is obvious the problem is spending, just as it was obvious in Greece and Portugal. But, the ratings agencies won't prescribe a cure; they just report that the patient is sick.

Nevertheless, the S&P shift to a negative stance is The elephant in the room. If there is a downgrade over the next couple of years, all hell will break loose. This is a much bigger deal than all the blather you hear about the debt ceiling. If we get a significant rise in the interest we have to pay on all the debt this administration has floated, which is what happens when the bond vigilantes ride in and the ratings agencies take action, then we are in serious shit.

Thanks to all the debt the Obama administration has larded on the public, there will be no easy fix for this. Through its misguided policies and prodigious spending, we have both a record deficit and a recovery that's going nowhere. Unfortunately, even voting this menace out of office won't fix things. The scales have been tilted for years to come. And, if interest rates rise significantly over the course of the next few year as most investors are betting, then even the Ryan and deficit commission plans won't be satisfactory.

It is against this backdrop that Obama's continued failure to show any semblance of leadership is particularly appalling. I understand he's between a rock and a hard place. His constituency are hard core tax and spend liberals who will not countenance a reduction in the dependency state. But, that's what leadership is: The ability to defy these nincompoops and make the right decisions. Clinton had it. Obama clearly does not. And, we'll all pay the price for it down the road.

Member #4112

04-20-11, 18:15

Stan you are on target as usual.

You are correct the S&P did not specifically state we had to cut spending but it's one of those "it's as plain as the nose on your face" sort of things. You are also correct in pointing out this is the first step in a possible increase in interest rates on our debt, which if it occurred would really put the country in a tail spin trying to just service the debt much less pay it down.

It is galling to listen to Obama talking about "cuts" and then he follows up with all the "investments", ie spending, he intends to do on everything under the sun. Even more disappointing was the failure of the Republicans to really cut spending in the 2011 budget deal. This is no time for 'compromise' it is a time for bold action and I doubt either party has the intestinal fortitude to meet the problem head on.

Liberal's just don't seem to understand this house of cards called entitlements could easily collapse and then people would starve for real. Liberals have watched the European countries curtail their social spending (which has caused plenty of problems in their 'nanny states') but they came to the realization they had to live within their means as there is no one left to pick up the tab.

One of the best plans I have heard coming out of Washington was not to raise the debt ceiling, prioritize spending so the debt is serviced, federal employees are paid, essential services are continued and start cutting the BS out of the remainder. EPA and its attempt to regulate 'global warming' would be a great place to start followed by a flat tax, no deductions and the near elimination of the IRS, followed by major cut backs in Health and Human Services –

Now Esten you can start your rave about how I want to kill Mother Earth and all her inhabitants

Stan Da Man

04-20-11, 22:34

I do agree with Esten about one thing: Tax cheats should be caught and punished. I could tell some stories from personal experience that would make you sick. They vividly demonstrate how absolutely, utterly incompetent the IRS is. And, no, the stories do not involve me not paying taxes.

But, the stats Esten posted probably don't back up his point. The article states: ""In estimating the tax gap, the IRS found that the largest share of tax evasion—over 50 percent—was by individuals with business income,"

Later, the article states (with no support) that "In sum, wealthy Americans "disproportionately cheat" on their taxes, he says."[They] have many ways to defer income, hide it in trusts and all sorts of fancy things the rest of us can't do.""

Lost in the article is whether those with "business income" are automatically deemed "wealthy" or what definition of "wealthy" they're using. It's typical trash journalism.

It states that tax cheats cost "everyone" $2, 200 in 2010. In reality, if this was a valid number, it means that tax cheats cost the 50% of folks who actually pay taxes $2, 200, and that the rich disproportionately pay for this, since they pay far, far more in taxes.

But, as I said, the article is bunk journalism. It's based on a Callahan survey. The underlying survey, which is linked in the article, notes that the IRS hasn't updated this data since 2005, when it used 2001 data. Callahan just assumes that the data on tax cheats is likely about the same as it was 10 years ago. Then, the Yahoo article Esten links relies on this unsupported assumption for its statement that tax cheats cost everyone $2, 200 in 2010. Pure crap journalism.

And, the article arrives at exactly the wrong conclusion, as you might expect when the author is that sloppy. The author infers that it makes sense to spend more money on the boobs at the IRS, so they can go after the tax cheats they heretofore have failed to catch.

Huh? The better solution by far is not to unleash the IRS on tax cheats. As demonstrated above, the IRS thinks it has known who the tax cheats are since 2001, but they are too incompetent, slow, inept and foolish to find them.

The better solution is to remove 90% of the IRS's budget and move to a simplified, flat tax structure. Lost in all of the above discussion is this issue: How much does it cost us to have the incompetent, bureaucratic, inept IRS and the overly complex tax structure in the first place?

Here's the answer: About $430 billion a year. That doesn't even include the tax cheats Esten is talking about.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704116404576262761032853554.html

Move to a flat tax system. Streamline the IRS so that if focuses only on ensuring that everyone files a tax return. Voila! You could seriously increase GDP, and thus taxes, while making everyone's life easier and reducing some of the bloat in our bureaucracy.

Esten

04-21-11, 01:07

Kill Mother Earth and all her inhabitants? Seriously Doppel, where do you get this stuff.

As far as the American Dream, remember it was under Clinton's higher tax rates that record numbers of Americans prospered. And that following conservative-inspired tax cuts and free-market deregulation, that dream became a nightmare for millions of Americans. How soon we forget.

You may be surprised to hear that Dems / Liberals think small businesses are extremely important. If we have an issue with business it is usually Big Business / Wall Street.

Your hard work and success and concern for your employees is to be commended. You are correct it isn't my business how you run your business.

However, what stands out is that you appear to have a sense of entitlement. You've built a business and created jobs, paid good wages and benefits, and become very well off in the process. All fine and good. But now you say, that's enough. You shouldn't be expected to pay more taxes, or take a hit to your wealth, because of all you've already done. In other words, you're special. With our current economic situation, record debt and unemployment, where higher revenue and spending cuts can both address our issues, you shouldn't be asked to chip in because you've done enough. Successful businessmen should be exempted from the shared sacrifice.

Congratulations Doppel, here's your Free Pass. You've earned it.