2012 Elections in the USA [Archive] - Page 6

Rev BS

09-07-12, 20:26

Did you check out the new unemployment numbers? Unemployment dropped from 8. 3% to 8. 1% as 96, 000 Jobs were created in August.

The job creation number is not what caused the unemployment rate to drop.

The fact that more than 368, 000 people dropped out of the work force is what accounted for the drop in the rate.

That means while 96, 000 found a job 368, 000 dropped out of the workforce I. E. The labor department no long counts them.

The U-6 figure, which really reflects the true number of unemployed, is over 14%

Our workforce participation rate is the lowest it has been in 32 YEARS!

Wow, what a great job Obama / Biden have done and they are asking for 4 more years after this performance?With all due respect, I think there are quite a few factors that you are not willing to include in your post. Amongst them, service jobs are the first to go & last to come back. Our manufacturing jobs were already long gone before the meltdown. If you lost your job and you are of a certain age, iti is hard to be hired back to the same level or profession. Many enterprises found out that they can actually be more lean and still be effective. Most companies are healthy but not hiring due to low demand for their goods and services. Many technical / scientific jobs cannot be filled by Americans due to educational deficiences. And last, your expectation that the US can bounce back in 4 years from near self.immolation is not realistic or fair. We are doing so much better than the UK and Europe in the same time frame.

My neice who has 2 Master's degree was laid off twice by LA Unified District because of low position in the totem pole. What did she do? She found in a job in Kuala Lumpur teaching pre-school, paying $60+ housing / car allowances. All tax free. Being single, she is jetting around on long weekends and blowing her money. Malaysia probably has the most public holidays in the world. In today's global economy, you should be trained and be willing to work anywhere in the world. Big demand for English teachers in Bangkok. There are all kinds of qualified & unqualified english teachers here, some with Scottish and South African accents that you cannot understand 50& of what they say. My friend's son turned his English teaching job in Tokyo to being a sales representative for one of Napa's famous wineries.

So whether we are for Romney or Obama, I for one will fully support the winner, at least until their policies are fully clarified.

Matt Psyche

09-07-12, 21:59

First, I am not sure how these items are related to the issue proffered by my post (President has no power over state and local govts and the legislative and judicial branches in the Federal govt.) Secondly, some of these agendas are contradictory. For instance, lowering taxes would "increase" the deficit / debt. Border patrol / deporting aliens will "increase" regulations and the size of govt.

Okay, let me spell it out for you (and everybody else) one more time:

1. Lower taxes.

2. Reduce regulations.

3. Reduce the size of government (I. E. Fire some government employees)

4. Reform government entitlements (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)

5. Reform Social Security (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)

6. Pass a budget!

7. Reduce the budget deficit, develop a plausible plan to bring it to zero.

8. Overturn Obamacare.

9. Secure our borders (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures)

10. Deport illegal aliens (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures)

11. Rein in or disband government employee unions (government employees are sufficiently protected by Civil Service protections)

12. Get government out of the fucking way!

Remember,"mandatory spending" is only mandatory if we don't change the program, which is within our power if we had a real leader.

Thanks,

Jackson.

"Real leaders don't follow polls, real leaders change polls."

Gov. Chris Christie

Jackson

09-08-12, 04:18

First, I am not sure how these items are related to the issue proffered by my post (President has no power over state and local govts and the legislative and judicial branches in the Federal govt.)Your questions was how can the president create jobs.

Secondly, some of these agendas are contradictory. For instance, lowering taxes would "increase" the deficit / debt.Not true. Historically, lowering taxes increases business activity and results in higher tax revenues.

Border patrol / deporting aliens will "increase" regulations and the size of govt.Enforcing existing regulations is not an "increase" in regulations.

WorldTravel69

09-08-12, 04:29

Read My Additional Quotes`to his Uneducated Remarks.

Okay, let me spell it out for you (and everybody else) one more time:

1. Lower taxes.

For the Rich.

To Do That, Take $2000 of my Middle Income Money. Fuck You.

2. Reduce regulations. Give The Banks more money, are you that dumb? they stoled enough From You and Me already! They Fucked You and Me Once, Why Again"

3. Reduce the size of government (I. E. Fire some government employees).
He Has done that by the Thousands of Jobs. What Reports are listened Too and Not Reading? Oh Yes, I Know KFOX the Republican Miss-information Station.
How about the Congress that Gets Free Health Care and Full Wage Retirement after they retire, or their term Ends. Put them on Medicare and see What Happens to Medicare, No Problems?
How about cutting the do Nothing Congress's pay, as you say, No Work No Pay!

The Most Listened to Station about the Political Conventions the most watched was MSNBC.
That is why you were stuck with KFOX, the Republican station.
I Know You Can Not Get Our American Channels In South America, where some You Expat's Live.
That is why Jackson is missing what is happening to His Life.

4. Reform government entitlements (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)
Your are Right Reduced Benefits to the Rich, he did not say what those where. "Standard Oil get $5 billion a Year."

5. Reform Social Security (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income).
Meaning when your Mother's Vouchers run out Romney or Paul Plan they will not pay for them, they will pay for only their Mothers Needs. It Also Means that ours Troops in Need Will Be Fucked

I hope your Mother is not alive to say what will to Happen to Her, after You can not afford to pay for her under these Rich Man goals to get more money for themselves, and Not You.
Jackson, As I said You to Travel More and See the World.

6. Pass a budget!

Their [his] Budget will not work Mathematically.

See my previous post. Not Mine, but the ones that can Count.

7. Reduce the budget deficit, develop a plausible plan to bring it to zero.

8. Overturn "Health Care For All in the USA" aka Obamacare.

[b]But of Course Jackson does Not Care, Because He Lives free Medical Care in Argentina, under their Health Care System"
The Countries that use It Do Not Want to Get Rid of It. I Used it with no problems in Argentina, I took a Number and Waited, just Everyone else Did, I waited less than a half hour.
Try it before you Judge!

9. Secure our borders (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures).
Uhm, gee do I know Someone Like That? Obama has deported more than More Than Bush!!!

10. Deport illegal aliens (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures.)
Obama has deported more than More Than Bush!!!

11. Rein in or disband government employee unions (government employees are sufficiently protected by Civil Service protections)
That has been Done by Assholes in the the Right To Work States.
That is why there are fewer Middle Class Working People.[/b}

12. Get government out of the fucking way!
[b]Obama has been laying off those Government jobs, that is why there are less Jobs.
The Government has not been creating Government Jobs.. As Your Lie ing Assholes Say they have been doing.[b]

[b]Jackson where the Fuck have you been? I know getting Laid in Argentina in more important to You, and not giving a shit about your brother Americans that need Your Support!

Jackson, You Do Not Live In The United States, Like most of us do; You Live In Argentina. So why do You Give a Shit? Expat Traitor!

Your are a groupie Republican, Send them some bucks. Try a million and see what their answer is? Better Yet, Send me the bucks and i will Vote for You!

Your are not in Romney's Class, as is the rest of you dummies Posting and think you are the privileged few.

"The Rich do not Need to Read this Thread to Get Laided."

What about The Argentine Government?

As I said you and Your Dumb Republicans will not understand that you are not Rich and they Do Not give a fuck about your $100. Donations.

They will not answer your emails, Try It. I did Get one from Governor Diane.

Remember, "mandatory spending" is only mandatory if we don't change the program, which is within our power if we had a real leader.

WTF do you Mean?
Romney says that are Enemy is Russia, is he stuck in the Cold War?
He wants a War on Iran and Syria?
We do not need more Sarah Palins, but It looks like We Might Be Stuck With Two More of Them.
What about bringing the Troops home in 2014, Romney says they should stay Longer. Can You Afford That?
I will file Bankruptcy under O'Romney.

WTF?
Will he send his sons and daughters to War for bucks, Fuck No. He has Money, but your sons and daughters will go, In Our case, Our Grand sons and Daughters will die for his $$.
Not that it is any of his concern.

JACKSON

Tell as What Secretes Romney Told You And Not The Rest of The Rest Of His REPUBLICAN PARTY PLAN?

On how he will do all his Bull Shit Plans?

"In my history I remember if you tell a lie enough times it becomes a Truth. I Think that was said by a Military Person in Hitler's Army (Killers army).

No Thanks.

Kill for Money is that Okay?

Not Killing really, but Starving, or steeling , slave labor would be close to their point.
Seems Like it is Okay with some of you groupies?

Thanks,

Jackson.
[quote/]

Your have shown how you really feel about the people that contribute to your Site.
I told you it was not good thing to to Do.
Only You to Want to Be the Groupies to the Rich, not Us Not So Rich People.
Like I said the Rich do Not Need this Site, unless they are dumb.

"Real leaders don't follow polls, real leaders change polls."

Gov. Chris ChristieAnd you Smoke too much shitty Weed.

Yes I had a Little wine, but I am smart enough to know that you all need some History Lessons. It makes me remember all the real hard times, But it these Assholes get back in control, I feel really sorry for your family, children or your parents."Learn From The Pass" as has been quoted in the Old History of the World. China was here a long time before us. They are the Oldest Country.

Jackson

09-08-12, 05:14

Jackson, You Do Not Live In The United States, Like most of us, You Live In Argentina. So why do You Give a Shit. Traitor!WT,

You have no justification for calling me a "Traitor".

You can post your apology at any time.

Thanks,

Jackson

WorldTravel69

09-08-12, 06:48

Do you agree with Romney selling American Jobs to Overseas Companies?

If you do not I stand Corrected?

But, along with selling the Companies, can go Manufacturing Secrets.
Which would be a Traitorous act against the United States.
Of which I think these bastards would do with the only thought would be about making Money, No Regards about people like you or me.
Like I said you are not in their Class.
They would have no remorse about doing it.
Are these are the People that you want to watch your pocket book?
Come On, think about it?
They have no plans for us not Mega Rich.

WT,

You have no justification for calling me a "Traitor"

You can post your apology at any time.

Thanks,

Jackson

Mpexy

09-08-12, 07:16

Technically his slander seems to cover all of us that lives abroad or had in past.

And from his latest reply below, seems like from that line in Princess Bride, I don't think traitor means what he thinks it means. Throws that out for a bizarre range of things, including it seems pure envy at people that has wealth.

WT,

You have no justification for calling me a "Traitor".

You can post your apology at any time.

Thanks,

Jackson

Matt Psyche

09-08-12, 13:46

The tax cut in 1981 and 2001 reduced the tax revenue while the tax increase in 1993 increased the revenue. Thanks.

Not true. Historically, lowering taxes increases business activity and results in higher tax revenues.

WorldTravel69

09-08-12, 15:21

Why are the Job Creators sitting on that much money and not Creating Jobs?

They had their taxes reduced to help them Create Jobs.

El Queso

09-09-12, 16:36

A lot of propaganda here about taxes and such without anything to really back it up.

WT, you accuse Jackson of not being specific in his list, and state two items that come right out of the Democratic propaganda. Without ANY specification of where you get your data.

As far as taxing the "rich" and those poor, poor people who are so under-trodden in the US, raising revenues and paying off the federal debt and so on, try looking at real data and forget the propaganda. There are enough good data out there to give a reasonably clear picture of reality, no matter how much which side wants to spin data or outright lie.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/

Just take a look at that, which, according to the author was compiled with sources both "right" and "left." Actual revenue compared to percentage of GDP has remained steady throughout the last 60 years, at around 18-20. It doesn't matter whether tax RATES are raised or lowered. Spending is causing the problem, not revenue. Investors WILL find ways to not get taxed on things like capital gains because they can control when to sell, as an example."Taxpayers adapt to higher rates" as one section calls it.

Currently, ON THE AVERAGE (I. E, specific cases are a different story under this idiotic tax code that "lawmakers" make to allow themselves and their buddies NO MATTER WHICH "side" they're on to benefit) , poor people pay either nothing or a significantly SMALLER portion of their taxes than "rich" people do. The "crossover point" where share of income earned vs share of federal taxes paid begins at around $100K earned per year. Is that rich? Anyone who thinks that is out of their minds. I've made that previously in my life (when the dollar was WORTH MORE) , and I can guarantee you I wasn't a rich investor hiding my money from people and grinding the poor beneath my boot heels.

Another link:

http://mercatus.org/publication/tax-rates-vs-tax-revenues

The point everyone seems to be missing is that two competing political philosophies in a country as diverse as the US is ridiculous.

The US federal government has become a tyrant. People scoff at people like Ron Paul because he has such "extreme" ideas, without even understanding the basis behind them. Does anyone who scoffs at him even understand why, for example, he wants to get rid of the Fed? Aside from those who simply believe the government must control every aspect of life, including the economy. With the number of regulations, requirements, taxes, etc, arising throughout all of the federal government, does no one question why things aren't improving?

WT, I wonder, truly, if you've ever bothered to look into anything beyond the Democratic power propaganda? You call Jackson uneducated (someone who I personally know to be actually quite the opposite) and yet you spout ideas right out of the Democratic play book without explaining them as if the words themselves justify their speaking and sense as "obvious".

This basic feeling from the left particularly, and from the right at times, that the government is any kind of a solution, and the growth of the government to take care of these things in particular, is quite naive in face of the reality that is there once you get away from the general idiocy that BOTH parties spout.

The US is a behemoth controlled by two parties who spout differences, fight amongst themselves and do everything they can to aggregate more power to themselves and the corporations and other public and private entities who support them. Both sides want the same thing and don't stray too far from the "center" (until presidents like Obama get in office after presidents like Bush [right or wrong. Too many wanted a "change without even understanding what is really going on]) The problem is, the "center" is a steadily increasing line on a graph of authoritarianism that has NOTHING to do with what's actually good for the population of the people.

Take one myth, for example, that both sides (the left way more than the right though) have professed to be against. Monopolies.

WT. You are so gung-ho for all the "do-gooders" on the left who ***** about this stuff, but answer me one thing. Show me a SINGLE monopoly that has existed in the US that has been successful. WITHOUT intervention from the government to support that monopoly? If there are no cases of this, tell me how these kinds of fears raised particularly among the left, and sometimes supported by the right, that have brought this overwhelming need for so much anti-monopoly legislation in the past and what good that has actually done. Except to break up competition for "approved" monopolies?

WT. You want my money in taxes taken at gunpoint, you want to put so many restrictions on how, even as a small entrepreneur, I can do my business, even penalize me for not paying my employees' medical expenses. All so you and people like you can give my money to people who have learned how to "game" the system (either intentionally, or as what they perceive as their own real need because that's how they've been raised) and you DARE to call anyone who is against such things a TRAITOR because, for example, I came to Buenos Aires for cheap labor because I couldn't make money in the States any more?

Please.

The US is too big. The wants and desires of 300+ million people in the US are way too diverse to be controlled on a federal level, at the level to which they are trying to be controlled, for the "greater good." You want to take from the rich and distribute to the poor because you feel those poor people can't do anything for themselves? Ok, that's a vast difference in belief from what I, and many others like me, believe. I am intellectually and emotionally opposed. 100, to that.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT except for the right people some 220 years ago gave to their descendants, while warning directly against what is happening today, which is a tyranny of the masses, not a government who is concerned about making the playing field level for all and in that allowing everyone to exceed according to their own abilities.

This is the heart of MY belief. The US is too big and too powerful. It must break up. Let the welfare state followers find their Utopia in their own country, let the free market people do the same, and so on. Let the original experiment the founders of the US originally intended continue by allowing competing systems, instead of continuing along the lines the true traitors to the original concept have followed in oppressing the people overall, without most even being aware of it.

If things keep going the way they have been for the last 100 years or so, just look at Argentina. You want to live like that? Maybe so. But I DON'T.

You want to encourage small entrepreneurs like me to create jobs in the US instead of taking them overseas? MAKE CONDITIONS MORE FAVORABLE TO BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT and provide opportunities to people instead of taking those opportunities from them. Don't expect people like me to "take one for the team" and invest stupidly because you say taking my money and making my life difficult is fair and I'm a traitor.

You want a president to CREATE JOBS? It's NOT something that the president can do. He's not a businessman (while in office at least. I'm talking about any president but Obama is a special case in that he has no idea how to run a business to begin with) he's a politician. HE (or she one day) will NEVER produce a single productive job by adding federal jobs and regulations and laws and taxes. Hell, he can't even create or remove existing laws. He's the PRESIDENT, not a congressman. The BEST he can do is lead, and veto stupidity that comes across his desk (in economic terms. He does have quite a bit of leeway with the military, but that's another discussion).

Get the hell out of the way and let business run itself, without creating so many damned social programs and forcing people into shapes they don't belong in, in the name of "helping" people who shouldn't need help to begin with if things were running right, and people will have more opportunities than they know what to do with. Let the government enforce a simple set of laws and quit trying to influence the economy (often for their own ends, or their buddies') and you won't have the need for such confusion and idiocy. But the politicians won't have so much power either.

I want Texas to secede from the Union. I would hope that such an event would cause other states to break away as well. Let the behemoth become a bunch of smaller, fairer (to their own population) countries.

We had a discussion about this the other night. Romney's words are much closer to my beliefs than Obama's. Obama is so far out there to me that I can't stomach the thought of voting for him. But Romney is a member of the same fraternity and the only thing I see with him is the possibility of slowing down the inevitable. Some think we need Republicans to fix things, but I don't think the problem can be fixed because it is inherent in how too many people (the masses who are voting themselves MORE and MORE) think nowadays.

So for me, if Romney is going to slow things down, and Bush and Obama (Obama more so) both put so many future debt obligations on the backs of the US population who pay for it (poor people and politicians sure as hell don't) , maybe I SHOULD vote for Obama to allow things to progress even faster if he wins.

El Queso

09-09-12, 16:37

Why are the Job Creators sitting on that much money and not Creating Jobs?

They had their taxes reduced to help them Create Jobs.I thought the president was supposed to create jobs? (heh.)

They are not doing so because most of them are very uncertain about what's going on. Again, look at the extreme of Argentina. Why do people not invest here and hold their money in real estate and under the mattresses? Because Argentina is not a friend of investors and is unstable in that regard. Money goes where it is allowed to flow, just like water.

Tiny12

09-09-12, 18:39

you DARE to call anyone who is against such things a TRAITOR because, for example, I came to Buenos Aires for cheap labor because I couldn't make money in the States any more?This is what I don't understand about WT69. He claims not to be racist or prejudiced. But he believes only certain people are entitled to a living wage. If you live in China or Mexico or even Texas (remembering his comments about the Keystone pipeline) then you shoudn't have a good job. He passes it off with the regular union BS about how those people don't have decent working conditions, they work long hours, etc. I don't think he's a bad person. But I don't think he's learned much from his travels. If he had, he'd know that globalization has improved living standards immensely in third world countries. Like you I've invested and done business in developing countries. While I did it for profit, I'm proud of the small part I've played in providing jobs to people who REALLY need them. As a result they have better diets and health care. I'm proud to be a traitor by WT69's definition. The people that WT69 thinks he's trying to protect, the USA middle class, are among the most blessed in the world. The reason I say "thinks" is because his ideas would hurt the majority of Americans, not just the wealthy who he despises.

Rev BS

09-09-12, 19:10

Americans do not realize that their daily lifestyle is all about convenience and waste. They have grown up in the land of plenty with many choices of where to live and work. Food and oil were downright cheap until the 70s / 80s. But now they have competition for the same goods and commodities from all over the world. Bubbles, easy credit and marketing have created an illusion of the American Dream, and instant gratification is the normal mindset of the masses. The more we make, the more we spend. For me, there was always one more shoe to buy and one more trip to make. It never ends.

Legal immigrants come in the thousands every day, and the majority will be middle class within 3-10 years. I see the spending habits of my co-workers and the difference between Americans and immigrants is mind-blogging. The cafeteria would have to be closed down if it depended on the immigrants to eat there. And that is just one area of spending. It is not difficult to see where the problems are. By the way, I don't question people's spending as long as they have the cash.

And the poor will always be with us, and good or bad, so willl the rich. Will the middle class be always with us? It is the middle class that is the power / engine of the American economy.

Rev BS

09-09-12, 19:22

Ramprant's post, #1168 on August 31 was the origin of my prior post. Somehow, the "reply with quote" is not working for me.

WorldTravel69

09-10-12, 14:55

I Apologize to Jackson and All.

My reasons for my anger are:

I have always believed in the truth and fairness to all.

But when I listen to the lies that Romney, Ryan and the Republican Congress put out, it drives me up a wall.

I can't believe that you believe in those lies, when the New York Times and other Newspapers reported that they were not the Truth.

I have always supported the Democratic Party, because they always been fair to the working class.

I have worked for the Employer as Foreman and for the Union as Shop Steward.

I have always worked what I can make and hourly wages.

I have worked selling papers on the corner of Haight and Ashbury. Funny, that was before the hippies.

I had delivered papers to the doors of people.

My High School Printing teacher got me a job in a print shop, which led to a Union Job.

I got a degree, taught at Stanford. Finished my apprenticeship and traveled working across the states, New York, Connecticut, Montreal and back home to California.

Back in San Francisco I worked in Financial Printing as a foreman for 20 years. So I do know a little about finance and management. I helped the workers, and did not bully them. They put out more work that way. After that I worked at the Newspapers, for a few years, as a Forman again in one of the Newspapers.

Next I worked for the University of California, Berkeley. I started in the '90s at $14 an hour. Low wages for that time. I was the shop steward for 13 years. I negotiated on contracts for the Union with the University. The University had special labor provisions granted by the State Government, they were exempt from some Labor Laws; a State within a State. They allowed us to negotiate so 'Long as it didn't interfere with the Running of the University'. In part we were not allowed to strike. We sort of had a Gun in negotiations with No Bullets. So, we took what they gave us.

Meanwhile their Institutional leaders kept getting their raises and Golden Retirement Packages, while asking cut backs from their workers.

So, when the Super-Pacs can buy our Government, us Workers will always be fucked.

Now you know why I am pissed at those that believe the lies.

Tiny12

09-10-12, 16:52

But when I listen to the lies that Romney, Ryan and the Republican Congress put out, it drives me up a wall.

I can't believe that you believe in those lies, when the New York Times and other Newspapers reported that they were not the Truth.I took you up on your challenge and watched a couple of episodes of the Newsroom. You should take me up on mine and watch Stossel. Try reading the editorial page on the Wall Street Journal, which is to the right what the New York Times is to the left. Also some neutral sources like the Washington Post. Finally take a look at El Queso's excellent post below. If you do this, you'll see that both parties lie. Pelosi and Reid are as bad as any. Reid's claim that Romney didn't pay income taxes for 10 years was a doozy. IMHO while Romney has changed positions more than most, he tells far fewer outright lies than most Washington politicians.

I'm not asking you to do anything that I don't. I watch MSNBC and read the NYT.

Rev BS

09-10-12, 18:01

WorldTravel69

09-10-12, 18:19

I forgot to mention that we used to print for all of Cal's 9 University Campus' and did some of the State of California printing.

That was then, but now the University decided to close the Printing Department and Farm Out the work.

Esten

09-10-12, 23:14

The tax cut in 1981 and 2001 reduced the tax revenue while the tax increase in 1993 increased the revenue. Thanks.Agreed. The notion that tax cuts pay for themselves, is an ideological fallacy that few economists subscribe to.

The IGM economic experts panel was created to explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. When asked about the proposition, "A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut.", none of the panel's 40 economists agreed. When responses were weighted by the confidence respondents expressed in their answers. 96% disagreed and 4% were uncertain.

Economists Agree: Tax Cuts Cost Revenue
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/29/economists-agree-tax-cuts-cost-revenue---

Esten

09-10-12, 23:24

Under Bush, the Council of Economic Advisers, two chairs of the CEA (Greg Mankiw, Ed Lazear), and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson all refuted the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves (let alone, that they increase revenues). Their statements in the article below are clear.

Hey Mitch McConnell, Bush Economists Said Tax Cuts Did Grow the Deficit
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/hey-mitch-mcconnell-bush-economists-said-tax-cuts-i-did-i-grow-the-deficit/59728/

WorldTravel69

09-11-12, 00:07

John Quincy Adams and John Adams on my mothers side. Her Maiden Name was Adams.

Now you know why I am really pissed. The Declaration of Independence. They hated England not each other.
Now you all know why I have such deep feelings about where our Country is headed.

Must have been why I became a Printer. Uncle Ben.

Ryan is my man. We are distant cousins. My mothers name was Ryan. I believe that I will receive many entitlements!

Tiny12

09-11-12, 00:22

Agreed. The notion that tax cuts pay for themselves, is an ideological fallacy that few economists subscribe to.

The IGM economic experts panel was created to explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. When asked about the proposition, "A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut.", none of the panel's 40 economists agreed. When responses were weighted by the confidence respondents expressed in their answers. 96% disagreed and 4% were uncertain.

Economists Agree: Tax Cuts Cost Revenue.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/29/economists-agree-tax-cuts-cost-revenue---From your article:

"The economists were asked a second question, about whether cutting income taxes right now would lead to higher gross domestic product in five years. Here 43 percent agreed it would. 48 percent were uncertain, and 9 percent disagreed (on a confidence-weighted basis)....we can conclude that there is widespread agreement among expert economists that, in a weak economy, a stimulus package of both tax cuts and more spending will increase growth and reduce unemployment."

Translation: Lower taxes = stronger economy = more prosperity for all. That's of course assuming that the politicians have enough sense not to spend us into oblivion, like Greece.

There is little doubt that taxes collected do not increase in proportion to increases in tax rates, especially for businesses, people in higher tax brackets, and taxes on capital gains and dividends. Anyway, is this an issue? I don't believe Romney is proposing to cut taxes. He's proposing to cut marginal rates on all taxpayers and eliminate loopholes and deductions, especially loopholes that benefit higher income taxpayers. Tax collected from upper income taxpayers would not go down.

Matt Psyche

09-11-12, 01:14

Is more left than the NY Times. The WP is one of the most liberal-oriented papers in the USA.

Also some neutral sources like the Washington Post. .

Tiny12

09-11-12, 02:03

Is more left than the NY Times. The WP is one of the most liberal-oriented papers in the USA.I think their editorial page is a lot more balanced than the New York Times, especially when you take the op-ed's into account. They may not endorse Obama this year. I agree that the journalists who work there, like most journalists in big cities in the northeast, have a liberal bias.

WorldTravel69

09-11-12, 02:45

How come you did come out and say anything about Romney's speech to the OurAmerican Legion Vets, about the Afghanistan Policies was not True?

More Lies!!!

I think their editorial page is a lot more balanced than the New Yerk Times, especially when you take the op-ed's into account. They may not endorse Obama this year. I agree that the journalists who work there, like most journalists in big cities in the northeast, have a liberal bias.

WorldTravel69

09-11-12, 03:46

You would be under Mexican control and your Argentine Spanish would not help.

Have you been to Mexico? I have many times. It is a foreign Spanish Country, one that they will not be most likely be Simpatico with you.

The Mexicans would retake Your States! Come on, Think about what you are saying. Sounds like a North against the South Bull Shit Problem. I have a Jewish last name, but I do not care about any Religion. As was said "why can't we all get along"?

Is the Answer only Money?

Who would you ask for Help?

If You have been too long away from your Home, TL would know what to do more than You.

I want Texas to secede from the Union. I would hope that such an event would cause other states to break away as well. Let the behemoth become a bunch of smaller, fairer (to their own population) countries.

We had a discussion about this the other night. Romney's words are much closer to my beliefs than Obama's. Obama is so far out there to me that I can't stomach the thought of voting for him. But Romney is a member of the same fraternity and the only thing I see with him is the possibility of slowing down the inevitable. Some think we need Republicans to fix things, but I don't think the problem can be fixed because it is inherent in how too many people (the masses who are voting themselves MORE and MORE) think nowadays.

So for me, if Romney is going to slow things down, and Bush and Obama (Obama more so) both put so many future debt obligations on the backs of the US population who pay for it (poor people and politicians sure as hell don't) , maybe I SHOULD vote for Obama to allow things to progress even faster if he wins.

Toymann

09-11-12, 04:58

Your posts are just idiocy dude. Like the rantings of an angry uneducated old man. Read your recent long post. One minute you are teaching at Stanford and the next you are holding a 14$/hour job. IALOTFLMAO! Now mexico will take over an independent texas. LMAO dude. Really? All expats are traitors. The republicans are extreme and Pelosi / Reid / Obama are moderate. Anyone who challenges Obomanation is a RACIST! Give me a break. You are just a union lackey with a passport. My favourite story was how the university closed its UNION printing shop. I WONDER WHY? Did your union handlers drive the salaries so high that it was cheaper to outsource? You are just embarrissing yourself here dude. Better to be thought a fool and remain silent than open your mouth and remove all doubt. It's just getting really sad fella. Why not retire from this thread and go back to ranting that it should be closed, like you used to do. It is absolutely painful reading your goofy posts. That said, continue at your own peril dude. It's your funeral. Viva la socialista! Monger on All. Toymann

WorldTravel69

09-11-12, 12:12

I tried to keep my long truthful post short.

I taught at Stanford for two years and when I finished my Printing Apprenticeship I traveled and worked. They called us tramp printers at the time.

I bet you never would have worked for $14 a hour.

Your posts are just idiocy dude. Like the rantings of an angry uneducated old man. Read your recent long post. One minute you are teaching at Stanford and the next you are holding a 14$/hour job. IALOTFLMAO! Now mexico will take over an independent texas. LMAO dude. Really? All expats are traitors. The republicans are extreme and Pelosi / Reid / Obama are moderate. Anyone who challenges Obomanation is a RACIST! Give me a break. You are just a union lackey with a passport. My favourite story was how the university closed its UNION printing shop. I WONDER WHY? Did your union handlers drive the salaries so high that it was cheaper to outsource? You are just embarrissing yourself here dude. Better to be thought a fool and remain silent than open your mouth and remove all doubt. It's just getting really sad fella. Why not retire from this thread and go back to ranting that it should be closed, like you used to do. It is absolutely painful reading your goofy posts. That said, continue at your own peril dude. It's your funeral. Viva la socialista! Monger on All. Toymann

Rev BS

09-11-12, 14:05

I tried to keep my long truthful post short.

I taught at Stanford for two years and when I finished my Printing Apprenticeship I traveled and worked. They called us tramp printers at the time.

I bet you never would have worked for $14 a hour.What year were you making $14 an hour? Was that your highest pay in your career? Because $20 an hour today is still way above survival level, although nothing to bragg about.

Toymann

09-11-12, 15:02

I bet you never would have worked for $14 a hour.In 1990, after a decade of university education, my first hospital position paid exactly 14$/hour. Prior to that I was a bartender / waiter for a decade. Hate to tell ya this buddy, but none of those jobs, even with tips, paid more than 10$/hour. Please stop howling at the moon with your assumptions. It's getting more embarrising with each passing post. Howl away WT69. Toymann

WorldTravel69

09-11-12, 15:54

I will stop saying things for now.

I will post Cartoons.

P.S.
I Lied.
$14 would be a lot of money in the Midwest, but not in California or New York. Where the apartment Rents are higher than your wages.

Tiny12

09-11-12, 19:34

My favourite story was how the university closed its UNION printing shop. I WONDER WHY? Did your union handlers drive the salaries so high that it was cheaper to outsource?The real villains are Hewlett Packard and Al Gore. Hewlett Packard invented the desktop laser printer. Al Gore invented the internet. As a result of their inventions the printing business suffered mightily. It wasn't the union-busting Republicans that did it.

Esten

09-12-12, 00:35

Subject: IMPORTANT MEDICARE CHANGE FOR OCTOBER 2012.

Please just watch this one.

Thanks.

Everyone should watch this video and send it on to everyone you know. It affects every one of us in America. Get it out to as many people as you can.Your last sentence had the tell-tale sign of a chain email that you probably didn't write. Sure enough, I plug it into google and find the sentence and the video. Sure enough, it's right wing spam directing to right wing propaganda and conspiracy theories.

You probably didn't even notice you just contradicted yourself. Your doctor says a Medicare benefit is being discontinued October 15 (false) , while the video says or implies Obama cleverly delayed this until after the election so seniors wouldn't notice (false).

Right wing misinformation tripping over itself.... gotta love it !

Sidney, you should research these things more thoroughly. No Medicare benefits are being cut. The health care reform law is cutting subsidies to Medicare Advantage which have been doing little more than pad insurance company profits. The new health law restructures government payments to Medicare Advantage plans to keep it more in line with that of traditional Medicare. Obama is actually acting like a Conservative here, cutting wasteful spending. The new law also extends Medicare solvency by almost a decade and ends the prescription drug 'donut hole' --- both good things for seniors.

Myth 7: The healthcare reform law cuts Medicare benefits.

Reality: No guaranteed Medicare benefits are cut by this law. An experiment started
in 1997 created Medicare Advantage, a privatized form of Medicare, with the hope of saving
money. It turns out that the federal government pays 14% more for this private form of
Medicare than for government provided Medicare so this new law cuts these subsidies.
Seniors will still be able to choose between getting their benefits from traditional Medicare or
a Medicare Advantage plan, but the government will stop wasting billions of dollars by
overpaying Medicare Advantage plans.

Esten

09-12-12, 01:28

Sarah Palin has a new jingle to keep herself relevant: 'Free Stuff or Freedom'

What a total whackjob. Doesn't she realize this is exactly the empty, nonsensical, false rhetoric that is hurting her party, not helping it? I'm sure it really impresses the independent voters.

Tiny12

09-12-12, 01:31

1956=construction laborer. 1957= car dealer handyman. 1958= furnace cleaner. $14 an hour = WOW!You would have to be in your 70's. And you're with a 19 year old Haitian. Then there's hope for my retirement years too. You're my hero Sidney!

Rev BS

09-12-12, 02:39

You would have to be in your 70's. And you're with a 19 year old Haitian. Then there's hope for my retirement years too. You're my hero Sidney!Money does talk! Anyway, kudos for the effort.

WorldTravel69

09-12-12, 03:30

You would have to be in your 70's. And you're with a 19 year old Haitian. Then there's hope for my retirement years too. You're my hero Sidney!

You would have to be in your 70's. And you're with a 19 year old Haitian. Then there's hope for my retirement years too. You're my hero Sidney!Thank You Tiny12!

El Alamo

09-12-12, 09:18

Wild Walleye

09-12-12, 16:21

Went to the movies today. In Key west we have a 4 theater cinema. 3 films had no lines. The fourth film had arround the block lines. A film called 2016. People leaving the theater looked like they had been hit over the head with a sledgehammer. Dazed. Astonished. Believe me, this movie is a must see.I haven't seen the movie, yet.

Back in 2008, one of the people whom I hold in the absolute highest regard and someone I have known to be conservative for decades, informed me that he intended to vote for Obama. This is a very well-educated and intelligent individual (the former does not guarantee the latter), who had always voted Republican (not as a party devotee, often just as the "lesser of two evils"). Some time after Obama was elected (early '09) , this person attended a party that I held at my house. We were on the patio enjoying a drink and the onset of Spring, when I pressed for the logic behind his vote. While he didn't come right out and say it, the message that I discerned was that it was based upon "white guilt" and fatigue from the constant anti-Bush propaganda (I. E. The main stream media). However, he became agitated and acted shocked, when I flatly stated that (IMO) Obama is a Marxist. In fact, he tried to challenge me on it and I gave him the precise underpinnings of my position and a litany of examples of Obama's words and actions that supported my conclusion. He, like so many others, didn't want to even consider the possibility that America had elected a Marxist, who did not have the same objective for America as we do. While he was willing to acknowledge that he didn't agree with all, or even many, of Obama's policies, that was as far as he would go. Since then, we have discussed the subject a few times.

I spoke with him a couple of days ago and he told me that he had gone to see 2016 and was profoundly touched by the content. He continued to "defend" Obama by saying that he didn't think that Obama's formative experiences were indicative of what an Obama second term would look like. I said "You don't need to look at anything older than three and a half years. His first term is indicative of the base line (because 2nd termers don't have to worry about reelection) for his second term. It will only get more extreme."

He thought about it for a second and said "you are absolutely correct."

I think that the fact that content of "2016" comes from such a reasonable and well-respected individual (D'Souza) and that there is no way that I got to him (tongue in cheek) , helped him to see the truth that I had been speaking for so long.

If that movie. Which is a blockbuster and is being intentionally ignored by the main stream media (it's the second biggest political documentary in history; although the first place film was not a documentary (IMO, since it was devoid of factual material) can bring an 'independent' (no, I don't think D'Souza is completely objective (no one is)) confirmation to those who don't want to believe that they elected someone who does not have America's best interest at heart, I am all for it.

We are watching 'live' the fruit of Obama's apologist foreign policy and his direct and naive community organizing in communities like the middle east (Egypt and Libya).

I read an article, yesterday, that stated that based upon White House records, Obama spent only 412 hours in official meetings on national security and the economy, during his term in office. I put in just under 400 hours on a consulting project, just last month.

Wild Walleye

09-12-12, 16:30

I plucked this out of Ben Shapiro's column (published yesterday 9/11) :

Speaking of Osama Bin Laden:

He spelled out his goals in three documents: a 1996 fatwa titled, 'Declaration of War Against The Americans Occupying The Land of the Two Holy Places'; a 2002 'Letter to America'; and a 2004 video.

In these manifestos, he declared his willingness to die, of course. His goals included:

'Terrorizing' Americans;

Demoralizing US troops;

Weakening and destruction of Israel;

Unification of Muslims throughout the Middle East via 'democratic' establishment of Shariah law in 'governments of our countries which act as your agents';

Destroying the US economy, especially the banking system, with special attention to the creation of massive deficits – a 'bleed until bankruptcy plan';

Destruction of American industrial capacity in the name of global warming;

Destruction of the rich, 'who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts';

Closing Guantanamo;

'Pack your luggage and get out of our lands. '

Eleven years later, Bin Laden seems to have kept most of his campaign promises.It is amazing to see how Obama's objectives and the fruits of his actions and policies are in concert with, and helped to facilitate, numbers 2-9 (no, I am not going to say that he's terrorizing Americans, at least not in the violent interpretation of terrorism).

BayBoy

09-12-12, 21:24

There's a story in today's New York Times about Mitt Romney. There's a picture of him from 1966 at Stanford University involved in a counter demonstration against the anti-war protesters. He's holding a picket sign for the pro-Vietnam war group. According to the story 4 years later he's flipflopped his position on the war, and seems to think it was a bad idea. The flipflopper starting early on, like 40 years ago.

Jackson

09-12-12, 22:17

Esten

09-13-12, 01:16

El Alamo

09-13-12, 06:07

Our position would be much better if would follow Obama's example and bow down to muslim extremists. Also, we would be in a better position if we had followed Obama's advice and doubled down, no tripled down on the 1. 5 billion dollars of taxpayer money Obama sent to his misunderstood terrorist brothers. And just for good measure, we should round up these terrorists and invite them to state dinners at the White house. Whoops, Obama has already done that.

You can credit Obama, he has somebodies best interests at heart. unfortuneately Obama does not have the best interests of americans at heart. Obama is more concerned about the welfare of his muslim brothers than he is of america, who, by the way, Obama seems to despise.

I don't think Obama will be too upset when he gets his butt kicked out of the White house. It will allow Obama to chase his main calling. Being head terrorist of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I don't think Reagan would be expanding our national debt by sending billions of taxpayer dollars to muslim extremists and inviting these muslim extremists to chow down at White house dinners.

Yes, Obama seems to be doing great things in foreign affairs, provided you belong to his Muslim Bortherhood.

Rev BS

09-13-12, 09:14

Our position would be much better if would follow Obama's example and bow down to muslim extremists. Also, we would be in a better position if we had followed Obama's advice and doubled down, no tripled down on the 1. 5 billion dollars of taxpayer money Obama sent to his misunderstood terrorist brothers. And just for good measure, we should round up these terrorists and invite them to state dinners at the White house. Whoops, Obama has already done that.

You can credit Obama, he has somebodies best interests at heart. Unfortuneately Obama does not have the best interests of american at heart. Obama is more concerned about the welfare of his muslim brothers than he is of america, who, by the way, Obama seems to despise.

I don't think Obama will be too upset when he gets his butt kicked out of the White house. It will allow Obama to chase his main calling. Being head terrorist of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I don't think Reagan would be expanding our national debt by sending billions of taxpayer dollars to muslim extremists and inviting these muslim extremists to chow down at White house dinners.

Yes, Obama seems to be doing great things in foreign affairs, provided you belong to his Muslim Bortherhood.Nice article! Straight from the National Enquirer.

El Alamo

09-13-12, 09:23

Black Shirt.

You have it backwards. The National Enquirer copies my stories. in Key west i am known as the reincarnation of Hemingway.

Wild Walleye

09-13-12, 13:43

The last few weeks have not been good for Romney.

In an effort to be more aggressive, what does he do? He pounces on the attacks in Libya and Egypt, speaking before getting all the facts and making false statements. He said Obama sympathized with the attackers, a complete lie. He said our first response should be outrage, but he confused a statement from the US embassy in Cairo before the attacks (to cool things down) with the official US statement following the attacks. Further, perhaps it never occurred to him that the safety of American citizens should be the very first concern. Sec. Of State Clinton laid it out very well this morning, but Romney had to put his foot in his mouth first, before she spoke. If you're going to make a political football out of something like this, you have to get it right. He's embarrassing himself and damaging his own campaign with such antics.

Mitt Romney Response To Libya, Egypt Attacks Called 'Irresponsible, ' 'Craven, ' 'Ham-Handed'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/mitt-romney-libya-egypt-media-reactions_n_1877266.html

Mitt Romney's opportunistic, incoherent attack.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mitt-romneys-opportunistic-incoherent-attack/2012/09/12/cebfb3b8-fce8-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.htmlEnjoy your blissfulness, it should be wrapping up in the near future.

Romney no more backfired on condemning the invasion of American soil and the murder of our ambassador, two marines and another State Dept staffer, than he allegedly did on his succeful international trip. Condemning Romney's response to this military aggression is baffling to most (read more than 50% of voters) Americans. You are completely devoid of credibility if you think that criticizing Romney for being correct, especially on this issue, is the story here. Give us a break.

When was the last time American soil was invaded and we did nothing in response?

I am just waiting for our Glorious Leader to make a "Peace in our time" speech. Check that, I'll just wait for his concession speech on election night.

Wild Walleye

09-13-12, 14:44

Do you want a president who upholds the Constitution or one who just goes around apologizing for it?

El Alamo

09-13-12, 14:56

Wild Walleye

09-13-12, 15:30

I am just waiting for our Glorious Leader to make a "Peace in our time" speech. Check that, I'll just wait for his concession speech on election night.

I think the electorate has enjoyed that f* a* Obama as much as they can. As far as the concession speach goes. I think Obama might take a bullet to the head before admitting that his gig is up. His clothes will be off and Obama will be seen for what he is. A miserable, mean spirited fraud who will not have 4 more years to complete his task of destroying America.No matter how badly he gets blown out in the coming election, he and his minions will litigate every possible avenue. I suspect that come January, they are going to barricade themselves in the WH. Look for a lame-duck executive order prohibiting evicting the former president from the WH. I am sure that attempts to reclaim the people's house will be cast as racist.

El Alamo

09-13-12, 19:52

What the heck. We knew Obama was going to destroy the economy. That was a given. The other side of the coin was that Obama was going to improve relations with the Middle east by coming out of the closet and attending Muslim mosques, reciting chapters from the Koran, attacking Western embassies, burning the american flag, washing the feet of sheiks and praying to Mecca 15 times a day. Not so far. Instead we have the worst of both worlds. Obama has ruined thr economy and Obama is still hiding in the closet.

That may be changing. Today TV documentaries showed rioting muslims including a person who looks a lot like Obama. Golf clubs, smoking cigarettes and being henpecked by a rather large, grossly obese woman who looks a lot like Michele. Maybe Obama has abandoned us after successfully destroying our economy. Obama is returning to his roots to become leader of the muslim Brotherhood.

Rev BS

09-14-12, 18:57

El Alamo

09-14-12, 19:01

Yes, Black Shirt, he was wearing an Hawaiian shirt and waving a computer generated birth certificate

WhiteCat

09-14-12, 19:28

Golf clubs, smoking cigarettes and being henpecked by a rather large, grossly obese woman who looks a lot like Michele.I think I saw her at Orleans the other day.

Esten

09-14-12, 22:55

Romney no more backfired on condemning the invasion of American soil and the murder of our ambassador, two marines and another State Dept staffer, than he allegedly did on his succeful international trip. Condemning Romney's response to this military aggression is baffling to most (read more than 50% of voters) Americans. You are completely devoid of credibility if you think that criticizing Romney for being correct, especially on this issue, is the story here. Give us a break.Give us a break, WW. The Romney screw-up was all over the media, in plain daylight for all to see. Just google "Romney Libya remarks foot mouth" or anything similar and you'll get 500,000+ hits. See below, another good article. And since you haven't provided anything to back up Romney's lie that Obama sympathized with the attackers, it appears you are the one lacking credibility.

Please, double and triple-down on the Republican strategy, "We can say anything and make believe it's true." Obama's post-convention bounce is largely because Democrats helped more people realize just how much deception Republicans were spewing. Continuing that strategy won't reverse the recent trend.

Former Romney Adviser on Libya: 'They Stepped in It'
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/107173/former-romney-adviser-libya-they-stepped-in-it#

All of which raises the question: What was Team Romney thinking? I'm not really sure, but I happened to speak this morning to a senior Romney adviser from a previous campaign who offered his own theory. According to this person, Romney may have been feeling defensive over the hazing he took in Charlotte last week-'my opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy, ' the president tweaked him—and was primed to hit back. 'They set him up Thursday night at the convention with the smack down on foreign policy, ' says the former adviser. 'They called him naïve, Palin-esque. Then he got his back up about it and was waiting for opportunity to show, 'I'm strong, too. '

The adviser has no direct, inside knowledge of the campaign's thinking on this matter. But he does have a good read on Romney-a man with a healthy sense of pride, and who's already invested in the idea of Obama as an appeaser. It was the only plausible explanation the adviser could think of for how 'they stepped in it, ' in his words. 'I always thought it was a one-two punch [by the Obama campaign], ' the adviser continued. 'Punch one was Thursday night. Punch two would be in the foreign policy debate. To cast Romney as naïf, an empty suit on foreign policy, and tie him to Bush—as a puppet of the bow-tied hawks of the Bush administration. This intervening event was gravy. '

Esten

09-14-12, 23:56

Toymann

09-15-12, 04:42

One more. This story is everywhere, but the most interesting comments are from the right.

I always thought John Hunstman was the most reasonable and authentic of the Republican candidates. Today he said the embassy attacks were an opportunity for Romney to explain to the American people what's going on in North Africa and the Middle East, and to explain his position and what role the US will play in bringing greater stability to the region. Not an opportunity to condemn, criticize, and turn it into a political event.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/huntsman-romney-s-reaction-to-arab-protests-a-problem--20120914

This quote was noteworthy :

'I don't know what Governor Romney is proposing at this point, ' Huntsman said. Hate to burst your bubble dude. Absolutely no upside to your banter on this subject. Trying to spin Romney's reply to the administrations crazy apologies (as the grenade launchers rained down on our embassy) just won't spin past the fact that Obomanation has dropped the ball on sucking muslim cock the past 3 years. You mean this tactic didn't make them all our friends? Go figure? IALOTFLMAO!

As my girl Condi said "all they respect is strength". Liberal fools like you will never get it dude! Keep howling at the moon! All your distractions won't get it done in america these days. Most see right through your spin and rhetoric. Tick. Tick Tick. Not long now till you treat me at Madahos. Monger on esten. Toymann

SnakeOilSales

09-15-12, 06:56

Hate to burst your bubble dude. Absolutely no upside to your banter on this subject. Trying to spin Romney's reply to the administrations crazy apologies (as the grenade launchers rained down on our embassy) just won't spin past the fact that Obomanation has dropped the ball on sucking muslim cock the past 3 years. You mean this tactic didn't make them all our friends? Go figure? IALOTFLMAO!

As my girl Condi said "all they respect is strength". Liberal fools like you will never get it dude! Keep howling at the moon! All your distractions won't get it done in america these days. Most see right through your spin and rhetoric. Tick. Tick Tick. Not long now till you treat me at Madahos. Monger on esten. ToymannAll your false bravado and nonsense rhetoric aside, do you REALLY still believe at this point that Romney still has a chance to win this election? The Fed has now launched QE3 and the European Central Bank has made it clear it will support the PIGS bonds for the time being so essentially the stock market is going to be floating on cloud 9 until at least Election Day. The current chaos in the Middle East will just serve to make Obama look good as he punishes those who misbehaved with drone strikes. There will be no Israeli strike against Iran before Election Day and voters appreciate that Obama is keeping the US out of another WMD wild goose chase. Obama is clearly going to be re-elected and given current circumstances there really isn't anything within the realm of possibility (short of a major terrorist attack on US soil) that could occur over the next six weeks to alter this course.

El Alamo

09-15-12, 07:02

Wow! What universe are you living in? The current chaos in the Middle East is going to make Obama look good? There is no way to look at a donkey and call it a race horse. And if you look donkey up in the dictionary you will find a picture of Obama.

Rev BS

09-15-12, 10:27

Jackson

09-15-12, 15:25

Should Israel be running American foreign policy? Better yet, Netanyahu should be Secretary of State should Romney wins. Wait, I think he should run for president in place of Romney. I am sure he has dual ciitizenship.

If there is one thing I miss out here in Bangkok, it is a Jewish deli. Corned beef & pastrami sandwiches, cabbage slaw, potato salad, lox, cream cheese & bagel, gerkins. I'm about to cum.I believe that the USA should support Israel both politically and militarily, but I also believe that Israel exercises a bit too much influence in America's foreign affairs to the determent of our relations with some of the rest of the mid-east.

I'm also tired of hearing the same old line about "Israel is our strongest ally in the Mid-East". The fact is that while Israel is technically an ally of the USA, they will never be able to cooperate or participate with the USA in any military action. For example, you didn't see any Israel military participation in the USA's liberation of Afghanistan or Iraq.

Having Israel as an ally is like having the biggest bully in the school yard as your ally, but the bully is always in detention.

Thanks,

Jackson

BTW: Black Shirt, Thanks for lunch!

Jackpot

09-15-12, 15:53

El Perro

09-15-12, 16:20

I believe that the USA should support Israel both politically and militarily, but I also believe that Israel exercises a bit too much influence in America's foreign affairs to the determent of our relations with some of the rest of the mid-east.

I'm also tired of hearing the same old line about "Israel is our strongest ally in the Mid-East". The fact is that while Israel is technically an ally of the USA, they will never be able to cooperate or participate with the USA in any military action. For example, you didn't see any Israel military participation in the USA's liberation of Afghanistan or Iraq.

Having Israel as an ally is like having the biggest bully in the school yard as your ally, but the bully is always in detention.

Thanks,

Jackson.

BTW: Black Shirt, Thanks for lunch!Now there's something we can definitely agree on. That tail has been wagging the dog for too long. Ridiculous.

If the USA really wanted to play realpolitik, they would gradually increase support for the modern and pragmatic states in the Mideast, and lessen the absurdly out of proportion support for Israel. Everybody knows that the "impartial" stance posited by the USA is a very poor joke. A bit more leverage would be the result.

It won't happen though. Too many electoral votes to lose come election time. For both parties.

Esten

09-15-12, 17:28

I believe that the USA should support Israel both politically and militarily, but I also believe that Israel exercises a bit too much influence in America's foreign affairs to the determent of our relations with some of the rest of the mid-east.Agreed.

Rommney will be the pawn of Isreal and send our boys to win oil wars.Agreed. I think the odds are > 50% we go to war if Romney is elected.

Esten

09-15-12, 17:31

Toymann,

At some point you have to start asking serious questions about whether Romney is fit for president. His screw-up this week was his worst yet.

Repeating the lie that the administration apologized for the attacks, doesn't make it true. It's a bald-faced lie. I'd ask you to post a link to back this up, but we all know you can't. You're in the gutter with Romney with this line of response.

Romney foreign policy attack was disgraceful
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/opinion/avlon-romney-libya-attack/index.html

How badly did Romney botch response to Libya attack?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57511707/how-badly-did-romney-botch-response-to-libya-attack/

"The comments were a big mistake, and the decision to double down on them was an even bigger mistake," Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, told CBS News."There are legitimate criticisms to be made but you foreclose on your ability to make them when you try to score easy political points. And the American people, when the country is attacked, whether they're a Republican or Democrat or independent, want to see leaders who have measured responses, not leaders whose first instinct is to try to score political points."

Member #4112

09-15-12, 17:45

I really love all this talk about 'moderate' Arab states, would that be Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq or perhaps Egypt? As I recall when the current despot took over Syria the US had high hopes he would be a 'moderate', guess that didn't work out so well did it.

How about Egypt, really 'moderate' and steadfast 'ally' there; or Iraq after liberation from Saddam and billions in aid, another sterling example of a 'moderate' Arab country.

There is no such thing as a 'moderate' Arab country; they live by a code from the 4th century and respect only one thing, force, so why do we want to give 'moderate' Arabs more money.

Nearly $2 Billion has not bought us much in Egypt, we spent even move in Iraq and still more in Afghanistan where we are losing more troops to Green on Blue than to combat operations.

Say what you will about Israel, they have mastered one thing we continue to let our political leaders steal from us, Israel has learned to WIN and WIN EVERYTIME.

Israel is the closest think to an ally we have in the area, like it or not it is just the truth. Anytime you think we need to just cut them lose, take a little stroll down memory lane circa 1939 to 1944, or listen to Louis Farrakhan or your 'moderate' Arabs.

Unlike Obama and the liberals I don't give a damn if the Arabs love us, so long as they FEAR US, I'm good with that. It's just the way the world is like it or not, civilization is but a very thin veneer easily cast aside.

Member #4112

09-15-12, 18:01

Esten, the only people pounding anyone about the "new Arab spring" are the liberal media pounding Romney and not asking a single hard ball question of Obama because they are too busy pandering over him.

What is really sad is the comment they choose to pounce on was made BEFORE the attacks, but both you and they seem to let this little fact slip past you.

The second saddest thing is Clinton and Obama blaming a UTUBE video of causing all this havoc, ignoring 9/11 altogether. You have to ask yourself, what sort of people become so upset with a video which they feel demeans their 'religion' that they have to go kill 'crusaders'? See my earlier post about their 4th century mentality and what they respect.

After three years of limp wristed genuflecting to the 'Arabs' this is what we get, they perceived weakness and pounced. 'Bring them to justice', now just how is His Highness going to do that in a foreign country? He is not about to launch a hellfire missile attack from a drone or manned military aircraft in Libya or Egypt. The FBI is on the ground, give me a break. A bunch of FBI guys knocking around in a foreign country with no jurisdiction or powers are going to doing to do exactly what? Go check your history of the FBI's 'success' in dealing with Arab states on investigates. They are mushrooms, kept in the dark and covered with shit.

WorldTravel69

09-15-12, 18:07

Get your jacket today.

Toymann

09-15-12, 19:08

Toymann,

At some point you have to start asking serious questions about whether Romney is fit for president. His screw-up this week was his worst yet.

Repeating the lie that the administration apologized for the attacks, doesn't make it true. It's a bald-faced lie. I'd ask you to post a link to back this up, but we all know you can't. You're in the gutter with Romney with this line of response.

Romney foreign policy attack was disgraceful.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/opinion/avlon-romney-libya-attack/index.html

How badly did Romney botch response to Libya attack?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57511707/how-badly-did-romney-botch-response-to-libya-attack/

"The comments were a big mistake, and the decision to double down on them was an even bigger mistake," Steve Schmidt, senior campaign strategist to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, told CBS News."There are legitimate criticisms to be made but you foreclose on your ability to make them when you try to score easy political points. And the American people, when the country is attacked, whether they're a Republican or Democrat or independent, want to see leaders who have measured responses, not leaders whose first instinct is to try to score political points."

Will it be a portena, saltena, chakena, missionera or paraguaya that I will select from Madahos using your donation to my mongering fund. These are the truely tough decions that occupy my mind these days. This election is all but over dude. The media can keep on prasing Obomanation and demonizing Romney all they want. It's all over but the crying. Get your towel out (and you wallet, jejejejeje). Monger on Esten. Toymann.

Ps. You so underestimate Americans dude. Shame. Shame. Shame.

Tiny12

09-16-12, 01:09

Please, double and triple-down on the Republican strategy, "We can say anything and make believe it's true." Obama's post-convention bounce is largely because Democrats helped more people realize just how much deception Republicans were spewing. Continuing that strategy won't reverse the recent trend.Esten, That's one of several posts where you said Romney and Republicans are liars. Are you clear minded enough to realize your side is just as bad or worse? The foremost reason Obama probably will win is because he's a better liar than Romney.

do you REALLY still believe at this point that Romney still has a chance to win this election? The Fed has now launched QE3 and the European Central Bank has made it clear it will support the PIGS bonds for the time being so essentially the stock market is going to be floating on cloud 9 until at least Election Day.Good point Snake. And the second reason Obama will probably win. Obama has been spending like there's no tomorrow and the Fed is pitching in and doing its share, buying lots and lots of debt and guaranteeing interest rates will be close to "0" for 7 years (2008 to 2015). Future generations will pay, with debt they will never be able to pay back and high inflation. Obama and Bernanke are the principal culprits, although Bush and Congressional leaders share the blame.

WorldTravel69

09-16-12, 02:10

You Are TOOOO UP TIGHT.

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?4239-Massage-Parlor-recommendations&p=426246&viewfull=1#post426246

WorldTravel69

09-16-12, 02:53

Because they need US.

Where are You, On Romney's Planet? GOPLASHIT. Where is That?

Sorry, I am late to reply, so much Republican Bull Shit Going On, it is tough to keep up with It, let alone the Fucking Lies, with NO PROOF.

READ Rowney's BOOK,"No Apologies" Read the Reviews!

ALL the Countries He Mentioned in his B00K, there are No Facts, just Lies. No, Just Cold War Make Believes. Romney says are main opponent is Russia.

He is Stuck in the Long Ago, Cold War.

Romney Said No Apologizes will given by Him.

All of Obama's speeches were checked. Not One Apology to any Country that he mentioned his Bull Shit Book were made.

I feel sorry for you wanting a new leader, but come on, not TWO MORE, Sarah Palin Dumb Shits, they will not MAKE A New COUNTRY.

I REALLY FEEL YOUR PAIN!

Our Country Needs You, Not A Bought and Paid for Government.
What the Constitution Wanted Was "One Man One Vote".
It did not say Company Operations were People, to Be Bought For, by the Rich Men or Women and their Corporations," but was approved by the Supreme Court in The Super-Pac Ruling. I Wish I had the under the table money they got for that Vote.
Gee, it does not sound Fishy to me and I guess to You.
SELL OUR COUNTRY TO THE RICH?
Tell us where it is said the Boss's were it charge?
"Lincoln Said NO More Slaves."
SOME OF YOU ARE SLAVES TO MONEY!

Why and the hell would we want to be like those other countries?

Mpexy

09-16-12, 04:35

Worldtravel69.

After reading your last dozen political rants without comment, it appears everything you are upset about and constantly spam-spew on the board can be much more easily and concisely written. May I suggest you just merely copy paste this so at least we all can scroll less?

'random rant re: [insert topic here]

-Everything I say is right.

-Everything the other side says is wrong and has no proof even when credentialed sources provides facts. "Facts" from the other side are lies, lies from my side are clearly always "facts"

-I actually have no proof that my side has any better "proof", or proof that the other side has no proof, but that's ok, my opinion just routes back to logic line #1.

-if you disagree with me, you must be evil, a traitor, or clearly a no-proof other side guy and hence, automatically I am right. '

And p.s. as often as it is referenced the original Constitution is an amazingly concise document - easily downloaded, easily read/searched. I suggest you do so.
The Constituion did NOT want one man one vote. In fact, the Constitution has very little re voting rights, it left that to the states, but what it DOES say right up front in Article 2 is: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Clearly, as bad as this idea sounds to modern society of all major political parties in the US, back then it was one man one representation unless you are colored, free loading Indians, etc - then it's just 3/5th of you.

Good thing the Republican party,founded by anti-slavery activists, led the way with like minded people on both parties to free the slaves.

Because they need US.

Where are You, On Romney's Planet? GOPLASHIT. Where is That?

Sorry, I am late to reply, so much Republican Bull Shit Going On, it is tough to keep up with It, let alone the Fucking Lies, with NO PROOF.

READ Rowney's BOOK,"No Apologies" Read the Reviews!

ALL the Countries He Mentioned in his B00K, they are No Facts, just Lies. No, Just Cold War Make Believes. Romney main opponent is Russian.

He is Stuck in the Long Ago, Cold War Past.

Romney Said No Apologizes will given by Him.

All of Obama's speeches were checked. Not One Apology to any Country that he mentioned his Bull Shit Book were made.

I feel sorry for you wanting a new leader, but come on, not TWO MORE, Sarah Palin Dumb Shits, they will not MAKE A New COUNTRY.

I REALLY FEEL YOUR PAIN!

Our Country Needs You, Not A Bought and Paid for Government.

What the Constitution Wanted Was "One Man One Vote".

It did not say Company Operations were People, to Be Bought For, by the Rich Men or Women and their Corporations," but was approved by the Supreme Court in The Super-Pac Ruling. I Wish I had the under the table money they got for that Vote.

Gee, it does not sound Fishy to me and I guess to You.

SELL OUR COUNTRY TO THE RICH?

Tell us where it is said the Boss's were it charge?

"Lincoln Said NO More Slaves."

SOME OF YOU ARE SLAVES TO MONEY!

WorldTravel69

09-16-12, 14:05

It is Okay for Rush Limbaugh to Rant and Rave with his Lies, but not me with The Truth.

I'm Hurt.

Worldtravel69.

After reading your last dozen political rants without comment, it appears everything you are upset about and constantly spam-spew on the board can be much more easily and concisely written. May I suggest you just merely copy paste this so at least we all can scroll less?

'random rant re: [insert topic here]

-Everything I say is right.

-Everything the other side says is wrong and has no proof even when credentialed sources provides facts."Facts" from the other side are lies, lies from my side are clearly always "facts"

-I actually have no proof that my side has any better "proof", or proof that the other side has no proof, but that's ok, my opinion just routes back to logic line #1.

-if you disagree with me, you must be evil, a traitor, or clearly a no-proof other side guy and hence, automatically I am right. '

And p. S. As often as it is referenced the original Constitution is an amazingly concise document. Easily downloaded, easily read / searched. I suggest you do so.

The Constituion did NOT want one man one vote. In fact, the Constitution has very little re voting rights, it left that to the states, but what it DOES say right up front in Article 2 is: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Clearly, as bad as this idea sounds to modern society of all major political parties in the US, back then it was one man one representation unless you are colored, free loading Indians, etc. Then it's just 3/5th of you.

Good thing the Republican party, founded by anti-slavery activists, led the way with like minded people on both parties to free the slaves.

Esten

09-16-12, 15:11

Not to worry WT. Using the logic of Republicans as Romney got blasted last week, if so many people are criticizing you then you must be right.

You are right, Obama didn't apologize. It's a fabricated storyline to sway weak minds that Obama is a weak leader. As you noted, Romney wrote a book called "No Apologies", and he wants to convince people he is the strong guy. That means painting Obama as the weak guy, even if the facts don't match up.

Americans want and respect a leader who is measured and thoughtful in his words and his actions. This past week has provided a clear example of how Obama and Romney perform in this regard.

BTW, check out the opening skit for SNL last night, it will cheer you up....
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2012/09/saturday-night-live-skewers-obama-romney-eastwood.html

Esten

09-16-12, 15:41

Esten, That's one of several posts where you said Romney and Republicans are liars. Are you clear minded enough to realize your side is just as bad or worse?LMAO! Great way to back up your statement with nothing.

I would never say any political party is truthful all the time. But Republicans blow everybody else out of the water with their brazen dishonesty. The storylines of "Yes We Did Build That" (theme of the RNC) , and "America Shouldn't Apologize" are often repeated by Republicans, but they are based on lies.

Esten

09-16-12, 16:10

What is really sad is the comment they choose to pounce on was made BEFORE the attacks, but both you and they seem to let this little fact slip past you.Let's review what happened. On Monday night, Romney issued this condemnation of Obama: "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." The lies here are several: The statement was issued by an embassy staffer, not by Obama; it did not express sympathy with attackers; and it was not a 'response' to the attacks but in fact preceded them.

The second saddest thing is Clinton and Obama blaming a UTUBE video of causing all this havoc, ignoring 9/11 altogether.The video is clearly part of the uprisings. What is less clear is who launched the specific attacks which killed Americans, and what planning was behind it. Nobody has said this was definately not a pre-planned attack; only that such evidence has not been found and it is presently under investigation. I don't think anyone believes that the administration will not do whatever it can to get to the bottom of it.

You have to ask yourself, what sort of people become so upset with a video which they feel demeans their 'religion' that they have to go kill 'crusaders'? See my earlier post about their 4th century mentality and what they respect.That's a one-dimensional view. Not all followers of Islam are extremists who advocate violence. As Obama said, for every angry mob, there are millions who yearn for the freedom, and dignity, and hope that our flag represents. Showing "strength" is not enough; we need patient diplomacy and an approach of working with them, to increase that desire for democracy and freedom. As that segment of the Islamic population becomes larger and stronger, it will crowd out the extremists. But that is a process that takes time.

'Bring them to justice', now just how is His Highness going to do that in a foreign country? He is not about to launch a hellfire missile attack from a drone or manned military aircraft in Libya or Egypt. The FBI is on the ground, give me a break. A bunch of FBI guys knocking around in a foreign country with no jurisdiction or powers are going to doing to do exactly what?I would ask the very same question of Romney, what would he do? If your answer is such attacks on American embassies would never happen in the first place if somehow America was "stronger", that the extremists would be afraid and cower, you are fooling yourself.

Tiny12

09-16-12, 16:54

LMAO! Great way to back up your statement with nothing.Romney didn't pay income taxes for the last 10 years (Harry Reid)

Romney would raise taxes on the middle class while cutting taxes on millionaires and billionaires

Obama's policies are responsible for the boom in USA oil and gas drilling

The wealthy don't pay their fair share of taxes; Obama only proposes to go back to Clinton era rates for upper income taxpayers.

Obama and the Democrats can continue federal government spending at high levels with no sacrifice from people who make less than $200,000 a year (make that $1,000,000 per year, if you're Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer).

My plan will cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years (Barrack Obama)

Romney's Medicare plan would immediately cut benefits for more than 30 million seniors (Joe Biden)

Romney killed Joe Soptic's wife.

Bush and Republican Congressmen are wholly responsible for ____________ (fill in the blank with everything that's gone wrong over the last 4 years)

The affordable care bill will not increase the deficit. The health care package will pay for itself.

"Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions" (Barrack Obama)

Republicans are solely responsible for the mortgage/financial crisis. Democratic congressmen and women like Barney Frank, Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Christopher Dodd, who historically have been big beneficiaries of Wall Street, Fannie and Freddie, had nothing to do with it.

Nancy Pelosi was unaware of waterboarding and other methods used to interrogate terrorists.

The list would go on and on. What's disturbing, Obama believes his own bull shit. He's a narcissist. That's what makes him a very convincing liar. And what would keep him on a course of failed policies. I say "would" because a Republican House of Representatives and a deadlocked Senate, that is split government, hopefully will prevent that from happening.

Jackson

09-16-12, 18:54

Don't forget "The [ObamaCare] individual mandate is not a tax." (Barack Obama, Sep. 20, 2009)

Tiny12

09-16-12, 19:19

Don't forget "The [ObamaCare] individual mandate is not a tax." (Barack Obama, Sep. 20, 2009)That's a good one. I forgot about the 4.5 million jobs that he single handedly added to the American economy too.

WorldTravel69

09-17-12, 23:24

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/17/romney-fundraiser-videos-leaked/

Time to Flush.

Toymann

09-18-12, 00:18

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/17/romney-fundraiser-videos-leaked/

Time to Flush.Sadly WT69, you are a walking example of what Romney and many americans are VERY concerned about. When did america become a welfare state. Your own words betray you dude. Monger On All. Toymann

WorldTravel69

09-18-12, 01:23

Watch the Fucking Videos.

It was not my Words. It was your money Master Words, listen and shut the Fuck UP.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/leaked-videos-show-mitt-romney-unscripted/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/09/secret-romney-fundraiser-video-percent-backing-obama-135786.html?hp=t2_3

http://updatednews.ca/2012/09/17/mitt-romney-secret-video-reveals-views-on-obama-voters/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/romney-secret-video-marc-leder-sex-parties

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/17/major-romney-fundraiser-hosted-event-leaked-by-mother-jones/

Are you that fucking Dumb?

He paid 13% taxes.

I paid 38.

Sadly WT69, you are a walking example of what Romney and many americans are VERY concerned about. When did america become a welfare state. Your own words betray you dude. Monger On All. Toymann

Toymann

09-18-12, 01:40

Watch the Fucking Videos.

It was not my Words. It was your money Master Words, listen and shut the Fuck UP.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/leaked-videos-show-mitt-romney-unscripted/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/09/secret-romney-fundraiser-video-percent-backing-obama-135786.html?hp=t2_3

http://updatednews.ca/2012/09/17/mitt-romney-secret-video-reveals-views-on-obama-voters/

Are you that fucking Dumb?

He paid 13% taxes.

I paid 38.An excerpt from your link.

"Leaked video of Republican nominee Mitt Romney at closed-door fundraisers show him saying that 'no matter what' he does. 47 percent of the population is going to vote for Obama because they are 'are dependent upon government. ' Tonight in California, Romney did not back down from what he had said."

YOU HAVE NO IDEA DUMBO HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE USA AGREE WITH HIM!

Keep howling at the moon. Like anybody believes you ever paid 38% federal tax in your life union boy. Give me a break! Toymann

WorldTravel69

09-18-12, 01:44

I added a few more.

Did you get invited to the Sex Party?

So, Do you want to see my Birth Certificate?
I will get back to you on the correct tax rate tomorrow, but it is more than Romney paid, just on my retirement and Social Security.
When I was working it was too much more.

An excerpt from your link.

"Leaked video of Republican nominee Mitt Romney at closed-door fundraisers show him saying that 'no matter what' he does. 47 percent of the population is going to vote for Obama because they are 'are dependent upon government. ' Tonight in California, Romney did not back down from what he had said."

YOU HAVE NO IDEA DUMBO HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE USA AGREE WITH HIM!

Keep howling at the moon. Like anybody believes you ever paid 38% federal tax in your life union boy. Give me a break! Toymann

Esten

09-18-12, 01:51

Democrats' LiesThanks Tiny. I was curious what 'Democrat Lies' you would come up with. However, I never expected such a weak list ! Remember, a lie is a statement that is false or based on something false. I'll tackle a few for now. Are Democrats 100% honest all the time? Nope. But this list totally falls short of competing with the stream of lies & deception from the right.

- Harry Reid said that a source he believed to be credible (a former Bain investor) told him about Romney's taxes. And Reid stated he himself didn't know if it was true. You can argue whether it was appropriate for Reid to repeat it, but it wasn't a lie.

- I'll give a "half false" on Romney raising taxes on the middle class. Romney didn't say this, but it does have a basis. Romney is trying to get away with being vague on his policies. So the Obama team requested a non-partisan assessment of what's known about Romney's proposals. The study concluded it wouldn't be possible for Romney to meet all of his stated goals without shifting some of the tax burden from people who make more than $200,000 to people who make less.

- CBO and CBPP analyses confirm Obama's plan will cut the deficit by 3.8 - 4 trillion over 10 years. There are some assessments that put the number lower. Call it a disagreement, but it isn't a lie.

- Likewise the CBO estimates PPACA will not add to the deficit. PPACA repeal would increase the deficit.

- Romney's Medicare plan involves repealing PPACA, which means cutting benefits in PPACA for seniors such as free annual preventive care and increased prescription drug coverage.

- I'll give a "half-false" on Romney killed Joe Soptic's wife. The Obama PAC TV ad never said that. However it implied a connection, which is very tenuous.

- The PPACA mandate was always described as a penalty or a tax penalty. It's not a tax like an income or sales tax. The Romney campaign agrees with this description. The Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the mandate under the taxation clause doesn't mean the original description was a lie.

Tiny12

09-18-12, 02:12

YOU HAVE NO IDEA DUMBO HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE USA AGREE WITH HIM!As you would probably surmise, I'm firmly on your side on this. I've worked my ass off most of my life. I was thrifty, didn't buy things I didn't need, and saved and invested wisely. And what did I get for that? Huge tax bills. I've paid the federal government much more in income taxes than I've spent on myself. During much of my life I saw people sitting on their asses, living off the government dole who had houses and cars and lifestyles better than mine. I agree with Romney.

But WT69 is right, this is one more nail in the coffin. As Jackson has said, more lucidly than I can, if half the country isn't paying income tax, why wouldn't they want to stick it to the productive members of society? The USA is headed in the same direction as Greece.

You might have been foolish to have become a United States citizen. I've got my citizenship in Dominca, and I'm just about ready to jump ship. That undoubtedly makes me the worst kind of traitor in the eyes of WT69, but I'm tired of getting fucked by the federal government.

Toymann

09-18-12, 02:19

As you would probably surmise, I'm firmly on your side on this. I've worked my ass off most of my life. I was thrifty, didn't buy things I didn't need, and saved and invested wisely. And what did I get for that? Huge tax bills. I've paid the federal government much more in income taxes than I've spent on myself. During much of my life I saw people sitting on their asses, living off the government dole who had houses and cars and lifestyles better than mine. I agree with Romney.

But WT69 is right, this is one more nail in the coffin. As Jackson has said, more lucidly than I can, if half the country isn't paying income tax, why wouldn't they want to stick it to the productive members of society? The USA is headed in the same direction as Greece.

You might have been foolish to have become a United States citizen. I've got my citizenship in Dominca, and I'm just about ready to jump ship. That undoubtedly makes me the worst kind of traitor in the eyes of WT69, but I'm tired of getting fucked by the federal government.It's not 47% dude. As Romney has said, it's an off the cuff remark at a fund raiser. Do we need to make comment on Obama's off the cuff statements over the years. It's also referenced in WT69's lame article. If Obomanation did get in I don't blame ya a bit for jumping ship. Fear not, and have faith in the american voter. We are not Argentina yet in spite of Esten and Wt69's wet dreams to the contrary. It's getting close but I actually estimate it's only 35-40% that really sucks the government titty and the voter turnout in this group will not be impressive. Keep the faith baby! Toymann out!

Tiny12

09-18-12, 02:22

Remember, a lie is a statement that is false or based on something false.Your explanation is a lot like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Your definition of "cut" has a lot in common with Clinton's definition of "sexual relations." Not to take anything away from Clinton. He was a 10 times better president than Obama. I'm not a lawyer or a politician. When someone intentionally tries to mislead people, I consider it just as bad as an outright lie.

Toymann

09-18-12, 02:30

When someone intentionally tries to mislead people, I consider it just as bad as an outright lie.Esten is NOT built of the kind of stuff that could even comprehend the "real truth" in your statement dude. I arrive in BA late next week. If you are in BA the first beer is on me! WELL SAID. BRAVO!

Monger on TinyDude. Toymann

Toymann

09-18-12, 02:55

From liberal yahoo tonight. Just the opening except."President Barack Obama's campaign on Monday tried to tamp down expectations for his debate performance against Mitt Romney, and acknowledged that the former law professor needs to learn to shorten his answers."

Translation. Get ready for Romney to rip Obomanation to shreads in the debates. Head-to-head, we all know what will happen. Substance kicks bullsh*t's ass everytime. Hope we can get it in Argentina. I can hardly wait. This will totally drive Esten and WT69 crazy. Like a maggot on a rabbit chop, Romney will simply take pee wee herman and expose him for what he is! You heard it here first dudes. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Jackson

09-18-12, 02:56

He paid 13% taxes.

I paid 38.Okay, but I bet his check had a lot more zeros on it, and that's what counts.

Besides, if you don't like the fact that capital gains on investments is taxed at 15%, then lobby your congressmen to change the tax code, but don't expect Romney or anybody else to idiotically pay more than the current tax code specifies.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

09-18-12, 03:02

"Leaked video of Republican nominee Mitt Romney at closed-door fundraisers show him saying that 'no matter what' he does. 47 percent of the population is going to vote for Obama because they 'are dependent upon government. ' Tonight in California, Romney did not back down from what he had said."Hey WT,

This Romney quote is entirely accurate.

47 percent of the population is going to vote for Obama because they are dependent upon government.

What I don't understand is why you think that stating this fact is somehow detrimental to Mitt Romney?

Really, I'd like to know.

Thanks,

Jackson

TejanoLibre

09-18-12, 03:43

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and / or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Romney wins!

Hands down!

TL

WorldTravel69

09-18-12, 14:06

Dependent on the Government, that is.

Almost more than half the 47% are White.

Blacks are only 12%.

By the Way I am like Romne,y my Taxes are Secret. But I did pay more than him.

Hey WT,

This Romney quote is entirely accurate.

47 percent of the population is going to vote for Obama because they 'are dependent upon government.

What I don't understand is why you think that stating this fact is somehow detrimental to Mitt Romney?

Really, I'd like to know.

Thanks,

Jackson

SnakeOilSales

09-18-12, 16:43

WorldTravel69

09-18-12, 17:01

Actually it is 46%, not 47%.

Here is the break down on who those are:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf

The map shows what states paid little or no Taxes. Red means None. Blue pays a little. Yes the map is old, but I am sure it is about the same as today.

Dependent on the Government, that is.

Almost more than half the 47% are White.

Blacks are only 12%.

By the Way I am like Romne, why my Taxes are Secret. But I did pay more than him.

Jackson

09-18-12, 18:35

Romney's latest gaffe has just gone to show what I have said all along: Romney is an out of touch Wall Street slimebag who has no empathy for those who are not in his financial class. His "47%" commentary along with the later released commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have essentially made him UNELECTABLE in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia at this point.Hey SOS,

I understand that you and Esten will categorize everything Romney says as a "gaffe", but we all know it's just spin.

Anyway...

The Romney quote is entirely accurate.

"47 percent of the population is going to vote for Obama because they are dependent upon government."

What I don't understand is why you think that stating this fact is somehow detrimental to Mitt Romney?

In other words, how exactly does this fact make Romney unelectable anywhere?

It can't be because the statement would embarrass the little piggies feeding at the government trough, because these leaches are obviously not embarrassed by their own failures as they long ago sold their dignity and their freedom along with their vote to the liberal Democrats who promised to continue giving them other people's hard-earned money. The 47% of the country who is taking a government handout isn't now and never was going to vote for Romney.

And it can't be because the 53% who are working to support these leaches would find some motivation in this statement to vote against Romney, because they're the ones getting fucked by the leaches and Romney is their only hope for keeping these leaches under control.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

09-18-12, 18:39

El Alamo

09-18-12, 19:38

I agree completely with Jackson. What we respect is someone who tells it the way it is. Romney with his ' Obama and his supporters are a bunch of lazy, shiftless freeloaders dependent on welfare' was telling it like it is. I for one, appreciate straight talk. And I think you would be surprised how many other people appreciate straight talk.

El Alamo

09-18-12, 19:54

Hey SOS,

I understand that you and Esten will categorize everything Romney says as a "gaffe", but we all know it's just spin.I am wondering SOS stand for. I can think of several possibilities.

Big Boss Man

09-18-12, 22:11

WT69 the fact that the 47% of folks who don't pay taxes are more likely to vote for Obama is news?

The fact that those folks receiving funds / support for the government are more likely to vote for Obama's handout bandwagon is news?

About the only thing I can see as news worthy is the fact Romney is at least honest about it.

When Team Obama says he is a president who represents ALL the people I guess they are referring to the fact he is trying to fleece the money from the 53% who pay taxes so he can give it to the 47% who don't. I guess you could call that "representing" all the folks.First of all I bet the plurality of non-income tax payers do not vote given 62% turnout in the 2008 election. Second senior citizens more likely to have social security as their sole income and they vote in higher numbers than the rest of us. Senior citizens are more likely to vote for Romney than Obama. It might even be worth a proposition bet that Romney carries the 47% if someone gave big enough odds. People are so adamant about this issue you might be able to sucker someone by saying Obama will carry the 47% by less than 10% and give you 10 to 1 odds. I don't know the outcome but I would like to see the stats on this one. Maybe Sydney could structure a sure proposition bet winner.

WorldTravel69

09-18-12, 22:39

A lot of those people are working, but are in the poverty level so they do not pay Federal Taxes, but pay taxes on what they buy.

I heard what the break down of the 46% was, which is in part, is in my earlier post.

I will post the complete break down later, unless you feel like looking it up yourself. Then I don't have to repeat myself.

Thanks.

Also if you look at the Chart I posted you will see that the Red states do not pay Taxes are mostly Republican. And the Blue are Swing states; half Republicans.
In other words the Republican states do not pay enough to the people for them to pay Taxes.

WT69 the fact that the 47% of folks who don't pay taxes are more likely to vote for Obama is news?

The fact that those folks receiving funds / support for the government are more likely to vote for Obama's handout bandwagon is news?

About the only thing I can see as news worthy is the fact Romney is at least honest about it.

When Team Obama says he is a president who represents ALL the people I guess they are referring to the fact he is trying to fleece the money from the 53% who pay taxes so he can give it to the 47% who don't. I guess you could call that "representing" all the folks.

Esten

09-19-12, 01:20

Your explanation is a lot like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Your definition of "cut" has a lot in common with Clinton's definition of "sexual relations." Not to take anything away from Clinton. He was a 10 times better president than Obama. I'm not a lawyer or a politician. When someone intentionally tries to mislead people, I consider it just as bad as an outright lie.Do you mean my definition of "lie" ? Anyways, I agree with your comment on misleading people. Like saying that the president removed the welfare requirement and you don't have to work, the government will just send you a check. It's remarkable that you can support the Republican ticket. Here's a link you might find interesting.

All Pants on Fire! statements involving Mitt Romney
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

Esten

09-19-12, 01:31

It's not that he pointed out a large number of people pay no income tax and receive something from the government. It's what he said about those people.

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them. Who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. It's an entitlement and the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And the president starts off with 48, 49 … he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.”Romney is just wrong that all these people will vote for Obama. A small majority of them might. But a large number will vote Republican. Check WT's picture, several of the states with the lowest incomes are red states. In fact, almost half of Romney's electoral college votes will come from these low-income states.

Romney is also wrong that all these people consider themselves "victims" and expect free stuff. The vast majority of those people are hard working people who pay federal payroll taxes (and other state and local levies) or are senior citizens receiving Social Security and Medicare.

Romney must know these things, so what's he up to? He's promoting an idea that almost half the country is a "taker class" and they all support Obama. This feeds his base, who gobble it up and proclaim it true without question. Anyone who says Romney's statement was factual and accurate is not just drinking the kool-aid, but quaffing it.

Romney should ask himself a few questions.

What does the low-income Republican think of Romney's comment that he will vote for Obama no matter what? That he doesn't want to take responsibility for his life? That Republican would probably be insulted and think Romney doesn't know what he's talking about. That he's out of touch.

What does the low-income Senior think of Romney's comment that she will vote for Obama no matter what? That she doesn't want to take responsibility for her life? That Senior would probably be insulted and think Romney doesn't know what he's talking about. That he's out of touch.

Romney's comments are certain to alienate some voters, the only question is how many.

Punter 127

09-19-12, 01:43

First of all I bet the plurality of non-income tax payers do not vote given 62% turnout in the 2008 election. Second senior citizens more likely to have social security as their sole income and they vote in higher numbers than the rest of us. Senior citizens are more likely to vote for Romney than Obama. [snip]I tend to agree with you but I'm just not sure about the senior citizens. After all WorldTraveler69 is a senior citizen and he hasn't paid taxes in years. Do you think he might vote for Obama?

WorldTravel69

09-19-12, 03:11

Where Are you coming From.

I have paid my taxes every year of My 70 Years. I worked in Union Jobs that pay the highest Taxes.
The Right to Work states paid less taxes or None. Because they did not make enough to owe Taxes.

As far as My same age group buddies, we have pay too much for your Tax retirement free packages.

You and your buddy Politicians get Free Retirement and Health Care for the rest of your Life, On my dime. I Hope yours is Short Lived, Because you Did Not Work for It as the Rest of us Did.

Punter maybe you did? Do you really want to pay for Your Rich Buddies Retirement Package?

Tell Us about why you think you are not in the same boat? Why Do You deserve our free retirement?

Come on read the rest of the story, which I posted earlier.

The Southern Right to Work States are getting paid as it was 100 years ago. Just enough to pay for food and lodging. But Not to own there Own Homes.

Slave wages.

Room and board, not more.

Pay to the boss for your food.

It has not changed in over 100 years.'
They do not pay Taxes, because they do not earn enough.

Are you that selfish?

I would give most of my money to helping people and mostly animals.
But I Can only afford to help Animals where I live, Cats and Dogs, skunks and raccoons.
They only Want Love, Which you Do Not Care about, just Money.
Sorry, I am Rambling on again.

The mat says:
"Wine on, you will feel Better"

I tend to agree with you but I'm just not sure about the senior citizens. After all WorldTraveler69 is a senior citizen and he hasn't paid taxes in years. Do you think he might vote for Obama?

WorldTravel69

09-19-12, 03:50

I heard his speech, he makes more sense than both candidates.

But the problem is if vote for someone else, your vote will help Romney.

Just Your vote will help the Non qualified Person..

Which can lead us into another War?.

Have you checked out Gary Johnson's record, he is good on pocketbook issues, but without the social conservative stuff we hate so much. I think if you are an issues voter, Gary Johnson is clearly the best choice this election season.

www.garyjohnson2012.com

Live Free

TejanoLibre

09-19-12, 05:02

What do you Boys know about 2016, the movie about Obama, and what do you think about it?

Just watched the piece on the Glen Beck show about the movie.

Interesting facts about Obama's Agenda!

TL.

Possible Agenda, has a Poker Face and keeps his cards close.

SnakeOilSales

09-19-12, 05:24

I would give most of my money to helping people and mostly animals.

But I Can only afford to help Animals where I live, Cats and Dogs, skunks and raccoons.

"Please do everyone a favor and stop helping the skunks and raccoons in the area where you live. I always thought that there were always an abundance of skunks and raccoons because they reproduced so damn fast, when in fact, it was because people like you have been helping them. These vermin carry rabies, smell bad, and are unsanitary so do your neighbors a favor put poison in your garbage the next time you put it out.

Tiny12

09-19-12, 08:35

Do you mean my definition of "lie"? Anyways, I agree with your comment on misleading people. Like saying that the president removed the welfare requirement and you don't have to work, the government will just send you a check. It's remarkable that you can support the Republican ticket. Here's a link you might find interesting.

All Pants on Fire! Statements involving Mitt Romney.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/statements/byruling/pants-fire/I said your side is just as bad or worse than Republicans. You're not being objective. It's remarkable that you can support the Democrat ticket. You're very intelligent, but you're so blinded by your prejudices that your math becomes fuzzy. From one of your posts, I believe you think we can raise taxes on the wealthy and their small businesses to 55% or 60%, raise the corporate income tax and social security and medicare contributions proportionately, and continue to spend like drunken sailors and all would be fine and dandy. That's not what would happen. We'd end up with a stagnant economy and European levels of unemployment or bankrupt or both.

Big Boss Man

09-19-12, 12:19

Romney should have just said the 47% who are Obama's supporters view themselves as victims. Clearly government workers, teachers and union workers pay income tax yet I think Romney would view them as syncophants. They are the one's who Romney thinks view themselves as victims of society. It is really Ayn Rand's view of the world that it is composed of givers and takers that he was trying to describe. It is just not same subset of the population that pay no income tax. Many Romney supporters would regard paying no income tax as a positive not a negative. Most of us try to minimize the income taxes we pay. In the Randian sense. 47% is close to being accurate I would think.

It does point out the difficulty Republicans have in cutting government. Many of their supporters use government benefits rightfully to their own advantage.

Punter 127

09-19-12, 12:58

Where Are you coming From.

I have paid my taxes every year of My 70 Years. I worked in Union Jobs that pay the highest Taxes.

The Right to Work states paid less taxes or None. Because they did not make enough to owe Taxes.I know the Democrats would like for us to start paying taxes from the cradle but we're not there yet. Dude if you started paying taxes at age 15 you would have to be 85 now to have paid taxes for 70 years, I think I'm safe calling bullshit on this one.

Furthermore if you and Harry Reid can go around saying Romney didn't pay any taxes when he says he did, then I can say you didn't pay any taxes, I've got as much proof as you do. That's where I'm coming from.

As far as My same age group buddies, we have pay too much for your Tax retirement free packages.

You and your buddy Politicians get Free Retirement and Health Care for the rest of your Life, On my dime. I Hope yours is Short Lived, Because you Did Not Work for It as the Rest of us Did.

Punter maybe you did? Do you really want to pay for Your Rich Buddies Retirement Package?

Tell Us about why you think you are not in the same boat? Why Do You deserve our free retirement?What the phuck are you talking about? I started paying into SS at the age of 13 and I'm not old enough to draw on it, as for the pension that I am drawing, it sure as hell was not free and it's not tax dollar supported. I did something many Democrats don't seem to understand, I worked for it, I phucking earned it! ... What part of that don't you understand?

Come on read the rest of the story, which I posted earlier.

The Southern Right to Work States are getting paid as it was 100 years ago. Just enough to pay for food and lodging. But Not to own there Own Homes.

Slave wages.

Room and board, not more.

Pay to the boss for your food.

It has not changed in over 100 years. '

They do not pay Taxes, because they do not earn enough.

Are you that selfish?Yes Sir re Bob I want dirty air and water, hell I even want to see poor people starving in the streets. Come on Dude that's more bullcrap! Where do you come up with this shit?

I would give most of my money to helping people and mostly animals.

But I Can only afford to help Animals where I live, Cats and Dogs, skunks and raccoons.

They only Want Love, Which you Do Not Care about, just Money.

Sorry, I am Rambling on again.The fact that you put helping animals above helping people says a lot about you!

Where do you get off saying I don't care about animals, who the phuck do you think you are? I've spent more money in my life to help wildlife and wildlife habitat than you've ever thought about, there's more to helping animals than putting a bowl of sour milk out for an old alley cat.

I wouldn't call your post (s) 'Rambling' I'd call most of them 'word salad'! (google it)

Why don't you tell us how you're better off than you were four years ago, not a bunch of talking points but how WT69 is better off?

Oh BTW how did you like the way Obama's old righthand man Rahm Emanuel pushed the Chicago teacher out in the street. A real union supporter right?

Member #4112

09-19-12, 14:23

Guys, give up on the liberals. They are both conflicted and confused in their belief systems.

Here is a great example:

Obama gets 90+% of the black vote because he is "black", liberals do not consider those who are black voting for Obama to be racist even when their vote is based only on race. But if you are white and don't vote for him you are branded a racist, go figure.

What Romney has done, very inelegantly I might add, is to simply point out there is a large block of folks who depend on the ever expanding government handout system who will vote for Obama because he champions that system and the victimization it breeds.

It's not a secret these folks aren't going to vote for Romney – so why waste the effort and money trying to woo them, a very simple premise.

Ditto for the folks not paying any income tax, they are not going to be moved by the arguement of lower tax rates and closing loop holes since it does not affect them. Again simple.

Obama who says the president has to represent "all the people" has castigated and denigrated those making more than $200K since he came into office. Wow now that's what I call representing folks.

Think about it a moment, what do the Democrats tell everyone, 'it's not your fault', 'you don't have to take responsibility for your life' the government will. This subsidy mentality has been going on for a long time under the guise of 'we care'. Democrats only care about staying in power and feel no guilt at creating an underclass of welfare dependent people to do it.

Rev BS

09-19-12, 18:53

Both sides have shown that they will slant everything to their advantage, and AP forum is blindly follow the rhetoric. Can we continue to pretend that there is truthfulness in politics? Once in power, it is to the death to stay in power. Assad and Syria is the prime example following Khaddafi in Libya. To do the same, politics in Thailand resemble circus acts with the USA not too far behind.

But what is funny is that with the changes in governments, is that in reality, nothing really changes. The rich & powerful will remain rich & powerful. They will adjust to the new leadership and play their power game. And the poor & disenfranchised will contine their cycle of poverty. The US will remain the country of opportunity for the average citizen because of several factors. It is a young country, it's lands are vast and rich, it's population is small and it's people because of continued immigration, hard working, versatile and innovative. And so, democracy and capitalism was able thrive. It does not do as well elsewhere. And now, somehow, we have hit the wall. The reasons are many and myraid. I welcome some discussion on this.

People can talk in big generous rhetoric, but we will never vote against our own little selfish & self-indulgent lifestyles. We managed to achieved some success and we all think we are such great controllers of our own destiny. Let the air flight develop some serious problem, and all the atheists will turn into believers in a split second. It's that hilarious. And in America, things are quite hilarious right now. But as funny as it is, I find myself not laughing.

WorldTravel69

09-19-12, 21:08

Here is the Free Loader Charts.

El Alamo

09-19-12, 22:21

This election is pretty simple. Do you want Pee Wee Herman aka Barrack Obama to be your quarterback or do you want Aaron Rodgers / Tom Brady aka Mitt romney to be your quarterback

Esten

09-19-12, 23:57

From one of your posts, I believe you think we can raise taxes on the wealthy and their small businesses to 55% or 60%, raise the corporate income tax and social security and medicare contributions proportionately, and continue to spend like drunken sailors and all would be fine and dandy. That's not what would happen. We'd end up with a stagnant economy and European levels of unemployment or bankrupt or both.Hey Tiny, you and I were debating federal finances back in August. In one reply to you on 08-11-12 I clearly outlined my views on balancing the budget. I said we should go back to Clinton era tax rates, and I didn't say anything about corporate taxes. Of 5 items on my list, 3 involve revenue increases and 2 involve spending cuts.

(1) Allow payroll tax deductions to expire.
(2) Go back to the Clinton tax rates (perhaps in steps).
(3) Implement the Buffet Rule.
(4) Cut Defense.
(5) Other spending cuts as needed (should be minimal after #1-4).

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?6937-2012-Elections-in-the-USA&p=425108&viewfull=1#post425108

SnakeOilSales

09-20-12, 01:00

This election is pretty simple. Do you want Pee Wee Herman aka Barrack Obama to be your quarterback or do you want Aaron Rodgers / Tom Brady aka Mitt romney to be your quarterbackIf only your comparison was accurate; it is true, Barack Obama probably isn't much better than Pee Wee Herman, however, Mitt Romney is certainly no Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady, which is the reason why Obama is leading in all polls and is the clear favorite to win the election in seven weeks. It is amazing how the Republicans can continue to put up terrible, borderline unelectable candidates for two consecutive election cycles; how could they, in their right minds, nominate a MORMON Wall Street Shark worth more than $250 million who was born with a platinum plated and diamond encrusted spoon in his mouth- during a period of economic turmoil largely caused by out of touch Wall Street Sharks just like Romney? How can anybody in Middle America even begin to relate to this guy when he is caught on video trashing the 47% of the electorate who receive some form of government benefits and pays just 13% of his yearly millions in taxes? The republicans should have nominated Chris Christie or some other ostensibly middle class politician who the undecided electorate in Middle America can actually relate to.

Esten

09-20-12, 01:25

60% Income less than $50,000
25% Senior Citizens
15% Unemployed

That's the breakdown of the 47%. Actually there's a few thousand millionaires in there too, that amazingly pay no income tax. But taking these numbers, it is clearly ludicrous to say a huge % of the country prefers a handout to personal responsibility. Some Republicans get it.

Arizona Senator Jon Kyl : "I think if he were to recharacterize what he thinks about the vote he's going to get, he would appreciate that a lot of the folks that are currently receiving some benefit from the government are very likely to vote for him."

Connecticut Senate candidate Linda McMahon: "I disagree with Governor Romney's insinuation that 47% of Americans believe they are victims who must depend on the government for their care. I know that the vast majority of those who rely on government are not in that situation because they want to be."

Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown: "That's not the way I view the world. As someone who grew up in tough circumstances, I know that being on public assistance is not a spot that anyone wants to be in."

Nevada Senator Dean Heller: "I just don't view the world the same way he does."

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez: "We have a lot of people that are at the poverty level in New Mexico, but they count just as much as anybody else. There is a net that does allow them to be caught and taken care of, whether it be through medical services, whether it be food services, whether it be with funding for apartments, for housing."

Ps. You so underestimate Americans dude. Shame. Shame. Shame.It has become very clear; the people who underestimate Americans are Mitt Romney and those who agree with him.

Toymann

09-20-12, 01:32

If only your comparison was accurate; it is true, Barack Obama probably isn't much better than Pee Wee Herman, however, Mitt Romney is certainly no Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady, which is the reason why Obama is leading in all polls and is the clear favorite to win the election in seven weeks. It is amazing how the Republicans can continue to put up terrible, borderline unelectable candidates for two consecutive election cycles; how could they, in their right minds, nominate a MORMON Wall Street Shark worth more than $250 million who was born with a platinum plated and diamond encrusted spoon in his mouth- during a period of economic turmoil largely caused by out of touch Wall Street Sharks just like Romney? How can anybody in Middle America even begin to relate to this guy when he is caught on video trashing the 47% of the electorate who receive some form of government benefits and pays just 13% of his yearly millions in taxes? The republicans should have nominated Chris Christie or some other ostensibly middle class politician who the undecided electorate in Middle America can actually relate to.In spite of your fantasy that the election is a prom queen contest, you again, as always miss the point. The 6% that will decide this election want someone who has a track record of getting the job done! Period! End of story! All polls of independents have been favouring Romney from the get go. Factor in the battleground states are mostly in the midwest (Florida is already in the bag dude) , and a Romney landslide is all but a forgone conclusion. It's not a popularity contest dumbo, america needs a closer and Obomanation has shown he is anything BUT! Keep howling at the moon. I am sure after the election you will crawl under your rock and never be heard from again on this board. It was just 20 months ago that the country voted for the greatest liberal slaughter in history. What makes you think anything has changed! It never fails to amaze me how you dudes like you and esten fail understand even the basics of small town america. Luckily most americans don't live in huge cities (at least not yet) , and the country remains a center right mosiac. Keep whistling past the cemetary SnakeBoy. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

WorldTravel69

09-20-12, 02:19

So what did the GOP do to Help Them?

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/g-o-p-blocks-veteran-jobs-bill/

Toymann

09-20-12, 02:44

So what did the GOP do to Help Them?

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/g-o-p-blocks-veteran-jobs-bill/There is NO money to pay for this dude. You just don't get it, do you? It's just a political play by senate liberals to appear like they are doing something. Why aren't you ranting about your liberal buddies in the senate looking at a budget for the country. There is one on the table but Reid and his ilk act like it doesn't exist. Where is your rage about this. This is such a two way street. You so don't get it dude. Monger on. Toymann.

Ps. Is this the same US military that you bad mouthed after they came back from Vietnam. Oh how you have changed your tune!

SnakeOilSales

09-20-12, 03:11

In spite of your fantasy that the election is a prom queen contest, you again, as always miss the point. The 6% that will decide this election want someone who has a track record of getting the job done! Period! End of story! All polls of independents have been favouring Romney from the get go. Factor in the battleground states are mostly in the midwest (Florida is already in the bag dude) , and a Romney landslide is all but a forgone conclusion. It's not a popularity contest dumbo, america needs a closer and Obomanation has shown he is anything BUT! Keep howling at the moon. I am sure after the election you will crawl under your rock and never be heard from again on this board. It was just 20 months ago that the country voted for the greatest liberal slaughter in history. What makes you think anything has changed! It never fails to amaze me how you dudes like you and esten fail understand even the basics of small town america. Luckily most americans don't live in huge cities (at least not yet) , and the country remains a center right mosiac. Keep whistling past the cemetary SnakeBoy. Happy Mongering All. ToymannYou are simply in denial about the reality of this election. According to your very own FOX News their poll (released September 19th) has Obama leading Romney 49-44 in Florida. FOX News also has Obama leading Romney 49-42 in Ohio (also released September 19th). There is a good chance (although I am not sure) that these polls were compiled BEFORE Romney's "47%" speech which will likely hurt his standing in both Florida and Ohio. If Obama wins Ohio (which looks VERY likely, consider the reviving economy due in part to the rebirth of the auto industry championed by Obama) the election is over; Romney does not have the math to win the election without Ohio.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

WorldTravel69

09-20-12, 13:40

If Romney gets in, he will find the money, by raising the debt limit.

Come on, You Know That.

There is NO money to pay for this dude. You just don't get it, do you? It's just a political play by senate liberals to appear like they are doing something. Why aren't you ranting about your liberal buddies in the senate looking at a budget for the country. There is one on the table but Reid and his ilk act like it doesn't exist. Where is your rage about this. This is such a two way street. You so don't get it dude. Monger on. Toymann.

Ps. Is this the same US military that you bad mouthed after they came back from Vietnam. Oh how you have changed your tune!

WorldTravel69

09-21-12, 01:59

Come On, Speak Up.

What Can He Do?

He will have to raise Taxes on Someone.

WHO? Not his Rich Buddies. If Will End Up in Comprise, Those Under a Million.

What is His Plan?

At THIS TIME, Who knows?

30,000 More Vets Are Coming Home from Afghanistan This WeeK! With No Government Financial Support.
They went to War for Our Country, Now the Republicans Shit on Them.
There no Jobs that Republicans will Support that the Democrats wanted.
Trained Soldiers Coming home with no Jobs on you Doorsteps, what will they do to make A LIVING.
They only know how to KILL.
Obama wanted Schools to Train people, What this Country needd to get ahead in this World and you said What?
Fuck Off.
I Hope They do knock on your Door, Because you will piss your pants. They will be
Waiting for The Rich Guy That Sent them to War, that DOES Give A Shit about them keeping you From Terrorists.
I Am sure You DO NOT give a Shit about the Sons Daughters that are Protecting Your Interests?
COME CLEAN?
They had War Bonds in the First World War, but none Since, Why?
Because they were after What?

OIL!

So the Republicans said they were Police Actons an not wars, and did not Need War Bonds, just Raise the Debts.
As they did, were you not alive when the your buddies Republicans Posted the Law.
Who Cares?

The Plan to Help the 47% was started by Your Favorite President Reagan in 1986.
IT HAS WORKED SO FAR, but Romney does not like it because of the Free Loaders, His Father Is One Them. They was a Video of his Mother talking about him, her Boy Friend, an illegal alien and later getting married to make their Questionable American Son to be An American Citizen. When an Where Was he really born on some Love Affair In Mexico?
Show US his Birth Certificate?
Oh, How He Must Really Hate His Freeloader Welfare Father.
I Was on Welfare also, I know what it like to get free clothes and Shoes and I Thank Those for That.
I wish he went to my Grammar School.
Evidently, TIMMY Was Too Pampered to Know What Hardships are like in a Public School?
.
I want to see Romney's Mexican Birth Records! Not his Fathers!

I know that is Too Much for your Republican Pea Brains to Handle.

If Romney gets in, he will find the money, by raising the debt limit.

Come on, You Know That.

Tiny12

09-21-12, 14:24

Hey Tiny, you and I were debating federal finances back in August. In one reply to you on 08-11-12 I clearly outlined my views on balancing the budget. I said we should go back to Clinton era tax rates, and I didn't say anything about corporate taxes. Of 5 items on my list. 3 involve revenue increases and 2 involve spending cuts.

(1) Allow payroll tax deductions to expire.

(2) Go back to the Clinton tax rates (perhaps in steps).

(3) Implement the Buffet Rule.

(4) Cut Defense.

(5) Other spending cuts as needed (should be minimal after #1-4).

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?6937-2012-Elections-in-the-USA&p=425108&viewfull=1#post425108Esten, I was thinking of this post, which indicated you'd raise corporate tax, social security, medicare and excise taxes in proportion to taxes on the wealthy. You'd have to do that to maintain the 42% ratio in your post.

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?6937-2012-Elections-in-the-USA&p=425079&viewfull=1#post425079

If I understand correctly, unlike Romney, you would raise taxes on the middle class? That would be the effect if you go back to the Clinton rates.

Your plan wouldn't work in the long term, if indeed the "other spending cuts" are minimal. And if we use your definition of "cuts", which I believe means reduction from expected levels under current policy. Medicare will drive the country into bankruptcy if its growth is not brought under control. The "Esten" plan isn't sufficient. You won't balance the budget by going back to the Clinton rates without doing something about entitlements.

Unfortunately, what you're proposing is very similar to what Obama probably plans to try to do going forward. I'm not sure whether he drank the kool aid, or whether he realizes he'll have to raise taxes sky high on everyone or pass a bankrupt government onto future generations. If he has a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress he may end up doing both.

Jackson

09-21-12, 14:43

The ANT and the GRASSHOPPER

This one is a little different ....

Two Different Versions ...

Two Different Morals

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL of the OLD STORY:

Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green...'

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the SEIU group singing 'We shall overcome'.

Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper's sake, while he damns the ants.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight..

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackled but once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL of the STORY:

Be careful how you vote in 2012.

I've sent this to you because I believe that you are an ant not a grasshopper!

Make sure that you pass this on to other ants.

Don't bother sending it on to any grasshoppers because they wouldn't understand it, anyway.

Member #4112

09-21-12, 17:58

WT69, Esten, SOS and all the other liberals who just can not grasp the concept of "cutting entitlement spending'.

For liberals a "cut" in entitlement spending means you stop the entitlement program from growing any further not actually reduce the amount currently being spent.

This falls in line with liberal's idea that if Bush tax rates are not continued it represents a 'tax cut for the rich'. The actual 'cuts' took place years ago and the continuation of the CURRENT RATE does not represent another 'tax cut for the rich' as these are the prevailing current rates, no body's taxes went up or down. But still liberals call this a TAX CUT.

When we are borrowing 40 cents of every Federal dollar spent, we have a SPENDING PROBLEM. Entitlements such as Medicaid, Welfare and the host of other Federal handout programs must CUT BACK.

ANT's UNITE AND OVER THROW THE GRASSHOPPER OBAMA

Jackson

09-21-12, 18:23

Greetings everyone,

I have just finished reading "The Amateur" by New York times author Ed Klein detailing the daily ineptitude and utter incompetence in the Obama White House.

Collectively, this gang couldn't run a lemonade stand, and yet the American people are actually considering renewing their contract.

Anyway, I've added my copy to the AP House Lending Library for anyone who may be interested in reading it.

Thanks,

Jackson

PS: Yes, the house does have a Lending Library, which was born from Argento's generous donation of his book collection last year when he moved back to Australia.

Tiny12

09-21-12, 19:39

For liberals a "cut" in entitlement spending means you stop the entitlement program from growing any further not actually reduce the amount currently being spent.A cut almost always means the entitlement program continues to grow. In the case of some programs, like Medicare, it continues to grow faster than per capita GDP. But since it was supposed to grow, say, 6% per year before the change but only 5% after, it's a cut.

Tiny12

09-21-12, 20:53

"Given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget."
--John Maynard Keynes

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now"
--John F. Kennedy

Esten

09-21-12, 23:58

How many grasshoppers are there ? (ie. people who could work, but choose to be lazy, and expect a handout)

What are their political affiliations ?

Aesop fables and broad dismissals of 47% of the population, this is how Republicans perpetuate the myth that the country is full of irresponsible freeloaders who are all aligned with one political party. It would be nice if they could support their argument with some facts, but that would be asking too much. Perhaps because they are lazy, or more likely, the facts just don't back them up.

I suspect they would prefer to read their fables, drink some hot chocolate, and then go beddy bye.

Punter 127

09-22-12, 00:19

I suspect they would prefer to read their fables, drink some hot chocolate, and then go beddy bye.[snip]Only if Big Brother says it's OK!

SnakeOilSales

09-22-12, 00:27

Big Boss Man

09-22-12, 00:53

Tiny12, I most often appreciate your posts but I think you have taken these quotes out context.

"Given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget."

-John Maynard KeynesKeynes was reacting to Hoover who raised taxes to meet the deficit. Keynes would not advocate spending cuts during a time of economic weakness. Romney actually is saying his tax policy is revenue neutral and he is in favor of spending cuts. Republican economics is different than what Keynes proposed. Read reactions to Paul Krugman articles at RealClearMarkets if you think Keynesian economics is favored. It might open your eyes. If Romney became a Keynesian he might actually win California and win in landslide. The Austrian school is favored by Republicans now.

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now"

-John F. KennedyMarginal tax rates were very high under Kennedy so there was much room to cut. If Kennedy's statement is the truth than we should eliminate taxes all together. I fail to see how a zero tax rate will raise government revenue. Maybe I am slow.

Unfortunately, Government is overextended in my opinion. There is no fiscal or monetary policy that will help the economy. Basically I see years of slow growth until the baby boomers die off. Obama is trying speed up the process by creating death panels (rationing medical care) but senior mongers like Sydney are objecting. I heard one person say this week that young people are being taxed to buy Viagra for senior citizens. I thought that was funny.

Tiny12

09-22-12, 01:56

Big Boss Man, There was no context, except maybe that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are out of step with their heroes. They're potentially going to be a big part of driving us over the fiscal cliff in the short term and bankrupting the country in the longer term. I agree with the majority of what you wrote.

Toymann

09-22-12, 03:16

I find it very interesting how the die-hard right wingers on this thread (Jackson, Toymann, Doppel, etc) have now given up ranting about how Romney WILL win this election (clearly he is the underdog at this point) and have resorted to drivel about why Romney SHOULD win this election.I refer you to my last post SnakeBoy!

In spite of your fantasy that the election is a prom queen contest, you again, as always miss the point. The 6% that will decide this election want someone who has a track record of getting the job done! Period! End of story! All polls of independents have been favouring Romney from the get go. Factor in the battleground states are mostly in the midwest (Florida is already in the bag dude) , and a Romney landslide is all but a forgone conclusion. It's not a popularity contest dumbo, america needs a closer and Obomanation has shown he is anything BUT! Keep howling at the moon. I am sure after the election you will crawl under your rock and never be heard from again on this board. It was just 20 months ago that the country voted for the greatest liberal slaughter in history. What makes you think anything has changed! It never fails to amaze me how you dudes like you and esten fail understand even the basics of small town america. Luckily most americans don't live in huge cities (at least not yet) , and the country remains a center right mosiac. Keep whistling past the cemetary SnakeBoy. Happy Mongering All. ToymannAs they say in court,"asked and answered"! LMAO. Do you plan to come to next weeks dinner party dude? I arrive in BA that morning and will be happy to buy the first beer. I am curious to see if you even really exist. Monger on SnakeBoy. Toymann.

Ps. No worries dude, my actual persona is very different from my Toymann persona. Just ask anyone who has met met me in the flesh. Assuming you really live in BA I can't imagine why you wouldn't join us for some good food, drink and fun conversation. I promise we won't talk politics. Honest!

Big Boss Man

09-22-12, 13:41

I was doing some financial planning yesterday and joked about reaching a significant number. The lawyer just said it was something he didn't need to worry about. Either the lawyer doesn't believe in compounding returns or he thinks the world is coming to an end.

Then this morning a whole lot of gloom on Realclearmarkets. Com.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/21/paul-krugmans-obsolescence

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-or-romney-stock-market-loses-20-by-2016-2012-09-21?link=MW_story_popular

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2012/09/21/the-coming-obama-recession-of-2013/

http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/the-economy/articles/greece-euro-eurozone-banks-recession-european/9/21/2012/id/44233?page=full

It is just going to be a slog and grind guys. To use a football metaphor, you probably are not going to throw a 60 yard touchdown pass. You are probably going to have to put together a 12-play drive and overcome a holding penalty or two.

Miami Bob

09-22-12, 23:27

The polling data now:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Electoral college state today:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Who tells more lies while campaigning-they are both equally full of shit-from the great bastion of leftist communist thought which is quoted by dick Cheney and down the block from the Wharton school.

http://www.factcheck.org/

The truth is that the USA is fairly evenly divided and compromise is out of the question so whatever happens, the distortions that fuel the lack of a shared vision for the future will continue.

Note: I do not read the political threads here, but occasionally make a similar posting. Occasionally some facts don't hurt the discourse or lack of discourse.

WorldTravel69

09-24-12, 01:38

Chicago well know for corruption.

From Politicians to Gangsters.

Watch this, it could be based on Daly, but not you know who.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1833285/

It is called Boss, the mayor of the city.

P. S. Yes, Jackson this doesn't have anything to do with the "2012 Elections in the USA" thread.

Or Does It?

P.S. But the Sex is Great, it makes Clinton look like an Amateur.

Tiny12

09-24-12, 12:54

P. S. Yes, Jackson this doesn't have anything to do with the "2012 Elections in the USA" thread.

Or Does It?"Vote early, vote often" is associated with Chicago and Daley's Democrat political machine. If modern day Democrats remembered this and other history, including more recent events, they'd be less likely to condemn measures like voter identification to insure against voter fraud.

Member #2041

09-24-12, 13:08

"Vote early, vote often" is associated with Chicago and Daley's Democrat political machine. If modern day Democrats remembered this and other history, including more recent events, they'd be less likely to condemn measures like voter identification to insure against voter fraud.We do remember that. But we also remember the efforts in the Jim Crow South, to disenfranchise an entire minority, that were SUCCESSFUL in doing so, for nearly a century. The order of magnitude of this blight on Democracy dwarfs the occassional rigging of a Chicago alderman's election. This is the issue. We have two conflicting issues here, and one of them has been shown to be several orders of magnitude more serious than the other over the course of U.S. history. Yet Republicans think that it's more important to prevent individual frauds, than the systemic disenfranchisation of minorities. In other words, they don't mind denying several tens or hundreds of thousands of legitimate minority voters their Constitutional rights, as a pretext to protect against perhaps dozens or hundreds of fraudulent individual voters. Why is that? It's because the minorities that would be disenfranchised skew toward Democrats. No other reason. Fortunately, the Courts recognize this for what it is - an intention to disenfranchise minorities and the poor.

Tiny12

09-24-12, 14:06

We do remember that. But we also remember the efforts in the Jim Crow South, to disenfranchise an entire minority, that were SUCCESSFUL in doing so, for nearly a century. The order of magnitude of this blight on Democracy dwarfs the occassional rigging of a Chicago alderman's election. This is the issue. We have two conflicting issues here, and one of them has been shown to be several orders of magnitude more serious than the other over the course of U.S. history. Yet Republicans think that it's more important to prevent individual frauds, than the systemic disenfranchisation of minorities. In other words, they don't mind denying several tens or hundreds of thousands of legitimate minority voters their Constitutional rights, as a pretext to protect against perhaps dozens or hundreds of fraudulent individual voters. Why is that? It's because the minorities that would be disenfranchised skew toward Democrats. No other reason. Fortunately, the Courts recognize this for what it is - an intention to disenfranchise minorities and the poor.The Jim Crow South? That was brought about by Democrats? The only people who potentially should have any problem complying with voter ID laws are the elderly. And they're more likely to vote Republican. IMHO it's worth it, to make sure people only vote once and are entitled to vote. There's a woman, who happens to be a Democrat, in a nearby community to mine that will be voting for Obama twice, once in Texas and once in New Mexico. That's not fair. And I'm sure more wide scale voter fraud still goes on where people can get away with it. You can read about it in the press.

Calling voter fraud laws "systematic disenfranchisation of minorities" is ridiculous. How do they have ANYTHING to do with race? The Democrat party bosses however know there are people out there who are foolish enough to believe this line of crap and who as a result will be more likely to turn out to vote.

I understand your pain however. This would make it more difficult for Democrat operatives to load up a group of people in a bus and drive them around from location to location to vote, again and again.

BTW, I do agree the laws should be written so they do not disenfranchise the poor. That means no charge to be issued a voter ID, if you have no driver's license.

Jackson

09-24-12, 14:06

We do remember that. But we also remember the efforts in the Jim Crow South, to disenfranchise an entire minority, that were SUCCESSFUL in doing so, for nearly a century. The order of magnitude of this blight on Democracy dwarfs the occassional rigging of a Chicago alderman's election. This is the issue. We have two conflicting issues here, and one of them has been shown to be several orders of magnitude more serious than the other over the course of U.S. history. Yet Republicans think that it's more important to prevent individual frauds, than the systemic disenfranchisation of minorities. In other words, they don't mind denying several tens or hundreds of thousands of legitimate minority voters their Constitutional rights, as a pretext to protect against perhaps dozens or hundreds of fraudulent individual voters. Why is that? It's because the minorities that would be disenfranchised skew toward Democrats. No other reason. Fortunately, the Courts recognize this for what it is - an intention to disenfranchise minorities and the poor.Here's what's pathetic about all of this: It's the idea that there are groups of individuals in this country who apparently can't function in society with the same tools that are available to the rest of us, specifically the ability to go to a DMV and get a photo ID.

So, why is it that these "undocumented voters" can't find a way to get to the DMV and get an ID card like everybody else!

Here's an idea: If you're too fucking stupid to figure out how to go to the local DMV and get a free ID card, then you're too fucking stupid to vote.

Thanks,

Jackson

BTW, As many of you know, I recently returned from an extensive trip during which American politics was a topic of conversation with many of the people I was staying with during my travels. To a man, my generally liberal thinking friends in Greece, Germany, Thailand, Australia and The Philippines were always stunned to learn that one did not need to show any form if identification to vote in an American election.

Member #2041

09-24-12, 15:10

In many cases, in places like Texas and Wyoming many folks live something like 100 miles from the nearest DMV. And of course, they don't drive, and don't own cars, which is why they lack ID in the first place. It takes more than smarts to travel to the DMV if it's 100 miles away and you don't drive, and you live in an area with little or no public transportation. It takes RESOURCES, and many of these folks lack these resources. Just because the ID card is free, the transportation to the DMV might still cost hundreds of dollars Which is why the Courts have consistently come down against these intentionally racist voter ID laws.

The tool you are referring to is money. And the simple fact is, not everyone has it. But the law still gives people without money, the right to vote.

The Law even gives stupid people the right to vote, as evidenced by the fact that George W. Bush was elected President twice.

BTW, if a state thinks that EVERY resident should have an ID, the state certainly has the resources to mail everyone that is on their voting rolls one at no cost and requiring little or no effort from them. There are plenty of ways to ID people that don't require them to get a photograph done at a physical location that might be a hundred miles away from them.

Here's what's pathetic about all of this: It's the idea that there are groups of individuals in this country who apparently can't function in society with the same tools that are available to the rest of us, specifically the ability to go to a DMV and get a photo I'd.

So, why is it that these "undocumented voters" can't find a way to get to the DMV and get an I'd card like everybody else!

Here's an idea: If you're too fucking stupid to figure out how to go to the local DMV and get a free I'd card, then you're too fucking stupid to vote.

Thanks,

Jackson.

BTW, As many of you know, I recently returned from an extensive trip during which American politics was a topic of conversation with many of the people I was staying with during my travels. To a man, my generally liberal thinking friends in Greece, Germany, Thailand, Australia and The Philippines were always stunned to learn that one did not need to show any form if identification to vote in an American election.

Member #2041

09-24-12, 15:30

The Jim Crow South? That was brought about by Democrats? The only people who potentially should have any problem complying with voter I'd laws are the elderly. And they're more likely to vote Republican. IMHO it's worth it, to make sure people only vote once and are entitled to vote. There's a woman, who happens to be a Democrat, in a nearby community to mine that will be voting for Obama twice, once in Texas and once in New Mexico. That's not fair. And I'm sure more wide scale voter fraud still goes on where people can get away with it. You can read about it in the press.

Calling voter fraud laws "systematic disenfranchisation of minorities" is ridiculous. How do they have ANYTHING to do with race? The Democrat party bosses however know there are people out there who are foolish enough to believe this line of crap and who as a result will be more likely to turn out to vote.

I understand your pain however. This would make it more difficult for Democrat operatives to load up a group of people in a bus and drive them around from location to location to vote, again and again.

BTW, I do agree the laws should be written so they do not disenfranchise the poor. That means no charge to be issued a voter I'd, if you have no driver's license.Yes, it's true that at the time up until the early 1960s, those folks were Democrats, also known as Dixiecrats. But it was Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson that effectively reversed that situation, when LBJ forced through the voting rights act, and Nixon responded by developing what became known as "The Southern Strategy" to pander to southern racists who felt abandoned by LBJ's push for civil rights, to get them to vote Republican. Ever since the end of the 1960s, the racists in the South mostly switched parties, along with Politicians like Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Jesse Helms, and Lester Maddox.

BTW, can you document those cases of Democratic (the word has an "ic" at the end of it, BTW) operatives who loaded up buses and took the same people to vote in multiple locations in national elections in the past few decades? It's a myth. The Jim Crow South, BTW, and the disenfranchisement of blacks was NOT a myth, and irrespective of the party affiliations of those who did it, the main mechanism that they used was Voter ID schemes - and that's why those schemes are largely unconstitutional in this country - as a result of Supreme Court decisions. BTW, those Supreme Court decisions were hardly "ridiculous" - they came about through real, systematic disenfrancisement that the Court remedied.

And the issue is NOT the cost of the ID - it's the cost of getting to where the ID is issued. If the state wants to implement this, it would be very simple to implement it by mail, in a manner that even poor people without transportation could deal with. But that's obviously contrary to the intention of these laws as they are written - which is to disenfranchise people without much transit mobility - i.e the poor.

Toymann

09-24-12, 15:34

In many cases, in places like Texas and Wyoming many folks live something like 100 miles from the nearest DMV. And of course, they don't drive, and don't own cars, which is why they lack ID in the first place.What total nonsense. At times like these I just am amazed how stupid wild-ass liberals like you can be! How do you think these people get there groceries? They drive into town dumbo! Which has ID facilities available and they are FREE! Oh my! Stop talking about things you know nothing about city boy. It's obvious you are a urban cowboy at best. Your point is just goofy as hell. Hate to tell ya this, I live in wyoming and we have had voter ID forever. No one bitchs, how the hell can you survive in the US in 2012 without a valid ID? Oh, I forgot, if you are here illegally then maybe you don't have ID. LMAO. Monger On All. Toymann

Member #2041

09-24-12, 15:44

What total nonsense. At times like these I just am amazed how stupid wild-ass liberals like you can be! How do you think these people get there groceries? They drive into town dumbo! Which has ID facilities available and they are FREE! Oh my! Stop talking about things you know nothing about city boy. It's obvious you are a urban cowboy at best. Your point is just goofy as hell. Hate to tell ya this, I live in wyoming and we have had voter ID forever. No one bitchs, how the hell can you survive in the US in 2012 without a valid ID? Oh, I forgot, if you are here illegally then maybe you don't have I'd. LMAO. Monger On All. Toymann

What's nonsense about it? It's a simple fact that many folks in rural Texas and Wyoming live 100 or so miles from the nearest DMV. There sure as heck is NOT a DMV in every town with a grocery store. Many of them take a bus, or hitchhike into town to buy groceries. They sure don't drive if they don't own a car. Sorry to let the facts get in the way of your rant.

BTW, if you don't drive, and you don't have a bank account, you really don't need an ID to do much of anything else. But you still have the right to vote. And if you ARE registered to vote, shouldn't the state provide you with that ID at the moment you register? You can register by mail. The state should then send you your ID in the return mail.

WorldTravel69

09-24-12, 16:10

Not much around.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49152114

Tiny12

09-24-12, 16:12

BTW, can you document those cases of Democratic (the word has an "ic" at the end of it, BTW) operatives who loaded up buses and took the same people to vote in multiple locations in national elections in the past few decades?I'm a libertarian. I come from a long line of Democrats. One of my relatives stuffed ballot boxes for a Democrat candidate. He probably didn't load up buses. He didn't explain to me exactly what he did. But from what I've read this U.S. senate election was won by the votes of dead people. Voter ID requirements and observers at polling stations would have prevented this.

Why do you maintain that race has anything to do with this issue, besides being a fallacious talking point to get out the vote?

Having lived in the actual places that you describe, I echo what Toymann says. The few voters that live in remote parts of Texas and Wyoming are overwhelmingly Republican so I don't know why you'd care. You may be correct that some sort of distribution of voter ID's by mail would work, but I'm not sure. You would have the problem of verifying that the person who's voting is the same person on the card. I could see crooked registrar's enabling the type of fraud I describe above if the voter claims he doesn't have a photo ID.

Member #2041

09-24-12, 16:19

I'm a libertarian. I come from a long line of Democrats. One of my relatives stuffed ballot boxes for a Democrat candidate. He probably didn't load up buses. He didn't explain to me exactly what he did. But from what I've read the election was won by the votes of dead people. Voter I'd requirements and observers at polling stations would have prevented this.

Why do you maintain that race has anything to do with this issue, besides being a fallacious talking point to get out the vote?

Having lived in the actual places that you describe, I echo what Toymann says. Voters in remote parts of Texas and Wyoming are overwhelmingly Republican so I don't know why you'd care. You may be correct that some sort of distribution of voter I'd's by mail would work, but I'm not sure. You would have the problem of verifying that the person who's voting is the same person on the card. I could see crooked registrar's enabling the type of fraud I describe above if there's no photo on the I'd.So in other words, we should disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people because of your bullshit hearsay anecdote? Feel free to actually provide proof that it happened, rather than I heard it from a relative who was probably drunk when he was talking.

The fact is Texas is not nearly as overwhelmingly Republican as you think it is, and the same crap is also being pulled in Pennsylvania and Ohio and elsewhere. Frankly, I really DON'T care what happens in Wyoming, as it's already established itself as probably the stupidest state in the nation - having sent Dick Cheney to represent it in Congress, and fortunately, it has very few electoral votes. And it's true that race is less an issue than this being about disenfranchising poor people. So that makes it OK in your small mind?

BTW, we could certainly enable using fingerprints to ID voters, just like they do in poor Arab nations - the registration application could easily have a sticker put on it that takes a fingerprint - and this could be checked at the polls, or, more sensibly, afterwards if the vote was challenged, which would reduce the cost by factors of hundreds, or thousands even. It costs pennies to include a fingerprint sticker on the mail-in registration form, and can be done with little to no cost added for the impoverished voter - and not make them travel up to a hundred miles to the DMV. Oh, BTW, it's obviously too late to do this for THIS election, but this could certainly be implemented for future elections. But again, that thwarts the REAL intent of these voter-ID drives - which is to alter the result of THIS election specifically, by disenfranchising the poor.

Tiny12

09-24-12, 16:32

Feel free to actually provide proof that it happened, rather than I heard it from a relative who was probably drunk when he was talking.Http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

He was an alcoholic, although sober when he told the story.

"Hundreds of thousands of people disenfranchised" sounds to me more like "a lost opportunity to have hundreds of thousands votes cast, for people that never went to the polls."

Member #2041

09-24-12, 16:40

Http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

He was an alcoholic, although sober when he told the story.

"Hundreds of thousands of people disenfranchised" sounds to me more like "a lost opportunity to have hundreds of thousands votes cast, for people that never went to the polls."Obviously, you missed it when I asked you to document any fraudulent election IN THE PAST FEW DECADES. Yes, there were a few that happened 50+ years ago, but that also bypasses THOUSANDS of elections where blacks were disenfranchised that have happened since then, in the 1950s and 1960s by bogus Voter ID schemes and other Jim Crow issues.

BTW, something like 98.7% of all American citizen adults have drivers licenses - even though only 87% of them actually drive. That leaves over 3 MILLION who don't have licenses, and this obviously skews heavily to the poor. Your desire would be disenfranchise some substantial percentage of 3 MILLION legitimate American citizens who legally have the right to vote, with the burden of traveling to a DMV, when they don't drive and are poor. Clearly, that's Hundreds of Thousands of legitimately legal voters.

Toymann

09-24-12, 16:41

I'm a libertarian. I come from a long line of Democrats. One of my relatives stuffed ballot boxes for a Democrat candidate. He probably didn't load up buses. He didn't explain to me exactly what he did. But from what I've read this USA senate election was won by the votes of dead people. Voter I'd requirements and observers at polling stations would have prevented this.

Why do you maintain that race has anything to do with this issue, besides being a fallacious talking point to get out the vote?

Having lived in the actual places that you describe, I echo what Toymann says. The few voters that live in remote parts of Texas and Wyoming are overwhelmingly Republican so I don't know why you'd care. You may be correct that some sort of distribution of voter I'd's by mail would work, but I'm not sure. You would have the problem of verifying that the person who's voting is the same person on the card. I could see crooked registrar's enabling the type of fraud I describe above if the voter claims he doesn't have a photo I'd.The member, whatever his number is, is just the latest political shill on the board. Should have seen this coming when suddenly he was planning a trip to mendoza. Just some 16 year old blogger for MSNBC. Disregard all his arguemnts and don't engage. He will dissappear once we stop engaging. His comments about wyoming and voter registration just serve to disclose him as a shill. Funny how wyoming is one of the riches states in the US, with argueably the best social support net, but is now the stupidest state in the US. Your point about rural living is spot on. Nobody lives way out in the boonies without personal transportation. Dumshits comment about taking the bus is hillarious! IALOTFLMAO. Would love for him to show me the bus coverage in rural wyoming. Too funny. Monger On TinyDude. Hope to meet ya this Friday at Jackson's. Toymann

ps. I expect more of these shills to come out of the woodwork the closer the election gets.

Member #2041

09-24-12, 16:49

The member, whatever his number is, is just the latest political shill on the board. Should have seen this coming when suddenly he was planning a trip to mendoza. Just some 16 year old blogger for MSNBC. Disregard all his arguemnts and don't engage. He will dissappear once we stop engaging. His comments about wyoming and voter registration just serve to disclose him as a shill. Funny how wyoming is one of the riches states in the US, with argueably the best social support net, but is now the stupidest state in the US. Your point about rural living is spot on. Nobody lives way out in the boonies without personal transportation. Dumshits comment about taking the bus is hillarious! IALOTFLMAO. Would love for him to show me the bus coverage in rural wyoming. Too funny. Monger On TinyDude. Hope to meet ya this Friday at Jackson's. Toymann.

Ps. I expect more of these shills to come out of the woodwork the closer the election gets.

You're really stupid if you believe that the reason I came here was to debate politics with the likes of you (and frankly, I have no doubt that you actually are this dumb). Jackson can verify that I am registered to stay in one of his Apartments during October 7-15. I'll be in Mendoza from Sept. 30 to Oct. 6.

Don't you think that if I was looking for a PRODUCTIVE political debate, I'd be engaging in one that involves mostly American citizens on a forum mostly read by American citizens. And I suppose my extensive dialog the other day about changing money, and would Xoom work best, was all done just to make my cover look better. You really need to loosen your tin foil hat and let the blood circulate better to your brain, such that it is.

Toymann

09-24-12, 16:55

You're really stupid if you believe that the reason I came here was to debate politics with the likes of you (and frankly, I have no doubt that you actually are this dumb). Jackson can verify that I am registered to stay in one of his Apartments during October 7-15. I'll be in Mendoza from Sept. 30 to Oct. 6.Thank God I will be fishing in corrienties during these dates and miss the opportunity to be enlightened by such a free thinker as yourself! You really need to be more selective about who you let stay at the clubhouse El Jeffe. Make sure he pays in advance. It wouldn't be the first time a wild-ass liberal slipped out without paying his bill. LMAO. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

ps. you're engaging a resident US citizen, who pays his share of taxes, and lives in that idiot state you referenced in your last goofy arguement supporting undocumented voters in the US. Even in the socialist country I grew up in they have required ID for as long as I can remember. LMAO

Member #2041

09-24-12, 16:59

Thank God I will be fishing in corrienties during these dates and miss the opportunity to be enlightened by such a free thinker as yourself! You really need to be more selective about who you let stay at the clubhouse El Jeffe. Make sure he pays in advance. It wouldn't be the first time a wild-ass liberal slipped out without paying his bill. LMAO. Happy Mongering All. ToymannI can assure you, I make no attempt to socialize with rednecks in any case, so there was little chance I'd be meeting you. And Jackson obviously has more sense than you. As he's already got my Credit Card on file.

Jackson

09-24-12, 16:59

What's nonsense about it? It's a simple fact that many folks in rural Texas and Wyoming live 100 or so miles from the nearest DMV. There sure as heck is NOT a DMV in every town with a grocery store. Many of them take a bus, or hitchhike into town to buy groceries. They sure don't drive if they don't own a car. Sorry to let the facts get in the way of your rant.So let me see if I understand this: Some people are too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a DMV to get an ID card, but they're not too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a polling place?

It amuses me how liberals never see even the most obvious flaws in their own arguments. For them, it's all about emotion and never about logic.

BTW, if you don't drive, and you don't have a bank account, you really don't need an ID to do much of anything else.Au contraire! They need an ID to exercise their right to vote.

Member #2041

09-24-12, 17:03

So let me see if I understand this: Some people are too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a DMV to get an I'd card, but they're not too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a polling place?

It amuses me how liberals never see even the most obvious flaws in their own arguments. For them, it's all about emotion and never about logic.

Au contraire! They need an I'd to exercise their right to vote.Well duh, if the polling place is 1 mile away, but the DMV is 100 miles away, yes, it stands to reason that the DMV would be MUCH harder for a non-driver to get to. It's really not that complex, actually.

And BTW, they might need an ID, but not a PHOTO ID. In any case, as I said, using fingerprints or any other mechanism that would allow doing it entirely by mail, would not be onerous at all, and I would have no issue with that system were it to be implemented. But of course, these ID schemes are SUPPOSED to be onerous to the folks that don't drive and don't have bank accounts.

BTW, if the Right wing position on this issue was about logic, rather than an attempt to disenfranchise the poor, how come they never seem to come up with a simple mechanism that would enable voter ID by mail, that doesn't impose a substantial burden on poor folks who don't drive? Talk about an obvious flaw in an argument - that right there is a pretty glaring one.

Toymann

09-24-12, 17:29

I can assure you, I make no attempt to socialize with rednecks in any case.I have been called many things over the years. Now I can add REDNECK to the list! IALOTFLMAO. Please disregard my previous suggestion that you crawl back under your rock. Keep the hits coming. By all means. I really pity the poor fellas that will be staying with you at the clubhouse in a few weeks. You just sound like such a fun time. LMAO. Happy Mongering All. REDNECK Toymann

Member #2041

09-24-12, 17:40

I have been called many things over the years. Now I can add REDNECK to the list! IALOTFLMAO. Please disregard my previous suggestion that you crawl back under your rock. Keep the hits coming. By all means. I really pity the poor fellas that will be staying with you at the clubhouse in a few weeks. You just sound like such a fun time. LMAO. Happy Mongering All. REDNECK ToymannWell, perhaps the more appropriate term would have been "imbecile" rather than red neck. In any case, you are certainly someone who was stupid and / or loony enough to concoct a conspiracy theory that I was simply a shill who registered for this forum 5 years ago just so that I could come here to argue politics with a bunch of ex-pats, rather than someone who was actually traveling to Argentina in the next couple of weeks. This in spite of the fact that my prior interaction with you involved the best ways to exchange currency when I was in Mendoza, and how I would be traveling to Mendoza from Santiago, Chile. I mean, given that prior dialog, it's hard to choose whether you are more loony, or stupid.

It may shock you, but I'm not all that liberal politically. I already made it clear that I would support REASONABLE voter ID laws that actually allowed doing it by mail, and would not burden poor folks who can't drive. And the only reason that I'll be voting for Obama is that Romney has abandoned all of the reasonable positions that he held while he was Governor of Massachussetts. Romney had kept to his previous views, I'd have thought he was a pretty decent candidate (and I am disappointed by Obama. He's no Bill Clinton). But of the two choices we have running now, I see one who is mediocre in Obama, and one who would be much worse in Romney, because he's deeply committed to the same policies that ran the USA into the ground during the Bush Administration.

And unlike you, I can respect someone who disagrees with me, as long as they don't prove they are unworthy of respect, as you did with that nonsensical conspiracy theory that I was some sort of shill who had no reason to be in a forum about Argentina. But from this point on, I'll accomodate your preference, and call you an imbecile rather than a redneck - although, to be sure, it's certainly possible to be both at once, and I suspect that to be the case here.

Jackson

09-24-12, 17:53

Well duh, if the polling place is 1 mile away, but the DMV is 100 miles away, yes, it stands to reason that the DMV would be MUCH harder for a non-driver to get to. It's really not that complex, actually.

And BTW, they might need an I'd, but not a PHOTO I'd. In any case, as I said, using fingerprints or any other mechanism that would allow doing it entirely by mail, would not be onerous at all, and I would have no issue with that system were it to be implemented. But of course, these I'd schemes are SUPPOSED to be onerous to the folks that don't drive and don't have bank accounts.

BTW, if the Right wing position on this issue was about logic, rather than an attempt to disenfranchise the poor, how come they never seem to come up with a simple mechanism that would enable voter I'd by mail, that doesn't impose a substantial burden on poor folks who don't drive? Talk about an obvious flaw in an argument. That right there is a pretty glaring one.Okay, let me rephrase it:

Some people are too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a DMV that might be more than 1 mile away to get an ID card, but they're not too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a polling place that might or might not be more than 1 mile away?

And where the fuck are these people who might be more than 100 miles away from a DMV actually living?

Please give me one example of a zip code more than 100 miles away from a DMV, because I couldn't find any such places myself.

If they're so fucking far away from civilization without any form of transportation, then how do they buy food?

For that matter, how fucking poor / dumb / stupid do you have to be to deliberately live 100+ miles from civilization with no form of transportation?

What do you believe is the percentage of people who live more than 100 miles from civilization and who do not own some form of transportation? .0000001%?

Showing identification to vote just makes sense, which is why the liberals can't understand it.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #2041

09-24-12, 18:10

Okay, let me rephrase it:

Some people are too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a DMV that might be more than 1 mile away to get an I'd card, but they're not too poor / dumb / stupid to get themselves to a polling place that might or might not be more than 1 mile away?

And where the fuck are these people who might be more than 100 miles away from a DMV actually living?

Please give me one example of a zip code more than 100 miles away from a DMV, because I couldn't find any such places myself.

If they're so fucking far away from civilization without any form of transportation, then how do they buy food?

For that matter, how fucking poor / dumb / stupid do you have to be to deliberately live 100+ miles from civilization with no form of transportation?

What do you believe is the percentage of people who live more than 100 miles from civilization and who do not own some form of transportation? .0000001%

Showing identification to vote just makes sense, which is why the liberals can't understand it.

Thanks,

JacksonFor starters, I personally would never live in any state that is so undeveloped that the nearest DMV is 100 miles away, but it's a fact that places like this exist, in Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Texas, Alaska, and Oklahoma. These people may not CHOOSE to live there, but these locations are typically dirt cheap, and the poorest people might have no choice but to live there. And perhaps you might not realize this, but grocery stores and supermarkets can be found even not near any DMVs. I feel sorry for you if you've never lived anywhere that only had food markets located near the DMV, and nowhere else. BTW, if this were the case, the entire state of California would only have something on the order of 200 supermarkets to serve the entire state.

In any case, it's a FACT that this situation exists, and even if you believe someone needs to be stupid to live in such a place, that does not in any way justify disenfranchising them for the misfortune of their situations. And that's 100 miles. Lower the distance to 20 miles, and the same situation holds in almost every state in the country - and 20 miles is still a burden to folks who don't drive, and don't live near really good public transportation - heck, even in San Diego where I live, it would be a challenge to get to the DMV that's 8 miles from my house by public transit - I'd have to take a cab, and that would end up costing at least $40-50 round trip. And that's a real burden for folks that are poor and don't drive.

But that's simply a canard. These voter ID laws are all about making things difficult. Whereas, it would be trivially easy to make the ID process all doable by mail. But that has NEVER been offered as a mechanism in ANY of these voter I'd schemes, because they are not about making having a proper ID easy, rather, they are about making it HARD for poor people who don't drive. As soon as someone actually proposes a voter ID law that doesn't add substantial costs to poor folks who can't drive, by allowing them to do it by mail, I support it 100 percent. But it's very instructive that you have never suggested that this would be the correct way to implement voter ID in a manner that everyone COULD EASILY get one. That's really all that's needed. Make it easy for ANY registered voter to get an ID without requiring them to travel any significant distance, and I am then all in favor of it. But, it's quite obvious that this would defeat the REAL objective of these laws, which is to make it HARD, not easy, for poor folks to get one.

In any case, I SUPPORT any voter ID law that allows anyone who's a registered voter to do it entirely by mail at no cost. I wonder why the Conservatives on this very venue don't support making these IDs so easy for any legitimately registered voter to get by mail? It's because that would fail as a mechanism for disenfranchisement of the poor - which is the entire real goal of these laws.

BTW, Jackson, is there any way to turn off the auto-correcting software that converts ID to I'd all the time unless one goes back to edit it?

Jackson

09-24-12, 19:37

Member #2041,

Requiring voters to show a photo ID is just common sense, period.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #2041

09-24-12, 19:39

Member #2041,

Requiring voters to show a photo I'd is just common sense, period.

Thanks,

JacksonAnd if it were enabled in a manner that allowed doing so entirely by mail, for free, it would also be Constitutional, and entirely reasonable. But that would defeat the REAL purpose of these laws, which is to disenfranchise poor voters who don't drive. So long as that capability is NOT part of the laws in question, their true purpose becomes completely transparent.

I guess I still am left wondering why you don't see that this simple feature, which would make it easy for even poor folks to obtain these IDs, is a reasonable - even a necessary - thing to ensure is a part of any voter ID law that actually purports to eliminate fraud WITHOUT disenfranchising significant numbers of legitimate poor voters?

Toymann

09-24-12, 20:25

And if it were enabled in a manner that allowed doing so entirely by mail, for free, it would also be Constitutional, and entirely reasonable. But that would defeat the REAL purpose of these laws, which is to disenfranchise poor voters who don't drive. So long as that capability is NOT part of the laws in question, their true purpose becomes completely transparent.

I guess I still am left wondering why you don't see that this simple feature, which would make it easy for even poor folks to obtain these IDs, is a reasonable. Even a necessary. Thing to ensure is a part of any voter I'd law that actually purports to eliminate fraud WITHOUT disenfranchising significant numbers of legitimate poor voters?Is this a broken record or what. LMAO. Damn, I am thinking about cancelling my week of fishing and checking into the clubhouse. Can't imagine a more fun time than discussing political issue with the 'NEW" member with the mostest. Sadly, I am committed to fishing with my buddies in corrienties. That said, there is nothing stopping you El Jeffe from leaving the confortable confines of your recoleta apartment (very near mine in fact) and relocating to the clubhouse so that your time with the "Member" can be maximized. IALOTFLMAO! This is rich dude!

You now have your answer why I rent my own apartment and have never stayed in the clubhouse. With my luck, I'd be sharing the house with Esten, WT69 and the new "Member with the Mosetest", then to make matters worse SnakeBoy would get evicted from his apartment and share the sofa in Esten's room. I'm getting into a cold sweat just thinking about it! Monger on El Jeffe. Embecile and Redneck Toymann

Member #2041

09-24-12, 20:32

Is this a broken record or what. LMAO. Damn, I am thinking about cancelling my week of fishing and checking into the clubhouse. Can't imagine a more fun time than discussing political issue with the 'NEW" member with the mostest. Sadly, I am committed to fishing with my buddies in corrienties. That said, there is nothing stopping you El Jeffe from leaving the confortable confines of your recoleta apartment (very near mine in fact) and relocating to the clubhouse so that your time with the "Member" can be maximized. IALOTFLMAO! This is rich dude!

Thankfully, you have other plans.

BTW, I am hardly a "new" member. My first post is dated from 2004, although my first significant postings in Jackson's Argentina forum occurred in late 2007, prior to my previous trip to Argentina in early 2008. But of course, facts are not your strong suit, obviously, Toyboy.

SnakeOilSales

09-24-12, 21:11

Member #2041,

Requiring voters to show a photo I'd is just common sense, period.

Thanks,

JacksonVoting in the United States is a constitutionally guaranteed right for US citizens; however, there is no law that says any US citizen is required to have some form of photo identification in order to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is why the United States has no mandatory national identification document for its citizens.

Mpexy

09-24-12, 23:01

Voting in the United States is a constitutionally guaranteed right for US citizens; however, there is no law that says any US citizen is required to have some form of photo identification in order to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is why the United States has no mandatory national identification document for its citizens.It's odd how often the constitution is misquoted given how concise and relatively short that hallowed document is. Re-read and please quote what you're making up here please.

You won't be able. The constitution at the federal level only provides for your right as citizen to vote and few specific ways for loss of privilege to vote (eg felony, treason, etc). It specifically enumerates and leaves ALL means and manner for how you may qualify to vote and have that vote registered, processed and counted to the States.

If a state passes a law requiring photo ID to vote, that is then precisely in accord with the constitution as it left all rights to do that at the state level. Even a cursory glance at the constitution will confirm what we all learned in grade school. The founders were vehemently states rights oriented and other than guaranteeing at the broad level your general rights, the means and manner were left to the individual states.

Jackson

09-25-12, 00:05

Jackson

09-25-12, 00:06

Is this a broken record or what. LMAO. Damn, I am thinking about cancelling my week of fishing and checking into the clubhouse. Can't imagine a more fun time than discussing political issue with the 'NEW" member with the mostest. Sadly, I am committed to fishing with my buddies in corrienties. That said, there is nothing stopping you El Jeffe from leaving the confortable confines of your recoleta apartment (very near mine in fact) and relocating to the clubhouse so that your time with the "Member" can be maximized. IALOTFLMAO! This is rich dude!

You now have your answer why I rent my own apartment and have never stayed in the clubhouse. With my luck, I'd be sharing the house with Esten, WT69 and the new "Member with the Mosetest", then to make matters worse SnakeBoy would get evicted from his apartment and share the sofa in Esten's room. I'm getting into a cold sweat just thinking about it! Monger on El Jeffe. Embecile and Redneck ToymannFor the record, I do not pick my friends or my guests based on their political perspectives.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #2041

09-25-12, 00:20

A fingerprint is not a photograph!

How exactly do you expect to administrate this? Would you have fingerprint experts stationed at every polling place taking voter's fingerprints and comparing them to the fingerprint on the photoless I'd card in their possession?

Thanks,

JacksonSimple. You take a fingerprint when the person votes (just like is done all around the world) and IF the vote is challenged under probable cause, you compare the finger print to the one on the voter registration records. Just like anything else, the presumption is of innocence, and if there is probable cause to challenge the legitimacy of the vote, the records exist to validate them. But there is not a any presumption of guilt. Just the way the rest of our legal system operates. The burden of proof here lies where it is supposed to, with the challenge to the legitimacy of the vote, NOT the voter.

That being said, fingerprints need not be used, you could also have the person submit their own photos, by mail with the application for the ID, and the photos could be taken anywhere at their personal convenience, just like is done with passport applications. The person who votes still needs to look like the person in the photos.

SnakeOilSales

09-25-12, 00:28

It's odd how often the constitution is misquoted given how concise and relatively short that hallowed document is. Re-read and please quote what you're making up here please.

You won't be able. The constitution at the federal level only provides for your right as citizen to vote and few specific ways for loss of privilege to vote (eg felony, treason, etc). It specifically enumerates and leaves ALL means and manner for how you may qualify to vote and have that vote registered, processed and counted to the States.

If a state passes a law requiring photo I'd to vote, that is then precisely in accord with the constitution as it left all rights to do that at the state level. Even a cursory glance at the constitution will confirm what we all learned in grade school. The founders were vehemently states rights oriented and other than guaranteeing at the broad level your general rights, the means and manner were left to the individual states.What exactly are you claiming I am making up in my post? There is nothing in the US Constitution that states a government issued identification card is necessary to utilize a citizen's right to vote and there is nothing in the constitution mandating acquisition of a federal identity document. The document the founding fathers authored prioritized states right for sure, but as I am sure you must know the original document has been amended twenty seven times. In fact, subsequent amendments have repeatedly rolled back the states' attempts to disenfranchise citizens and furthermore have expanded the vote to groups not authorized in the original document (see 15th. 17th. 19th. 24th, and 26th amendments, all of which EXPAND enfranchisement and / or strike down states' attempts to disenfranchise poor / minority groups).

SnakeOilSales

09-25-12, 00:32

Toymann

09-25-12, 02:56

Thankfully, you have other plans. BTW, I am hardly a "new" member. My first post is dated from 2004, although my first significant postings in Jackson's Argentina forum occurred in late 2007, prior to my previous trip to Argentina in early 2008. But of course, facts are not your strong suit, obviously, Toyboy.You are such a self proclaimed rock star. Two trips so far (counting the one you have yet to take). You go boy. Looking forward to your chica posts. Now crawl back under your rock. Monger On All but Member Idiot. Toymann

Toymann

09-25-12, 02:59

Toymann

09-25-12, 03:39

That being said, fingerprints need not be used, you could also have the person submit their own photos, by mail with the application for the I'd, and the photos could be taken anywhere at their personal convenience, just like is done with passport applications. The person who votes still needs to look like the person in the photos.Yep. Your process is way better than driving into the DMV and passport photos can be taken at any 711 way out in the boonies. IALOTFLMAO. Monger on Member Idiot, Toymann.

Ps. You are such a champion of the poor unwashed living in BUMF*CK Wyoming. What is the colour of the sky in your world dude. LMAO!

Mpexy

09-25-12, 05:02

What exactly are you claiming I am making up in my post? There is nothing in the US Constitution that states a government issued identification card is necessary to utilize a citizen's right to vote and there is nothing in the constitution mandating acquisition of a federal identity document. The document the founding fathers authored prioritized states right for sure, but as I am sure you must know the original document has been amended twenty seven times. In fact, subsequent amendments have repeatedly rolled back the states' attempts to disenfranchise citizens and furthermore have expanded the vote to groups not authorized in the original document (see 15th. 17th. 19th. 24th, and 26th amendments, all of which EXPAND enfranchisement and / or strike down states' attempts to disenfranchise poor / minority groups).You stated in your original post. "Voting in the United States is a constitutionally guaranteed right for US citizens; however, there is no law that says any US citizen is required to have some form of photo identification in order to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is why the United States has no mandatory national identification document for its citizens."

I replied that it's a fallacy to quote the constitution as having no law re: photo ID to vote. To repeat myself, the constitution specifically referred all aspects for how any individual state wants to legislate the process of voting to the states themselves, not as a power or right from the federal government. Hence you saying since the constitution doesn't say one must have photo ID it must therefore be somehow illegal to require ID documentation or the basis for why the US has no mandatory national identification is just plain wrong and ascribing as a constitutional right something that is clearly not. Either you're making that up or clearly not reading the pretty short document that is the constitution and / or the limited number of amendments.

Repeating again. ALL aspects for qualifying, registering, and processing of your right to vote was left specifically by the constitution to the states. No amendment has changed that from the original non-amended constitution.

Rev BS

09-25-12, 05:22

Which party is causing the drive for voter Identity Cards? So in fact, all past presidential elections are tainted, right? And the call for national Identity card is always hammered down, by whom?

I know that voting is madatory in some countries. So let's get serious and make it a felony if you don't vote?

SnakeOilSales

09-25-12, 05:29

You stated in your original post."Voting in the United States is a constitutionally guaranteed right for US citizens; however, there is no law that says any US citizen is required to have some form of photo identification in order to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which is why the United States has no mandatory national identification document for its citizens."

I replied that it's a fallacy to quote the constitution as having no law re: photo I'd to vote. To repeat myself, the constitution specifically referred all aspects for how any individual state wants to legislate the process of voting to the states themselves, not as a power or right from the federal government. Hence you saying since the constitution doesn't say one must have photo I'd it must therefore be somehow illegal to require I'd documentation or the basis for why the US has no mandatory national identification is just plain wrong and ascribing as a constitutional right something that is clearly not. Either you're making that up or clearly not reading the pretty short document that is the constitution and / or the limited number of amendments.

Repeating again. ALL aspects for qualifying, registering, and processing of your right to vote was left specifically by the constitution to the states. No amendment has changed that from the original non-amended constitution.Clearly you are the one who did not bother to read the amendments to the constitution that I listed. I conceded that according to the unamended, original document ALL aspects for qualifying, registering and processing the right to vote were held by the states. However, the federal government decided that the way (southern) states were administering the voting process was unacceptable and thus AMENDED the constitution to change this, beginning with the 15th amendment, which made the (southern) states' practice of disenfranchisment because of race / creed / etc illegal. The 17th amendment took away the power of the state governments to choose their senators and gave it directly to the citizens of the individual states. Prior to the 19th amendment, some states allowed women's suffrage whereas others did not; the amendment took away the states' power to decide and made it a federal mandate. The 24th amendment made poll taxes illegal, which were commonly used by (southern) states as a method of disenfranchising poor minorities. It is quite clear that in this day and age in the United States that it is the federal and not the state governments that have the ultimate say over the administration of voting rights. Which brings me to my original point: as it has been well established by the federal government that voting is a right for ALL US citizens (except felons) , and there is no federal mandate requiring acquisition of a identity document to exercise one's constitutionally guaranteed rights, no identification document is necessary to vote.

Member #2041

09-25-12, 09:33

You are a genius dude!

Yep. Your process is way better than driving into the DMV and passport photos can be taken at any 711 way out in the boonies. IALOTFLMAO. Monger on Member Idiot Toymann.

OK. So we've settled on Member Idiot Toyboy as your preferred identity. Seems pretty appropriate although, I take it you'll still answer to imbecile Toyboy as well. In any case, I understand why, from your perspective way down there, you consider me to be a genius - and although I'm humbled by your praise, I think the evaluation results more from the vastly lesser intellect you bring to the comparison, relatively speaking.

In any case, to spare you more future humiliation, I've decided to take advantage of this forum's quite useful ignore list feature with respect to you, Toyboy - and for those other posters who wish to do the same but were not aware of it's existence, it can be found under the settings area in the red bar at the very top of the page. BTW, I'm happy to engage in ongoing dialog with anyone who disagrees with me, but is not so disagreeable while doing so as our friend Toyboy.

Esten

09-25-12, 23:52

Don't go beating up on Toymann too much, he's one of those wealthy "job creators".

David_33

09-26-12, 01:10

After the elections, I will be happy to collect my night at Madaho's thanks to Toymann's generosity and our bet on the election results. When I predicted that the wienie Willard would lose, Toymann rabidly disagreed. We shall see. Of course my dislike of the wienie Willard wasn't because he is a "conservative" (is he?) , but rather because he is a member of the Mormon cult.

Since Jackson put Toymann on my ignore list, I can only hope that one of his friends (does he still have any on the forum?), will remind him of our bet.

Tiny12

09-26-12, 10:29

Don't go beating up on Toymann too much, he's one of those wealthy "job creators".Give him a break. We all have similar thoughts we just don't verbalize them. I have a lifesize inflatable doll that I call Esten. When I get mad at Democrats I yell obscenities and pummel her with my fists for 5 or 10 minutes. I feel much better afterwards. Toymann's sarcasm maybe is similar therapy for him. Some of it's funny, it could be on Saturday Night Live.

Just kidding Esten, about the doll. I do appreciate you and the other Democrats here. I think you've been good sports as the majority here are conservative so you get piled on a lot. It's good to have the opportunity to go back and forth with people with other views, even when they're mistaken in their beliefs. And maybe there's a little bit of a Romney Mormon in me. I want to convert you. I want you and other non-Libertarians to find the true path to peace and prosperity. Only then can I be content. And continue to enjoy my 15% capital gains.

Toymann

09-26-12, 12:16

I have a bet with Esten that you all know about. What is all this hosreshit about a bet with David33. Sometimes I just can't help but wonder WTF goes on with some of you on this board. I have never even met David33, and have not seen a post from him in many months. Talk about silly banter. As far as you go Sid. More senile banter from the old mongers home. Be careful what you ask for Sid. I have photos of some of your hatian beauties. Maybe I should start a poll. LMAO. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Rev BS

09-26-12, 19:50

Member #4112

09-26-12, 22:49

For the loyal opposition find below a brief history lesson regarding all the latest liberal ranting.

First.

Go to Google and check out all the Texas Department of Public Safety offices around the great state of Texas. NOBODY lives 100 miles or even close to it from a TDPS driver's license office. Total BS from my liberal friends on photo I'd. Also check out all the stories out from the 'north', 'south', 'east' and 'west' about voting fraud. Can a liberal say ACORN?

Second.

Jim Crow Laws, you need to go back and study history from the south and you will find it was the Democrats who perpetrated these laws and not the Party of Lincoln ie Republicans. Can my liberal friends say Senator Robert Byrd of the KKK?

Third.

All the ranting about constitutional amendments, the fact is it takes 2/3's of the House and the Senate to pass the legislation for an amendment and the legislation bypasses the President. It must then be ratified by 3/4's of the individual state's legislatures before the constitution is amended. Seems some of our liberal brothers forgot their Civic's classes.

They further state most of these amendments were to correct the wicked South's behavior, well lets take a look.

Amendments.

We all know about the Bill of Rights ie the first 10 amendments, but did you know the 27th Amendment was proffered at the same time as the first 10 but was not ratified until May 7, 1992? It prohibited a sitting congress from voting itself a pay raise. Of course they got around this by making the raises automatic!

11th Amendment

Feb 7, 1795, limited the powers of the Supreme Court regarding citizens and state litigation.

12th Amendment.

June 15, 1804, forced the Electoral College to select a President and Vice President.

13th Amendment.

Dec 6, 1865, abolished slavery – FYI it was passed AFTER the Civil Way ended.

14th Amendment.

July 9, 1868, provided former slaves with citizenship, again after the Civil War ended.

15th Amendment.

Feb 3, 1870. Closed a loophole in the voting rights of former slaves created by the 13th Amendment.

16th Amendment.

Feb 3, 1913, result of a Supreme Court case involving the definitions of direct and indirect taxation.

17th Amendment.

April 8, 1913, abolished election of Senators by state legislatures and provide for direct public election.

18th Amendment.

Jan 16, 1919, Prohibition.

19th Amendment.

August 18, 1920, provided women the right to vote, we freed the slaves, made them citizens and gave them the right to vote 55 years before we let the chica's vote.

20th Amendment.

Jan 23, 1933, shortened the 'lame duck' period between elections and taking office for Congressional elect and the President elect.

21st Amendment.

December 5, 1933, repealed the 18th Amendment.

22nd Amendment.

Feb 27, 1951, limited the president to two 4 year terms.

23rd Amendment.

March 29, 1961, granted the right to vote in national elections to the citizens of Washington DC.

24th Amendment.

Jan 23, 1964, eliminated the 'Poll Tax', which was prevalent in both the North and the South.

25th Amendment.

Feb 10, 1967, established the order of succession upon the death of a president.

26th Amendment.

July 1, 1971, provide the vote in all elections to those 18 years and order due to a Supreme Court case where Oregon disagreed with lowering the age to 18.

27th Amendment

Already talked about this one, only took a couple of hundred years to get it ratified.

Now what were our liberal friends saying about how all or most of the Amendments were designed to reign in the Wicked South?

So ends the history lesson.

Doppelganger

Member #2041

09-26-12, 23:23

So Doppelganger, would you care to name a single, solitary election that Acorn caused to be decided fraudulently?

Secondly, I already pointed out - way back in post #1410 of this thread - that the vast majority of segregationists in the South were Democrats, until LBJ got passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Richard Nixon developed the Southern Strategy in response, to pander to those previously Democrat Racists who felt abandoned by LBJ making sure black folks could actually vote. As a result, the overwhelming majority of those racists, including Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and George Wallace being the most noteworthy, switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party in the mid-1960s. The reason that Robert Byrd did not, was that he renounced his prior racist background, became a supporter of the Civil Rights agenda of the late 1960s and beyond. The fact is, the Republicans of 2012 are attempting to use EXACTLY the same tactics that the Democrat racists of the 1950s and 1960s used to disenfranchise blacks, to attempt presently to disenfranchise the poor, as well as blacks and hispanics. But this is hardly surprising, as those very racist Democrats switched parties in the 1960s and the views that they espoused became REPUBLICAN party orthodoxy from the late 1960s onward.

And thirdly, presently, Conservative Republicans are the opposition party in the USA Although, given Mitch McConnell and Rush Limbaugh's public statements that their agenda during the past 4 years was to insure that Barack Obama, and by extension, the Nation for whom he represents ALL of the citizenry of, FAILS, it would be a misnomer of the worst sort to call the Republicans, the LOYAL opposition. Particularly when the disloyalty to the nation as a whole in working aggressively for the failure of the nation during this time has never been so glaring from one party since the Civil War, and in fact, the Republican party has driven the nation to the brink of credit default, and sabotaged the USA credit rating in the process.

If you are going to try to give a history lesson, it behooves you not to cherry-pick and misrepresent your facts in that lesson, lest your lesson be recognized for the biased hogwash that it is.

Esten

09-27-12, 00:07

I agree it sounds like a totally reasonable thing to require all voters to present some form of ID meeting certain standards.

But look at the context in which the push for stricter voter ID requirements is happening:
- In the absence of data showing a significant issue with voter fraud, the underlying premise.
- In the presence of data showing that stricter requirements favor Republicans.
- In the lead-up to a very important election for Republicans, some of whom have said the most important thing is to win the election.
- Predominantly in red or Republican-controlled states.

It does appear there is a dual motive here. If there were any doubt, just ask Pennsylvania Speaker of the House, Republican Mike Turzai. Earlier this year, he said the state's new voter ID law would "allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania".

GOP Turzai : Voter ID allows Romney to win PA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87NN5sdqNt8

Big Boss Man

09-27-12, 00:13

In Los Angeles we have a simpler system. We divide the county into precincts of about 1000 voters. Each precinct has a polling place that is manned by your neighbors. Everybody knows everybody anyway. No need for IDs. In fact, one time I had moved out of the precinct but had not changed my registration. People pointed me out and said I was not living there anymore. They let me vote so I guess I am guilty of voter fraud. I signed a book saying I lived at an address where I no longer lived.

Of course, many Californians are moving to Texas where they can gain comfort in presenting their identifications at the polling place. LOL. I think they are mostly Conservatives. This is called the Big Sort in demographic research. All the Conservatives live with fellow Conservatives and all the Liberals live among Liberals. Everyone wants to live with their own kind these days. America is becoming provincial. Nobody is cosmopolitan anymore. Cosmopolitan is nothing but a hotel in Las Vegas these days.

Esten

09-27-12, 00:24

Hey remember that Wrigley's gum commercial.... Double Your Pleasure, Double Your Fun

Toymann, instead of one hot Madahos chica you could make it two.

And what better than a threesome, than a threesome paid for by two sorry-ass liberals? You'll be grinning from ear to ear. I'll pay for the Rubia, David will pay for the Morocha.

You should make the same bet with David. After all, it's in the bag, right? Even Romney said so.

Punter 127

09-27-12, 00:32

As a result, the overwhelming majority of those racists, including Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and George Wallace being the most noteworthy, switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party in the mid-1960s. [snip]Wallace's final term as a Democrat Governor was 1983–1987, when did become a republican? He ran for President as an Independent not as a Republican. Sorry but I believe Gov. Wallace like Robert Byrd was a life long Democrat.

Tiny12

09-27-12, 00:42

Secondly, I already pointed out - way back in post #1410 of this thread - that the vast majority of segregationists in the South were Democrats, until LBJ got passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Richard Nixon developed the Southern Strategy in response, to pander to those previously Democrat Racists who felt abandoned by LBJ making sure black folks could actually vote.LBJ was all in favor of black folks voting, several times. Dead people too. As I already pointed out in post something or the other, my father's cousin was one of the people who helped your hero LBJ steal an election, in which 20, 000 dead people voted. He's an excellent example of why we shouldn't worry about voter fraud with your modern, post-segregationist Democrats, or Democratics (with an ics), or whatever it is that you prefer to be called.

Particularly when the disloyalty to the nation as a whole in working aggressively for the failure of the nation during this time has never been so glaring from one party since the Civil War, and in fact, the Republican party has driven the nation to the brink of credit default, and sabotaged the USA credit rating in the process.Respectfully, Member #2041, what planet are you on? Yes Bush added way too much to the national debt. But Obama did more. Obama has put the country on a trajectory for bankruptcy. I already know you're going to come back with tales of obstructionist Republicans, that it takes two to tango. But if Obama were providing real leadership, the way Clinton did with Republican congressmen, there would have already been a debt/spending/tax deal.

Toymann

09-27-12, 00:46

Hey remember that Wrigley's gum commercial. Double Your Pleasure, Double Your Fun.

Toymann, instead of one hot Madahos chica you could make it two.

And what better than a threesome, than a threesome paid for by two sorry-ass liberals? You'll be grinning from ear to ear. I'll pay for the Rubia, David will pay for the Morocha.

You should make the same bet with David. After all, it's in the bag, right? Even Romney said so.You are missing one key factor Esten. I actually like you, it's been a while since that beer at newport though. We negotiated our terms and I am totally fine with that. Furthermore, I know you'll be good for it. As far as that idiot david33 goes. That's a whole different story. After 6 months of no posts somehow he suddenly appears and claims we have a bet! Give me a break! The pm system works just fine and if he actually wanted to take me up on my bet "on the table", I would not be hearing about it second hand today. BlackShirt is just trying to stir me up and I am not taking the bait. From him or you! LOL. I only bet with folks I have met and I don't know david33 from a hole in the ground. My research indicates he is just a TL wannabe from Columbia. Wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire right in front of me. Shame on you BlackShirt, you were raised better than that! LOL. It's all good. Heading to Argentina tomorrow, hit the ground running Friday! My posts will get quite docile once I'm down a few quarts! Mongering on Esten and BS. Traveling Toymann

Toymann

09-27-12, 00:57

Don't go beating up on Toymann too much, he's one of those wealthy "job creators".And I am getting quite tired of hearing that I need to pay my share day in day out by the Idiot in Chief. I guess north of of 33% on average federal the past 5 years just wasn't enough and then of course there was also the lovely various state taxes that were also paid. Funny, the money that I used to fund my businesses had previously also been taxed at near that rate. Sounds like TL's rusty trombone without all the fun. When I left the socialist country I was born in my last years wages were taxed at 55% federal and state combined, but hey, healthcare was free. As long as you lived long enough, in the line up, to get it! Be careful what you ask for Esten. You just might get it some day. Happy mongering all! Not paying his share Toymann

Ps. Wish obomanation would listen to that loon Pelosi. Lol

Toymann

09-27-12, 01:00

So Doppelganger, would you care to name a single, solitary election that Acorn caused to be decided fraudulently?

Secondly, I already pointed out. Way back in post #1410 of this thread. That the vast majority of segregationists in the South were Democrats, until LBJ got passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Richard Nixon developed the Southern Strategy in response, to pander to those previously Democrat Racists who felt abandoned by LBJ making sure black folks could actually vote. As a result, the overwhelming majority of those racists, including Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and George Wallace being the most noteworthy, switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party in the mid-1960s. The reason that Robert Byrd did not, was that he renounced his prior racist background, became a supporter of the Civil Rights agenda of the late 1960s and beyond. The fact is, the Republicans of 2012 are attempting to use EXACTLY the same tactics that the Democrat racists of the 1950s and 1960s used to disenfranchise blacks, to attempt presently to disenfranchise the poor, as well as blacks and hispanics. But this is hardly surprising, as those very racist Democrats switched parties in the 1960s and the views that they espoused became REPUBLICAN party orthodoxy from the late 1960s onward.

And thirdly, presently, Conservative Republicans are the opposition party in the USA Although, given Mitch McConnell and Rush Limbaugh's public statements that their agenda during the past 4 years was to insure that Barack Obama, and by extension, the Nation for whom he represents ALL of the citizenry of, FAILS, it would be a misnomer of the worst sort to call the Republicans, the LOYAL opposition. Particularly when the disloyalty to the nation as a whole in working aggressively for the failure of the nation during this time has never been so glaring from one party since the Civil War, and in fact, the Republican party has driven the nation to the brink of credit default, and sabotaged the USA credit rating in the process.

If you are going to try to give a history lesson, it behooves you not to cherry-pick and misrepresent your facts in that lesson, lest your lesson be recognized for the biased hogwash that it is.This dude is a total loon. Good luck though. Mongering on. Toymann

Member #2041

09-27-12, 01:10

Obama has put the country on a trajectory for bankruptcy.Actually, that was G. W. Bush. Obama has steered us somewhat away from it, although not completely, for sure. And in any case, if you're in denial about the complete obstructionism in the Senate that Obama has faced from DAY 1 of his Presidency, you are already immune to any sort of reasoned argument.

Tiny12

09-27-12, 01:33

Actually, that was G. W. Bush. Obama has steered us somewhat away from it, although not completely, for sure. And in any case, if you're in denial about the complete obstructionism in the Senate that Obama has faced from DAY 1 of his Presidency, you are already immune to any sort of reasoned argument.I already responded to your post in my post that you excerpted the quote from. But, DAY 1 of his presidency? Come on, get real. That's when he had a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate, if you include Sanders and Lieberman, not to mention Biden as the tie-breaker. And there were 257 Democrats to 178 Republicans in the House.

Punter 127

09-27-12, 01:33

Actually, that was G. W. Bush. Obama has steered us somewhat away from it, although not completely, for sure. And in any case, if you're in denial about the complete obstructionism in the Senate that Obama has faced from DAY 1 of his Presidency, you are already immune to any sort of reasoned argument.I believe the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2007 and they kept control until 2011 when they lost the house. So during the last two years of Bush's term and the first two years of Obama the Democrats had control of congress.

Member #2041

09-27-12, 01:46

I believe the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2007 and they kept control until 2011 when they lost the house. So during the last two years of Bush's term and the first two years of Obama the Democrats had control of congress.Nope, incorrect. When the opposition uses fillibuster as a matter of routine, it requires 60 seats to control the Senate so as to pass any legislation into law, and at no point in Obama's Presidency did the Democrats hold 60 Senate seats, which is what is required to overcome a fillibuster and get a bill passed. The claim that the Democrats controlled the Senate during the first 2 years of Obama's Presidency is simply not true. And the fact is, Leiberman was never a reliable member of the Democratic caucus during the Obama Presidency, and he specifically endorsed McCain for the Presidency. Being able to get a bill passed by the House, without being able to get 60 votes in the Senate, means nothing. Just ask Paul Ryan.

Tiny12

09-27-12, 02:01

Member #2041

09-27-12, 02:43

Lieberman caucuses with Democrats, he was a Democrat, and he's Harry Reid's biggest financial supporter in the Senate. So, again, with the socialist Bernie Sanders, Obama had a 60% fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a 59% majority in the House. That's about as good as it gets for a U.S. president.Lehman largely did not vote with the Democrats from 2009 on, so clearly he was no longer a Democrat. The claim that the Democrats controlled the Senate is simply factually false.

Claiming that he was because he used to be, is simply misleading, and incorrect.

Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, and the head of a Union (Actor's equity). But I would never claim that he was a Democrat as President, nor would I ever claim he was a pro-union President. Leiberman is no different - he changed his allegiances over time, and he had a particular animus toward Obama due to a view that Obama was a lesser ally to Israel than McCain was.

SnakeOilSales

09-27-12, 04:24

Lehman largely did not vote with the Democrats from 2009 on, so clearly he was no longer a Democrat. The claim that the Democrats controlled the Senate is simply factually false.

Claiming that he was because he used to be, is simply misleading, and incorrect.

Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, and the head of a Union (Actor's equity). But I would never claim that he was a Democrat as President, nor would I ever claim he was a pro-union President. Leiberman is no different. He changed his allegiances over time, and he had a particular animus toward Obama due to a view that Obama was a lesser ally to Israel than McCain was.You are simply incorrect. The fact is, the Democrats DID have a filibuster proof majority during the first few years of Obama's administration, which is EXACTLY how Obamacare was able to be passed by the Senate (60-39, one abstention, exactly along party lines including the two "independents") The filibuster proof majority ended upon Ted Kennedy's death and Republican Scott Brown's victory in the special election to replace TK.

Punter 127

09-27-12, 05:44

Nope, incorrect. When the opposition uses fillibuster as a matter of routine, it requires 60 seats to control the Senate so as to pass any legislation into law, and at no point in Obama's Presidency did the Democrats hold 60 Senate seats, which is what is required to overcome a fillibuster and get a bill passed. The claim that the Democrats controlled the Senate during the first 2 years of Obama's Presidency is simply not true. And the fact is, Leiberman was never a reliable member of the Democratic caucus during the Obama Presidency, and he specifically endorsed McCain for the Presidency. Being able to get a bill passed by the House, without being able to get 60 votes in the Senate, means nothing. Just ask Paul Ryan.Reliable or not Leiberman is a member of the Democratic caucus, and he is a Democrat who was elected as an Independent. The Democrats have had a majority in the Senate since 2007 and still do today, they also had a majority in the House of Representatives from Jan 2007 until Jan 2011. You don't need a 'supermajority' to be in control. You make it sound like the Republicans are the only one who would ever filibuster, give me a break.

How many times has either party had a supermajority?

If you don't think having the majority puts you in control, then who's in control now?

Being able to get a bill passed by the House, without being able to get 60 votes in the Senate, means nothing. Just ask Paul Ryan.Who decides what legislation comes to the floor for a vote? The party 'in control', or in this case it's the most powerful Mormon politician in the country Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Member #2041

09-27-12, 05:55

You are simply incorrect. The fact is, the Democrats DID have a filibuster proof majority during the first few years of Obama's administration, which is EXACTLY how Obamacare was able to be passed by the Senate (60-39, one abstention, exactly along party lines including the two "independents") The filibuster proof majority ended upon Ted Kennedy's death and Republican Scott Brown's victory in the special election to replace TK.The fact that Lieberman voted with the Democrats on one important piece of Legislation did not make him a reliable member of the Democratic majority. He was not a Democrat in 2009, and is not one now. He voted with them on the Healthcare act. But his vote could not be counted upon in any number of contentious pieces of legislation. And in actual fact, Lieberman forced the elimination of the public option as a condition of his vote. To please his benefactors in the Connecticut-based Insurance industry. There is a difference between having the votes on one bill, and having control of the seat. The Democrats had the votes on that piece of legislation, but they did not control 60 seats in the Senate at any time during Obama's Presidency, and Lieberman leveraged his position in a manner no actual Democrat could have or would have in providing that final vote.

And to answer Punter 127's question - nobody controls the Senate now, and nobody has controlled it during the Obama Presidency - which is why, in such a divisive climate, nothing gets passed in the Senate.

Punter 127

09-27-12, 06:06

And to answer Punter 127's question. Nobody controls the Senate now, and nobody has controlled it during the Obama Presidency. Which is why, in such a divisive climate, nothing gets passed in the Senate. [snip]Wrong, You can't pass bills if the Leader won't bring them to the floor for a vote. So who's the obstructionist now?

Rev BS

09-27-12, 06:09

Spain is about to implode, will Franco re-emerge?

David_33

09-27-12, 06:11

I'll pay for the Rubia, David will pay for the Morocha.No problem, I always pay my debts.

Member #2041

09-27-12, 10:52

Wrong, You can't pass bills if the Leader won't bring them to the floor for a vote. So who's the obstructionist now?Any bill that has 60 votes in support will be brought to the floor irrespective of who has a majority of seats. The Senate's rules work that way. No bill will get 60 votes in the Senate as it is presently constituted, so it's a moot point.

WorldTravel69

09-27-12, 11:14

The Charts will show, in a 5 year period under Bush there were many Fraudulent Voters.

The Red is the Number of people and the percentage.

Punter 127

09-27-12, 12:24

Any bill that has 60 votes in support will be brought to the floor irrespective of who has a majority of seats. The Senate's rules work that way. No bill will get 60 votes in the Senate as it is presently constituted, so it's a moot point.Are you saying only bills with 60 votes get voted on? If so how does anything ever get voted down?

Member #2041

09-27-12, 13:08

Are you saying only bills with 60 votes get voted on? If so how does anything ever get voted down?No, bills that the majority party supports get brought to the floor, but fillibustered if they lack 60 votes. Whereas bills that the minority party supports don't get brought to the floor without 60 votes. In essence, there is no difference, as neither party can get a bill passed without 60 votes, so long as the minority party consistently uses the fillibuster. All of this is why nothing gets done in the Senate when everything is hyperpartisan as is presently the case. Net net, neither party has control of the Senate sufficient to get a bill passed without significant crossing of the aisle, and only ultra-rare bipartisan bills get passed.

Member #4112

09-27-12, 13:32

Member 2041 if you wish to see voter fraud in action you need look no further than the 1998 Minnesota Senatorial fight between Democrat Al Franken and incumbent Republican Norm Coleman.

ACORN was very active in Minnesota as well as many other states during this period, between ACORN's registration efforts and the Minnesota Democratic machines utter failure to correctly recount the votes somehow destroying original documents, retaining multiple copies of destroyed original documents, permitting ineligible felons to vote and the list goes on which resulted in Franken beating Coleman. Even the courts concluded there was no way to reach a 'real' total. They did not even address ACORN's voter's fraud, nor were they interested in doing so.

Regarding ACORN, how many of their state officers ended up on trial and convicted of voter fraud, many! Democrats are never interested in curbing fraud as the deem it to work in their favor.

Regarding voting in the Senate, Harry Ried has refused to bring legislation passed in the House to the Senate floor blocking both debate and any vote. I suspect he is worried some Democrats might jump ship and join the Republicans to pass legislation otherwise he would let the bills reach the floor for debate since neither side has 60 members. It makes your 60 vote argument moot. Also tax bills only need a majority to pass not 60 votes, which is why I suspect Roberts ruled ObamaCare a TAX.

Member #2041

09-27-12, 14:03

The fact is, courts validated the legitimacy of Franken's victory over Coleman. You've still not shown any fraudulent national election result due to Acorn, nor anyone else in the past several decades in the USA.

Member 2041 if you wish to see voter fraud in action you need look no further than the 1998 Minnesota Senatorial fight between Democrat Al Franken and incumbent Republican Norm Coleman.

Jackson

09-27-12, 14:49

No, bills that the majority party supports get brought to the floor, but filibustered if they lack 60 votes. Whereas bills that the minority party supports don't get brought to the floor without 60 votes. In essence, there is no difference, as neither party can get a bill passed without 60 votes, so long as the minority party consistently uses the filibuster. All of this is why nothing gets done in the Senate when everything is hyperpartisan as is presently the case. Net net, neither party has control of the Senate sufficient to get a bill passed without significant crossing of the aisle, and only ultra-rare bipartisan bills get passed.Not entirely true, as usual. In fact, nothing gets voted on in the Senate unless Sir Harry Reid first permits it, which is why every Republican bill passed by the House and every Republican bill initiated in the Senate are immediately dead on arrival, this fact being in direct contrast to the liberal media's portrayal of the Republicans as the obstructionists.

Are you saying only bills with 60 votes get voted on? If so how does anything ever get voted down?Actually, there's an exception to this via a procedured called "Reconciliation": Bills regarding the budget only require 50% of the Senator's vote to be advanced to a full vote on the bill itself, this prooving necessary to prevent a filibuster from stopping the passage of budget (aka "spending") bills.

Of course, we haven't seen an actual Budget Bill since the beginning of the Obama Adminsitration, but that's another story.
Thanks,

Jackson

Member #2041

09-27-12, 15:26

Not entirely true, as usual. In fact, nothing gets voted on in the Senate unless Sir Harry Reid first permits it, which is why every Republican bill passed by the House and every Republican bill initiated in the Senate are immediately dead on arrival, this fact being in direct contrast to the liberal media's portrayal of the Republicans as the obstructionists.None of those bills had 60 Senators supporting them. If they had, they could have forced their way around Sir Harry.

Jackson

09-27-12, 15:45

None of those bills had 60 Senators supporting them. If they had, they could have forced their way around Sir Harry.Yes, but many of those bills had 51 Senators supporting them, but we'll never know because Reid won't even let them come up for a vote.

That's just wrong.

Member #2041

09-27-12, 16:05

Yes, but many of those bills had 51 Senators supporting them, but we'll never know because Reid won't even let them come up for a vote.

That's just wrong.It's not any more wrong than a minority party filibuster. They are the opposite sides of the same coin, and it's the way the Senate operates.

Tiny12

09-27-12, 17:15

It's not any more wrong than a minority party filibuster. They are the opposite sides of the same coin, and it's the way the Senate operates.One individual preventing a vote in the USA Senate isn't any worse than 40 out of 100 preventing the vote? Or does that just apply if the majority of the 40 are Republicans?

Member #2041

09-27-12, 18:03

One individual preventing a vote in the USA Senate isn't any worse than 40 out of 100 preventing the vote? Or does that just apply if the majority of the 40 are Republicans?It's one person either way. Parties don't filibuster and vote in a bloc unless their party leader tells them to. Last I saw, Mitch McConnell was the same number of people as Harry Reid. They are each engaging in exactly equivalent preventions of simple majority rule in the Senate. You don't seriously mean to make the ludicrous suggestion that McConnell's maneuverings in the Senate and Reid's maneuverings are in any way different in legitimacy under the Senate's rules? If you are suggesting that, you need to dial back on the hallucinogens. Incidentally, the Dems aren't doing anything different from what the Republicans did when they held the majority (but not a super-majority) in the Senate in the 1990s under Trent Lott or in the early years of the Bush administration under Bill Frist. The difference was, the Democrats did not filibuster nearly everything in those Republican majority Senates.

Member #4112

09-27-12, 18:28

You obviously don't understand how the senate rules work. So let me make this simple for you. If Harry Ried refuses to put a bill on the floor it does not matter if the other 99 senators would vote for the bill, no action can be taken on the bill since Reid will not permit it to be debated or voted on.

You seem to be as confused about the Senate rules as you were about Amendments.

Member #2041

09-27-12, 20:35

Esten

09-28-12, 00:30

It's true. There are at least 2 books on this:

Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the US House of Representatives (by Robert Draper) (2012)
The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era (by Michael Grunwald) (2012)

Republican strategist Frank Luntz organized a dinner for a small group of Republicans on January 20, 2009. The guest list included House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions; and Senate members Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl. Newt Gingrich was there too. From one review:

The session lasted four hours and by the end the sombre mood had lifted: they had conceived a plan. They would take back the House in November 2010, which they did, and use it as a spear to mortally wound Obama in 2011 and take back the Senate and White House in 2012, Draper writes.

"If you act like you're the minority, you're going to stay in the minority, ' said Kevin McCarthy, quoted by Draper. 'We've got to challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."The second book focused on the Stimulus:

It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”Passage of health care reform would have been smoother with more Republican support, but based on these accounts you can see there was no way Republicans were going to help Obama.

Republicans strategized right from the beginning to completely obstruct Obama, irregardless of how it affected the country. And that's just sickening and pathetic behavior on their part.

Esten

09-28-12, 01:15

Reid does not control every Senate vote, there are exceptions. Such as the fake "Obama budget" that was voted down 99-0, which I explained before. It is truly staggering how much misinformation comes from the right.

The budget introduced by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions was a a small 56-page document with the same topline numbers as Obama, but no specifics. So it had a connection, giving some cover to call it Obama's budget. But without specifics it was just an empty shell. From the White House: "For example, rather than ending tax breaks for millionaires his budget could hit the revenue target by raising taxes on the middle class and rather than ending wasteful programs, his budget could hit its spending target with severe cuts to important programs."

Predictably, nobody voted for this perverse gimmick.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/

Wrong. Republicans used a Senate rule allowing any lawmaker to require votes on a budget if the chamber's Budget Committee hasn't produced one by April 1. Senate Dems did not produce one because they considered the Budget Control Act the de facto budget.

When you dig into the details, you learn this was nothing but a Republican stunt for headlines. Anyone who believes Congress voted on Obama's budget, has been duped by the Republican party.

WorldTravel69

09-28-12, 02:31

I keep thinking if Ryan and Romney wins.

They would have to have meetings with Foreign Countries, negotiating treaties, trade agreements, defense problems, etc.

But, what would the other Countries think about our new government?

One that used misinformation and Lies to win.

How could they Trust the USA any more.

A Governor that has changed his position more times than his age and a new young guy that says he ran a Marathon in 2 hours plus: which really was around four hours.

The Countries watch what is going on in our politics. They know they Lie and Change positions, how can They Trust Us?

Romney has already insulted a few countries already.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/romneys-foreign-policy-offers-more-rhetoric-than-content/2012/09/26/9a892138-073d-11e2-858a-5311df86ab04_story.html?wprss=rss_national-security

Jackson

09-28-12, 03:00

I keep thinking if Obama and Biden wins.

They would have to have meetings with Foreign Countries, negotiating treaties, trade agreements, defense problems, etc.

But, what would the other Countries think about our new government?

One that used misinformation and Lies to win.

How could they Trust the USA any more.

A President that has changed his position more times than his age, and a old guy that couldn't run a marathon, period.

The Countries watch what is going on in our politics. They know they Lie and Change positions, how can They Trust Us?

Obama has already insulted a few countries already.

Jackson

09-28-12, 03:19

'We've got to challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."How is this different from the Democrat's own strategies in the past?

. in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency.I know that this is hard for you to envision, but the fact is that Cantor and McConnell fought to stop Obama because they genuinely thought that the Obama Stimulus Program was a waste of money. As it turns out, they were right.

However, here's the real issue: A REAL leader would have met with, schmoozed, backslapped, buttonholed and otherwise used his innate people skills to bring his detractors together to get things done, much like Clinton did with Gingrich on a number of issues.

Unfortunately, Obama does not possess these leadership skills. This is his failing.

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #2041

09-28-12, 10:01

I know that this is hard for you to envision, but the fact is that Cantor and McConnell fought to stop Obama because they genuinely thought that the Obama Stimulus Program was a waste of money. As it turns out, they were right.There's no evidence whatsoever that Obama's stimulus package was a waste of money. Much more likely is that the Stimulus prevented the USA economy from falling into a worse depression than that of the early 1930s, given the magnitude of the job losses and wealth losses that occurred at the beginning of the crisis (the wealth loss is the one that is under-appreciated. The nation lost more than half of it's aggregate wealth, in terms of stock equity, housing equity and savings. But over 2/3 of that lost equity has been restored in the intervening years of the Obama Presidency). If the stimulus was a failure in any way, it's that it was too small, and not enough oriented toward infrastructure investment on the energy front to put a dent in our dependency on foreign oil.

And there is a big difference between objecting to one bill (which actually passed) and obstructing everything, including the positions that they themselves had previously espoused, simply because it came from Obama.

BTW, I completely agree with you, Jackson, about what Obama's main failing is, as I said earlier, in that regard, he's no Bill Clinton. The best evidence of this was how he got rolled during the debt ceiling fiasco. Clinton basically stated that Obama should have made the public statement at the outset that he had the Constitutional power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling to meet the nation's obligations through executive order, and then said, given that, what he PREFERRED to do was to reach a grand bargain that lowered the deficit and raised revenue over time. Instead. Obama said up front that he wouldn't do that, thus completely handing the leverage to Cantor and McConnell, and he got played, and lost his ability to get that deal done. That being said, while Obama is no Bill Clinton, thankfully, he's no Mitt Romney either, and Romney has not advocated a single, solitary economic policy that hasn't already proven to be a failure under prior administrations.

Tiny12

09-28-12, 10:21

There's no evidence whatsoever that Obama's stimulus package was a waste of money. .Hahahahahaha!

Regarding your comments about the state of the economy, lots of countries have been through tough recessions in the last 20 years that chopped chopped their aggregate wealth in half. Russia, Mexico, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, etc. They acted responsibly, took their medicine, and set stable bases for growth going forward. The United States under Obama and Bernanke on the other hand seems to be following the southern European model. It won't work.

Member #2041

09-28-12, 10:23

Hahahahahaha!

Regarding your comments about the state of the economy, lots of countries have been through tough recessions in the last 20 years that chopped chopped their aggregate wealth in half. Russia, Mexico, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, etc. They acted responsibly, took their medicine, and set stable bases for growth going forward. The United States under Obama on the other hand seems to be following the southern European model. It won't work.Oh yeah, Mexico's economy is really booming now.

Tiny12

09-28-12, 10:37

Oh yeah, Mexico's economy is really booming now.Yep. 3.9% GDP growth last year, despite having us as their largest trading partner. Perhaps I should have said "bases for sound economies" instead of "bases for growth." If you look at government debts and deficits, the countries on my list are in good shape, while we, Japan and much of Western Europe are headed for financial Armageddon in the long term unless something changes. Obama's 4 years accelerated this in the USA.

Member #2041

09-28-12, 12:44

Yep. 3.9% GDP growth last year, despite having us as their largest trading partner. Perhaps I should have said "bases for sound economies" instead of "bases for growth." If you look at government debts and deficits, the countries on my list are in good shape, while we, Japan and much of Western Europe are headed for financial Armageddon in the long term unless something changes. Obama's 4 years accelerated this in the USA.Growth from a catastrophic base level does not mean an economy is sound, Mexico is a basket case. Oh, and BTW, the percentage of overall economic activity that comes from government spending vs. the private sector, excluding defense, in Mexico is FAR greater than in the U.S. In any case, the fact is, other than South Korea, every economy you mentioned is only growing because they started out as a 3rd world country, with well below average prosperity. South Korea happens to have the biggest increase in manufacturing productivity in the world over the past several years, which is the basis for their growth. Indonesia is similar but to a lesser degree. Thailand is not by any means healthy, and Russia is benefitting from moving to being an open society from a formerly totalitarian one. The simple fact is, under policies such as those that Mitt Romney espouses, by definition, poor countries will do better than affluent countries moving forward, because every nation will drift toward the mean, and ALL affluent economies will do poorly relatively speaking. In that scenario, there is no possible way that an affluent country can do well, it can merely slow the drift toward the mean. But Romney's policies accelerate that process as the manufacturing jobs are aggressively outsourced. Only tax policy and trade barriers can slow that down, while aggressive education and training policies for the middle class. Which Romney opposes, can actually allow the country to maintain some sort of comparitive advantage worldwide. That's what has happened with South Korea.

Basically, any poor country, that has any infrastructure at all, unless it has a repressive regime that limits mobility and communication, such as North Korea or Burma, will by definition have far more robust growth than will advanced, developed nations, as all of their high-value jobs tend to get outsourced. And policies such as Romney's tend to accelerate that process, thus allowing only the wealthiest people to benefit who can leverage that, at the expense of the vast majority of the populace. Suggesting that the loss of half of the U.S. wealth, without much of it being restored as quickly as possible, would have been beneficial for the U.S. in the long haul is utterly ludicrous. If Mitt Romney's policies were to really be implemented in the U.S., in a couple of decades there really would be very little to distinguish the U.S. economy from that of Mexico, except that the poor and the middle class in Mexico do get basic healthcare at little to no cost.

Member #4112

09-28-12, 13:10

Matt Psyche

09-28-12, 13:22

Usually senate leaders do not "block" important agendas from floor debate since members could retaliate it by filibustering other legislation the leaders want to debate and pass. However, they may not introduce an agenda opposed by 40plus senators to the floor, since the bill would meet filibuster and waste time otherwise. A report or allegation that Reid blocked a bill seems to be unfounded.

Yes, but many of those bills had 51 Senators supporting them, but we'll never know because Reid won't even let them come up for a vote.

That's just wrong.

Member #2041

09-28-12, 13:38

Provide any proof what so ever Obama's Stimulus package 'saved' the country from a worse recession.

Well, well, now are we finding it difficult to prove a negative? Liberals demand this of conservatives all the time. How does it feel to now have the proverbial shoe on the other foot?

As you cannot find any creditable definitive data to support your assertion it would have been worse without the Stimulus, let us deal with the reality.

1. Obama promised, if enacted, his Stimulus package would prevent unemployment from rising over 8% and be a little over 5% by this date. Unemployment increased beyond 10% and is still above 8.

2. Obama also promised prosperity and a thriving economy by this date as well. Our current anemic growth rate is so low it will not even provide enough jobs for those entering the work force each year much less recover all the jobs lost, not to mention the growth rate is so low it barely keeps us above a second recession.

3. Not to mention Obama promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term in office, which means the deficit should be at $5 Trillion and change by this date, but he instead increased the national debit by 50% all by his little self in just 3. 5 years.

Get a grip, it's a bust and the money was wasted in real terms of promised performance vs actual results.

I know, I know, Bush did it, the Republicans did it, the rich did it everyone is to blame except the Democrats and Obama.As far as the 8% number. That's a canard, because it was already significantly worse than 8% before the Stimulus was enacted. That's simply an example of how much worse the economy was at the time than anyone, even Obama's economists, had realized. It was close to 10% by the time the Stimulus actually came into law and the first stimulus dollar was actually spent. So, all of those projections were irrelevant, as well as obviously wrong because the situation was already far more dire than was recognized at the time. That's why the Stimulus was too small - because the unemployment was already far worse than believed at the time it was architected.

As for proof. The fact is, there is exactly the same amount of proof available for both sides of the argument, about how effective it was. There is, and cannot be, any proof either way. But what we DO know, is that the stimulus DID stop job losses in their tracks. When it took effect, we were losing over 800K jobs per month. Within 8 months, that number was flattened to nearly zero, and within 12 months, the economy was gaining 150-200K jobs per month. Any economist will tell you that Unemployment lags the economy by 6-12 months, so, that's as good as could possibly have been expected. It would have been nice if the jobs being added were at the 400-500K per month rate that was hoped for, but as I said, the Stimulus was actually too small, relative to the actual magnitude of the problem, which was far worse than was understood at the time, by either Republicans or Democrats and their preferred economists. Unfortunately, the Debt ceiling fiasco stopped that mini-recovery in it's tracks, for perhaps a year, but obviously, that was what McConnell and Cantor hoped would happen, and they were successful in doing so - because, as I said earlier, Obama played into their hands, IMHO, the great failure of his Presidency. The unemployment data is clear

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

If one looks at the unemployment statistics, the obvious inflection points - at the start of Q2 2009, where the slope of the job losses finally decelerates, coincides with the first expenditures under the stimulus act, and the start of Q4, where unemployment actually finally drops, corresponds to ~6-7 months in from that point - which, as any economist would tell you, is what was hoped for. The small unemployment hump in 2011 corresponds to the debt ceiling fiasco. And as can be seen, at the time the first dollar was spent by he Stimulus, unemployment was already at 9.4% - hence, the prior claim that the stimulus would keep it below 8% was obviously rendered moot at that point in time. Heck, on the day Obama took office, unemployment was already 8.3% and we were losing 850k jobs per month (i.e. it was increasing at ~1/2 percent per month).

As for the debt. More than half of the added debt during Obama's Presidency was baked in well in advance of his taking office, by virtue of the two wars Bush engaged in but never funded. Those two wars alone added some $3 Trillion of the debt incurred during Obama's Presidency, and Obama scaled back the Iraq war as soon as was possible.

Dccpa

09-28-12, 14:23

No, bills that the majority party supports get brought to the floor, but fillibustered if they lack 60 votes. Whereas bills that the minority party supports don't get brought to the floor without 60 votes. In essence, there is no difference, as neither party can get a bill passed without 60 votes, so long as the minority party consistently uses the fillibuster. All of this is why nothing gets done in the Senate when everything is hyperpartisan as is presently the case. Net net, neither party has control of the Senate sufficient to get a bill passed without significant crossing of the aisle, and only ultra-rare bipartisan bills get passed.And yet Obamacare got passed. How exactly did that happen? They circumvented the rules.

Member #2041

09-28-12, 14:52

And yet Obamacare got passed. How exactly did that happen? They circumvented the rules.Something that they learned from the Republicans during the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Matt Psyche

09-28-12, 15:06

What an intelligent, insightful analysis. But it is too technical for me.

And yet Obamacare got passed. How exactly did that happen? They circumvented the rules.

Matt Psyche

09-28-12, 15:29

Clinton was not a "REAL leader". He was same as Obama and other presidents. He, just like other presidents, told the GOP majority Congress that he would veto the (ideologically extreme) bills he strongly opposed. Many bills were amended "by the Republicans" to avoid a veto, some bills without amendments were succesfully vetoed, and a few bills were vetoed but enacted through overide of the veto. The same old story without Julius Caesar.

: A REAL leader would have met with, schmoozed, backslapped, buttonholed and otherwise used his innate people skills to bring his detractors together to get things done, much like Clinton did with Gingrich on a number of issues.

WorldTravel69

09-28-12, 16:23

It looks like you are learning from Ryan and Romney.

Just change the names, even if they are wrong.

Kind of reminds me of a Parrot.

You might want to check this site out.

http://www.factcheck.org/

I keep thinking if Obama and Biden wins.

They would have to have meetings with Foreign Countries, negotiating treaties, trade agreements, defense problems, etc.

But, what would the other Countries think about our new government?

One that used misinformation and Lies to win.

How could they Trust the USA any more.

A President that has changed his position more times than his age, and a old guy that couldn't run a marathon, period.

The Countries watch what is going on in our politics. They know they Lie and Change positions, how can They Trust Us?

Obama has already insulted a few countries already.

Tiny12

09-28-12, 16:41

Growth from a catastrophic base level does not mean an economy is sound, Mexico is a basket case. Oh, and BTW, the percentage of overall economic activity that comes from government spending vs. The private sector, excluding defense, in Mexico is FAR greater than in the USA In any case, the fact is, other than South Korea, every economy you mentioned is only growing because they started out as a 3rd world country, with well below average prosperity. South Korea happens to have the biggest increase in manufacturing productivity in the world over the past several years, which is the basis for their growth. Indonesia is similar but to a lesser degree. Thailand is not by any means healthy, and Russia is benefitting from moving to being an open society from a formerly totalitarian one. The simple fact is, under policies such as those that Mitt Romney espouses, by definition, poor countries will do better than affluent countries moving forward, because every nation will drift toward the mean, and ALL affluent economies will do poorly relatively speaking. In that scenario, there is no possible way that an affluent country can do well, it can merely slow the drift toward the mean. But Romney's policies accelerate that process as the manufacturing jobs are aggressively outsourced. Only tax policy and trade barriers can slow that down, while aggressive education and training policies for the middle class. Which Romney opposes, can actually allow the country to maintain some sort of comparitive advantage worldwide. That's what has happened with South Korea.

Basically, any poor country, that has any infrastructure at all, unless it has a repressive regime that limits mobility and communication, such as North Korea or Burma, will by definition have far more robust growth than will advanced, developed nations, as all of their high-value jobs tend to get outsourced. And policies such as Romney's tend to accelerate that process, thus allowing only the wealthiest people to benefit who can leverage that, at the expense of the vast majority of the populace. Suggesting that the loss of half of the USA wealth, without much of it being restored as quickly as possible, would have been beneficial for the USA in the long haul is utterly ludicrous. If Mitt Romney's policies were to really be implemented in the USA, in a couple of decades there really would be very little to distinguish the USA economy from that of Mexico, except that the poor and the middle class in Mexico do get basic healthcare at little to no cost.Uh, what's your point? Mine was that the USA has gone trillions and trillions of dollars deeper into debt and has very little to show for it. This started under Bush and went into overdrive under Obama. Other countries, including Russia, Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea, went through deeper recessions but didn't emerge having mortgaged their futures. Yes, some stimulus spending was merited. But much of what was spent was wasted, and now we've got a deep hole that will be very difficult to dig out of.

Tiny12

09-28-12, 16:46

Clinton was not a "REAL leader". He was same as Obama and other presidents. He, just like other presidents, told the GOP majority Congress that he would veto the (ideologically extreme) bills he strongly opposed. Many bills were amended "by the Republicans" to avoid a veto, some bills without amendments were succesfully vetoed, and a few bills were vetoed but enacted through overide of the veto. The same old story without Julius Caesar.While I disagree with you about both Clinton and Obama, this worked well for Gary Johnson when he was Republican governor of New Mexico. He was detested by both pork-loving Democrats and Republicans. But the citizens of New Mexico, who are overwhelmingly Democrat, liked him and he left the state in great shape when he left. Too bad he doesn't have a snowball's chance of winnning this November. Johnson vetoed more legislation than all 49 other governors combined.

Member #4112

09-28-12, 17:04

Matt Psyche

09-28-12, 17:40

Why did they bother to pass so many bills which were told to be vetoed anyway? (Ans. political demonstration to their constituencies.)

While I disagree with you about both Clinton and Obama, this worked well for Gary Johnson when he was Republican governor of New Mexico. He was detested by both pork-loving Democrats and Republicans. But the citizens of New Mexico, who are overwhelmingly Democrat, liked him and he left the state in great shape when he left. Too bad he doesn't have a snowball's chance of winnning this November. Johnson vetoed more legislation than all 49 other governors combined.

Silver Star

09-28-12, 20:55

While I disagree with you about both Clinton and Obama, this worked well for Gary Johnson when he was Republican governor of New Mexico. He was detested by both pork-loving Democrats and Republicans. But the citizens of New Mexico, who are overwhelmingly Democrat, liked him and he left the state in great shape when he left. Too bad he doesn't have a snowball's chance of winnning this November. Johnson vetoed more legislation than all 49 other governors combined.Gary is fantastic and has my vote this NOV! LIVE FREE.

Fred

Member #2041

09-28-12, 21:24

Member 2041, umemployment was 7. 3% according to BLS when Obama took office and he promised the stimulus would keep it from going over 8, the facts speak for themselves, it has not dropped to 8% yet much less the 5% promised by now and that is with the constantly shrinking workforce. He lied.

Member 2041, Obama said he would cut the deficit by 50% during his first term yet he increased it by 50. The facts speak for themselves. He lied.

Bush added 7+Trillion fighting two wars in 8 years, Obama added $6 Trillion in less than 4 years. I did not agree with Bush "financing" the wars, we should have paid for them as we went but still Obama has out done him in spades, sorry for the pun!Nope, the number was 8.3% end of January 2009. By the time the first actual dollars were being spent on projects under the stimulus package in Q2 2009, the actual number had already reached 9.4%. In any case, the specific number is a moot point because the Stimulus package almost immediately flattened the job losses from 850K per month to less than half of that, and within 7 months, led to unemployment actually was falling, as jobs were being added. No economist who knows anything about unemployment numbers ever expected anything different from those timeframes. Again. 8% was based upon erroneous projections that both Republicans and Democrats were using at the time. The fact is, all of those projections were 1. 5-2% low at the time - and not just the projections Obama was using, but also the projections that Republicans were using as well. So, the 8% number is irrelevant, from a perspective of whether or not the Stimulus actually worked, because unemployment was already at 9.4% when the stimulus actually kicked into effect, rather than the 7.5% that it was believed it would be at the time it was proposed, and which had been the basis for that 8% number being stated as the hoped-for unemployment cap. The forecasts were wrong and had been VERY wrong at the time the Stimulus was proposed, but the Stimulus DID work to knock down unemployment, as the inflection points on the graph I cited earlier make clear. Unfortunately, it should have been significantly larger, and it would have been, had the severity of the employment crisis been appreciated at the time it was being architected in Q4 2008 and early Q1 2009.

And the simple fact is, at least $3 Trillion of Obama's added debt comes from Bush's two wars, that were not paid for with any source of revenues. An additional Trillion came from the Stimulus, which, had we NOT spent it, we'd have seen 12% unemployment for sure, looking at the actual data from that time, without the job-losses being flattened almost immediately, as actually did happen in Q2 2009 with the stimulus kickng in.

As far as Obama cutting the deficit - the sad reality is that the Republicans, led by Eric Cantor, walked away from a deal that Obama and Boehner had brokered that would have made major inroads in doing that. Cutting the deficit requires the Congress and the White House to work together, and there is no doubt that Cantor torpedoed that from happening, even as Boehner was willing.