We all know Obama’s attempts to pass legislation to create jobs have been, and will always be, obstructed by Republicans. If Obama had a plan that would cure cancer, but it would require the rich to all pay a dime more in taxes, the Republicans would obstruct it. Why? Because they made a pledge. I’m not talking about the pledge to support and defend the Constitution. They don’t care about that. The only pledge that matters is their pledge to never raise taxes.
This pledge was initiated by Grover Norquist. You may remember him as the person who claimed, “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub”. Drown means “kill” in normal language. This arguably treasonous goal to destroy the former government of, by, and for the people should bring shame unto a citizen of conscience. But we all know Republicans have no conscience.
There is a more than reasonable consensus among economists that Obama’s plan would indeed create and preserve jobs. The White House points to one survey by Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics. That survey concluded that Obama’s plan would add 1.9 million jobs in 2012 and cut the unemployment rate by a percentage point. Another firm Macroeconomic Advisors, weighed in with an estimate of 1.3 million jobs by the end of 2012.
Most of the lowest estimates project some job growth. Only five economists said no jobs would be created. Five.
And 34 did agree the plan would help avert a return to another recession.
But Republicans only say they want to create jobs. What they really want is more wealth for the wealthy. Period.
Let’s have a look at what one random Republican had to say recently.
At his weekly news conference Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner was asked if Grover Norquist is a “positive influence” on the House GOP conference.
According to the Washington Post:
The speaker shrugged his shoulders and paused at the podium for a full five seconds before responding.
“Listen, our focus here is on jobs,” Boehner said at last. “We’re doing everything we can to get our economy moving again and to get people back to work. It’s not often I’m asked about some random person in America.”
Asked whether he genuinely believed Norquist was a “random person” to members of his conference, Boehner replied, “Listen, our focus is on creating jobs, not talking about somebody’s personality.”
Damn that liberal media, distracting the esteemed Speaker away from his mission to create jobs. What a dirty trick! They foolishly attempted to focus on some random personality, instead of the noble mission of John Boehner.
The outrage of it all would make Lincoln turn in his grave.
Man, when the slime oozes, even randomly, it reeks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
130 comments:
"This pledge was initiated by Grover Norquist. You may remember him as the person who claimed, 'My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years...'" and "But we all know Republicans have no conscience."
I have a conscience. I also support reducing the size of government.
"There is a more than reasonable consensus among economists that Obama’s plan would indeed create and preserve jobs."
Based on his track record over the past three years, I'm not willing to give the Obama administration any more money to create or save jobs. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Good to know Republicans are gaining some wisdom.
"But Republicans only say they want to create jobs. What they really want is more wealth for the wealthy. Period."
I want everyone to have more wealth.
HR,
I knew that conscience thing would draw a reaction. I'm delighted you have a conscience. I wish to be proven wrong on that. Please show it sometime.
You never gave the Obama Administration any money to create or save jobs. The Stimulus did just that, though. Too bad the Obama Administration gave Republicans tax cuts instead of providing more stimulus.
I want everyone to have more wealth.
How? By “trickle down”, or abolishing unions and the minimum wage? Maybe rewarding corporations with more tax breaks after off-shoring jobs will do the trick.
"You never gave the Obama Administration any money to create or save jobs."
Sure I did. I pay my taxes every year.
"I want everyone to have more wealth." "How?"
The best example are the Bush tax cuts you hate so much. They didn't cut taxes for the rich; they cut taxes for all taxpayers and gave a refund to those who paid no taxes.
"By 'trickle down', or abolishing unions and the minimum wage?"
I wouldn't abolish unions. I think the minimum wages is an artificial price floor and keeps unemployment high, but I'm also a realist and would not abolish that either.
"Maybe rewarding corporations with more tax breaks after off-shoring jobs will do the trick."
No, I oppose tax subsidies for industries with the best lobbyists. I'm against all subsidies for corporations. I'd like the deductions and loopholes to go away, too. I think it would be nice for a corporation to simply calculate its tax bill and write a check.
I'm also against off-shoring jobs, but given the competitive nature of globalization, our politicians have a responsibility to improve the tax and regulatory environment in the U.S. if we want fewer jobs sent overseas. I don't blame corporations for moving operations to countries that are more inviting.
There is a more than reasonable consensus among economists that Obama’s plan would indeed create and preserve jobs.
Just like the last three plans... um... didn't.
If you want to create jobs, you're going to have to get Atlas to un-shrug. And perhaps lift restrictions on coal and petrol drilling... that might help too. Right now you're finding out what it's like to live without Capital. Sucks don't it?
HR,
No, you did not give the Obama Administration any more money. Your taxes were lower, if anything.
Tax cuts meant more money for the rich. Lots more.
You disagree with your Party on unions and the minimum wage. And being against all subsidies for corporations is also in direct opposition to your party. All of which would indicate some conscience.
For some reason I think your notion that, “politicians have a responsibility to improve the tax and regulatory environment” has already proven disastrous to our economy and standard of living.
Not blaming corporations for moving operations overseas and killing jobs for Americans is unfortunate. This puts greed, or merely profits, above the nation’s and the American people’s interests. I understand globalization is a reality. I also understand global corporations are allowed too much influence in national policy.
"You disagree with your Party on unions and the minimum wage. And being against all subsidies for corporations is also in direct opposition to your party."
No, just what you think my party stands for. We're much more realistic and reasonable than you give us credit for.
No, you did not give the Obama Administration any more money. Your taxes were lower, if anything.
Inflation is a tax. If we computed inflation the way we did in the 70s, we'd be in the double digits. In a way, it's a good think banks are holding so much capital - if all that money hit the economy at one time we'd have worse devaluation.
But of course, I'd have opted to not print it in the first place.
Tax cuts meant more money for the rich. Lots more.
So, why care if the rich have more money? I worry about me having more money. I'd expect you worry about you having more money. We have fiat currency in this country, there isn't a limited supply of money, we have no gold standard - so who cares how much of it the rich has? I know you do, and I really can't figure out why. Are you ignorant on purpose or did you miss econ 101 in college dude? We have fiat currency, there is not limited pie that "the rich" gobble up an unfair share of. In fact there isn't even a pie. It doesn't work like that. Even Keynesians agree with that statement. Well, except Paul Krugman... but he's mostly his own brand of economist.
“politicians have a responsibility to improve the tax and regulatory environment” has already proven disastrous to our economy and standard of living.
Agreed even if you weren't addressing me. I think they should stop doing a lot of both.
Not blaming corporations for moving operations overseas and killing jobs for Americans is unfortunate.
I don't disagree, in fact I agree. I also think they have a right to do it. You can't make somebody keep their company in the United States.
This puts greed, or merely profits, above the nation’s and the American people’s interests.
It's a free country. It's their property, it's their right. All you can really do is not buy things from them, even though that's getting hard to do.
Your party is against anything Obama is for Heathen. Obama is for a program to create jobs. Republicans block it. republicans are against jobs.
And save us the tax cuts create jobs bullshit. Bush cut taxes. Obama allowed those cuts to continue and added more. Where are all the jobs?
What you are for is corporations exploiting the desperate by moving operations overseas. When our nation is desperate enough maybe they'll move the jobs back.
"Your party is against anything Obama is for Heathen. Obama is for a program to create jobs. Republicans block it."
Republicans are against Obama's job plan because we doubt it will create jobs. As I said above, the last three years have diminished everyone's faith in his ability to create jobs, so we will turn off the spigot when we can.
"Republicans are against jobs."
Nice. Is demonization the best you can do?
"Bush cut taxes. Obama allowed those cuts to continue and added more. Where are all the jobs?"
I am not one who claims that cutting taxes equates to more jobs. It may be the case, but I can't demonstrate it, so this argument won't work against me.
I'm glad that Bush cut taxes for all taxpayers, and I'm just as happy that Obama continued them. Politically, my party would've benefited if Obama had let them expire because raising taxes at the beginning of this year would have been a catastrophe.
Contrary to what you think, Republicans are glad the tax cuts were extended even though they would've benefited politically. I guess that refutes your point that we're against anything that Obama is for.
"What you are for is corporations exploiting the desperate by moving operations overseas."
Not at all, but you've got this demonization thing down pat. "Republicans are against jobs." "Republicans support corporations exploiting workers." Well done.
I explained why I think jobs move overseas, and both Democrats and Republicans need to realize we're competing against other nations for jobs and economic growth. We need to have competitive corporate tax rates and a more inviting regulatory environment. Countries that beat us in those areas will entice corporations to relocate. Simple economics.
But keep up the demonization Truth 101. It's a very persuasive tactic.
You're the one with "Republican" in his moniker HR. You want to wear the badge you take the heat that goes with it.
Republicans have obstructed everything Obama has tried to do. their main goal is to continue to obstruct in hopes Obama will be blamed for their treachery and lose in 2012.
I also explained how corporations that move manufactuing overseas do so to exploit the desperate.
it's easy to demonize the right because it's the truth.
So, why care if the rich have more money? I worry about me having more money. I'd expect you worry about you having more money. We have fiat currency in this country, there isn't a limited supply of money, we have no gold standard - so who cares how much of it the rich has?
I actually started typing a response to teach Free about currency, its value and real basis, and then I stopped. It would be pointless and it would embroil me in a nutty debate I don't have time to finish.
Republicans are against Obama's job plan because we doubt it will create jobs.
Amen, in fact we think it'll make things worse. TARP and stimulus I II and III did.
I actually started typing a response to teach Free about currency
When I did that whole minor in macro economics I learned all about it, so don't bother. However if you need an education, I charge a fee. Look at it this way, you'll spend a lot less than I had to.
You'll call it Fox News (R) propaganda blah blah but if you want to at the very least understand the theory (which I doubt you do) you can learn about it here./
You need to leave planet Limbaugh and come to Earth Free dude.
The stimulus and tarp are what kept us so far from becoming Japan.
They have been especially good at making Wall Street prosperous.
I've debated macro economics with people I know are real mba's so you're wise to save yourself an ass whoopin.
I've debated macro economics with people I know are real mba's
But you're not an MBA.
Yawn.
Not that I think much of an MBA.
ad hominem non-statements and a lot of hyperbole and blustering? Really? You need to go back to debate 101. John Myste here could whoop your ass.
Also, just thought I'd point out... a Masters in Business Administration is a management degree, not an economics degree.
If you'd said you debated PHDs in Econ I still wouldn't have been impressed, but at least I wouldn't have died laughing at your statement for its obvious ignorance.
When do we blame the American people.
They started voting for the Republican montra of no new taxes before Norquist started his pledge.
Norquist just saw a movement and jumped on it.
Don't blame one man for something that took millions of American voters to become reality.
I've yet to see anything but the usual and predictable right wing nonsense from you Free dude.
You unimpress. Now give us some of this grand economics stuff buddy. If you really know any.
Truth101
please give us the name and time period that you read a book that was conservative? You know, to expand your mind.
ya.. create jobs.
in Wisconsin, the stallworth republican administration is creating jobs by passing bills to
suppress voters
push abstinence only sex ed
allow conceal carry weapons
gerrymander districts
legalize margarine in restaurants
.... theyz been real busy creating jobs.
oh shit.... defending Fox News...by quoting Fox News.....
Oh, shit.... I gotzta go... there is a bridge in Brooklyn for sale... Fox News said so....
Oh, shit... time for a beer...my bartender told me so...and he is more credible than Fox...and he does have a business degree
You don't get to be a Republican leader in Congress without being able to lie as easily as you breathe, and Boehner's a prime example.
Ask ex-Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island about that "random" personality, Norquist. Chafee got primaried for being too reasonable, too willing to work with Democrats to get some helpful things donw. Norquist's well-heeled enforcement operation moved in with lots of money for a conservatiIve extremist primary challenger. Chafee won the primary but was so weakened, a Democrat, Sheldon Whitehouse, won the election.
That's been a good outcome for Rhode Island and the country because Whitehouse is one of the best and brightest. But it wasn't the handiwork of some random person. The way for Whitehouse's victory was paved by a very accomplished extremist bully.
The outcome isn't always good. With help from Norquist, Pennsylvania now has about as doctrinaire an economic Darwinist as you're likely to find, Pat Toomey, for a senator, and he'll probably keep that seat for as long as he wants it.
okjimm wrote: "oh shit.... defending Fox News...by quoting Fox News...."
But then, how else could Fox News be defended?
"But Republicans only say they want to create jobs. What they really want is more wealth for the wealthy. Period."
That statement is patently false. Republicans do TOO want to create jobs. They just want to wait until January 2013 to create them, so the new Republican president can take the credit.
please give us the name and time period that you read a book
He read an article by Paul Krugman in the NY Times once. Does that count?
He debated an MBA once you know. I wonder who won?
.and he does have a business degree
Taking financial advice from bartenders? That would explain a lot about Democrat fiscal policy. After all, they do spend like they're drunk.
Still waiting for some great econimc stuff from you Free dude.
or are you going to continue your nonsense and hope Dmarks has another anecdote about an imaginary friend who got screwed by a union and knew Milton Friedman.
Truth,
We all know the deal. It has been broadcast from the beginning of Obama’s term. The Republicans are invested in forcing Obama, and by extension, a recovery from recession, to fail. They will not compromise, and they are throwing the nation under the bus to gain complete power. They will settle for nothing less than a one party dictatorship. Power and wealth first, America second...or third.
I think Stossel and Laffer were the sages of wisdom on what we were to be educated.
HR,
You disagree with your Party on unions and the minimum wage. And being against all subsidies for corporations is also in direct opposition to your party." Yes, if we were to believe you.
From CNN May 17, 2011:
On a mostly party-line vote, the Senate on Tuesday defeated a Democratic measure to strip major oil companies of about $20 billion in tax subsidies over the next 10 years and use the savings to pay down the deficit.
Three Democrats and two Republicans crossed sides in the 52-48 vote, preventing the bill from reaching a required 60-vote threshold for passage.
Republicans opposed the measure, arguing the big five oil companies would pass any tax increases to consumers in the form of higher gas prices.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-17/politics/senate.oil.subsidies_1_oil-companies-gas-prices-maine-s-olympia-snowe?_s=PM:POLITICS
Talk about being held hostage. Hand it over, or we’ll just take it.
We surely don’t need any reminding of the GOP opposition to the minimum wage and unions.
“Realistic and reasonable” are very subjective terms where non-Republicans would have serious doubts on your interpretation.
Free,
And on the other hand it is not so good the banks are keeping all the money out of productive use within our economy.
The Right loves to praise small businesses, but they are having a hard time getting loans to develop or expand. The Banksters collect fat bonuses, skirt accountability and regulation, and the rich get richer. What else matters?
“Who cares how much of it the rich has?”
Why do we care? We care because the last time the redistribution of wealth was so heavily out of balance in favor ot the top tier, we had a depression. We are headed for a third world system of an ultra wealthy elite and declining wages for the poor and middle class. The “trickle down” never happened. The “rising tide” of redistribution to the elites has only lifted yachts. We are now more like Mexico and the Philippines in income disparity. This is why we care.
Money is not infinite and we all cannot be wealthy. The less the rich pay in taxes and the more exponential their wealth grows, the more the middle class has to pay, whether in loss of public services, jobs, or standard of living. And along with this, the rich have an even greater share of influence on public policy within our government. Money is power and that power opposes democracy.
This is also why we care.
We all do better when we all do better. More than just the top percent must gain if an economy is to thrive. That’s how it works. What we have now is how it does not work for most of us.
Republicans are against Obama's job plan because we doubt it will create jobs.
Amen, in fact we think it'll make things worse. TARP and stimulus I II and III did.
Your assertion is based on opinion more than fact. Republicans are contradicted by most surveys of economists. Same with climate science. Right Wing beliefs are always held as dogmatic as cult beliefs, no matter the preponderance of expert and scientific conclusions or the evidence of history. FDR proved government stimulus could work if allowed. The Right will allow nothing but tax cuts and corporate welfare. They represent only the interests of the elite.
SW,
You don't get to be a Republican leader in Congress without being able to lie as easily as you breathe.
There it is.
But to the indoctrinated masses it is not lying because they “believe” in it. Cult members believe their masters to be truthful, while the masters are fully aware deception is the key to their power. I think Obama knows this as well. He was happy to let people think he was a progressive, but we know how centrist and corporatist he really has proven himself to be. His FISA Amendment vote during the summer before the election was the big wake up for me. For that I did not endorse him in my 2008 endorsement post.
And of course, centrist is “socialist” to the radical Right.
Tom,
I stand by my claim. Eight years of the Shrub’s jobs “record” is proof enough. They don’t care a damn about any of us, and it shows. Wealth for the wealthy is, and has been, their only real concern.
Dave, apologies up front for an out-of-the-blue question. I know you and SW Anderson and Truth 101 and okjimm and others just hate Republicans...
Is there anything that would make any of you consider voting for a Republican?
And on the other hand it is not so good the banks are keeping all the money out of productive use within our economy.
Well, which would you rather have. A lot of dollars that aren't worth very much or a few dollars that are worth... well not a lot but more than if that money wasn't tied up.
Either way I guess you're screwed, but Ben Bernanke isn't the best FED chief so were I a bank I'd try to keep some value in my capital. Can't say I blame them. It wouldn't do anyone any good to devalue that and then have more bank failures.
they are having a hard time getting loans to develop or expand.
Banks don't give loans out of charity, they do it to make money. If a loan fails, the best they get is a tax write-off. In this kind of economy, how sure would you have to be before you gave a total stranger say, 400,000 dollars.
We care because the last time the redistribution of wealth was so heavily out of balance in favor ot the top tier, we had a depression.
We had an entirely different monetary system back then. We don't have hard money anymore. That is why that old way is irrelevant.
As for "why you care," it is rooting in an 85 year old policy we haven't used in over 30 years. Get with the times. This is 2011, 1935 called, it wants it's monetary policy back.
Your assertion is based on opinion more than fact.
No, its based on observation. Your opinion it mitigated a crash is based on opinion. It would take a lot more than a blog post to explain why Bush's TARP and Obama's rounds of stimulus and quantitative easing made things worse... so I'll save myself the trouble and advise you to go read Prices and Production by F.A. Hayek. The theory you're basing this on is the General Theory put forth by Keynes. I beat on Keynes a lot, but he wasn't all bad. His book Tract on Monetary Reform wasn't bad - but the General Theory is basically a justification for irresponsibility of spending by both central banks and government. The book that turned me against the ideas was Henry Hazlitt's The Failure Of New Economics.
It can be dry, but I suggest you read all of those instead of taking Paul Krugman's word for it.
You have to understand, I and a lot of other free marketeers predicted ALL OF THIS almost blow by blow like we had a chrystal ball way back in 2004 (many earlier) in again in 2007 when TARP was signed. There is reason I left the Republican Party in 2007, and signing on to these terrible policies are the reason. Only when they abandon them, will they again get my vote.
Is there anything that would make any of you consider voting for a Republican?
I learned a long time ago liberals never change their minds. Their ideology has an almost religious significance to them. What you have to hope for, are those who haven't made up their minds read the debate, and side with you.
"I learned a long time ago liberals never change their minds. Their ideology has an almost religious significance to them."
So true, so very true. Even when liberal policy after liberal policy fails despite all the good intentions of their supporters, liberals never example why the failure. They simply blame someone else for either not paying high enough taxes that were needed to allow the policy to succeed or ignore the failure.
Most recent example, stimulus one. The reason it failed was it was not big enough. Now they want another one. Head-in-sand over failure of the first one, lets try that again.
Amazing.
Ah Heathen republican. I hate that the republican party has been hijacked by nuts who demand purity and fealty to tax cuts and narrow minded kooks like Grover Norquist.
HR,
Good question.
Is there anything that would make me consider voting for a Republican?
Yeah, waterboarding. (My first smartass reaction.) Sure, if the Democrat or only opponent was a child molester, or otherwise sociopathic. (Second, somewhat less smartass reaction.)
I would vote for a Republican over a worse Republican, like for McCain in the 2000 primary, hoping for at least a modicum of depth and decency on the GOP ticket.
Free,
Under FDR government created jobs. Your odd rationalization says something that worked before cannot work again. My odd rationalization says government under King George the Decider created jobs. Only they were for their oily cronies like Halliburton, and Bible-tossing killers like Blackwater. But then, they all had the inside track, didn’t they?
In this kind of economy, how sure would you have to be before you gave a total stranger say, 400,000 dollars.
I have little sympathy with banks, because they made “this kind of economy”. It’s not like they’re going to be handing cash out to the beggars on the street that I’ve been seeing more and more of since 2000.
While you’re stroking your ego with tales of visionary glory, I’ll share one of mine. I was predicting back in the ‘90’s a coming war on terror that would be more bloody and destructive to our Bill of Rights than the war on drugs.
That was easy to see. Americans were proving to be easily frightened. Authoritarians working the drug war hysteria could get people to accept many new outrages, some by law enforcement bent on piracy for civil forfeitures. We saw mandatory minimum sentencing, and new intrusive surveillance and privacy violations.
But never mind that, this is the man we should have listened to back in 1994.
So what's the big deal? Derivatives have become much more than managing risk. They have begun, in some cases, to look like a financial casino where the decisions are wagering decisions, not business ones. Derivatives may well be the most complicated financial device ever--contracts based on mathematical formulas, involving multiple and interwoven bets on currency and interest rates in an ever-expanding galaxy of permutation. Of course, what individual investors knowingly do with their own money is their own business. But when financial institutions are setting up what amount to keno pits in their lobbies, it's something that should concern all of us. I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this. - Senator Byron Dorgan
All right, I’ll take this one:
Their ideology has an almost religious significance to them.
Yeah, the ideology of the bleeding Heart. As we know there are your revered prophets Hayek and the cold-blooded Rand, along with the sainted and infallible Kochs. At least Hayek had the heart to understand the need for safety nets.
Yes, religious, in that caring for the sick and needy is part of our morality. Religious in the sense of a community understanding its shared needs, and wanting to live in privacy, safety and peace under equal justice.
Religious in the sense that we don’t want money changers in our temple; we do not want banks buying our government. And then again not so religious, because we want churches out of our government, too.
The real bottom line is the simple reality of understanding there’s an entire Republican Party committed to working against our common interests in order to serve the economic elites. Until that party stops working against us, our minds cannot change, at least without a serious loss of brain cells and being strapped in front of FOX(R).
HR,
Just to let you know, I do not hate you. I don't even hate Free, although I'm not sure the feeling is mutual. I even think we could enjoy a beer together.
There are greater evils worthy of hate than being a Republican. I have family and friends who I love that vote for Republicans. You cannot hate a family member for joining a cult either. I don't hate Republicans as much as I vehemently oppose them. Now child molesters I can hate.
Dave, I've never thought this was about love or hate. I just wish others of your stripe would be more tolerant - as their ideals say they should be - of people like me.
I don't know of any right-leaning bloggers that ban left-leaning comments, but I'm growing tired of the lefties that name me a troll for challenging leftist orthodoxy. Some of whom are regulars here, but I won't name names.
I know that trolls exist. I also know that I'm not one of them. There are very few places where left and right can debate rigorously, I think because your fellow lefties don't have the guts to accept challenges from intelligent people from the right.
Yours is a unique place, and while you're often overly aggressive and do make it sound like you hate all Republicans, I know better. One of these days we should all head down to Blogworld and down a few drinks together.
My pld friend Donald Douglas of American Power banned me, TAO, Repsac, and lefty comments from his blog.
An old troll who calls himself "malcontent" bans lefties and their comments.
I've never banned anyone from my blog. The only time I ever deleted a comment was when a blogger's real identity was outed. That's the only rule I had about comments. If one prefers to remain anonymous then I will respect that regarless of position.
We had good conversations at Democracy Central HR.
Thanks Truth, I suspected there were some, but naturally I haven't encountered them myself. I put in the effort at Democracy Central, but I found TAO too hard to accommodate.
HR,
I can't justify rudeness, but liberals are understandably angry. They are fed up with being tagged as unpatriotic Marxists and worse by Beck, Palin, Coulter, Limbaugh, FOX(R) and other rings of the national Right Wing media circus. They sense a very real stirring of hatred by many radical Rightists.
I've seen no similar treatment of conservatives by major media. I've seen Olbermann and Schultz attack Republicans, but not conservatives in general.
TAO likes to correct people. He "corrected" me for saying that once. I apologised and told him I stood corrected.
Heathen,
Though you did not ask me, there is probably nothing in the real world that would make me vote a Republican.
Outside the real world, one of the following happening could make me consider it:
1. The Democratic Party changed.
2. The Republican Party Changed.
3. Sandra Day O'Connor ran for office against a moderate democrat.
I would not consider voting for O'Connor for president, though, unless she had a democratic running mate.
double standard liberal slime ooze
From Investors Business Daily
Public Sector: When bailed-out private Wall Street banks handed out bonuses last year, the president threw a fit. So why is he ignoring the huge executive bonuses at government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
Shortly after taking office, President Obama reacted to Wall Street bonuses handed out in January 2009 with incredibly harsh language, calling them “shameful” and “the height of irresponsibility.”
The same cannot be said of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Not only where they at the epicenter of the housing bubble, but also the government had to take them over, pumping in cash to cover their huge losses on the mortgages they owned and guaranteed. And far from paying taxpayers back, the best-case scenario for Fannie and Freddie is that their bailout will cost over $120 billion.
But that didn’t stop the two agencies from giving their top 10 executives $12.8 million in bonuses for meeting what have been charitably described as “modest goals.”
And the White House response to this genuine outrage? Crickets. Where are the Occupy crowd when and where we need them?
Heathen Republican, FWIW, I don't hate Republicans. Hating people corrodes the soul of the hater, so I avoid it.
I do hate Republicans' bullying, arrogance, underhandedness, lying, rejection of facts and science, disdain of truth, hostage-taking habit and anything-to-win-elections tactics.
I hate what Republicans did to Max Cleland and John Kerry. I hate what they're trying to do President Obama, and what they're doing to a lot of hurting people to make Obama a failed president.
My feelings aren't born simply out of partisan competitiveness. They're motivated by understanding the harm being done to our country by today's radicalized political right - harm to the people, government and political system.
Also FWIW, I thought Eisenhower was a good president, Nelson Rockefeller was an excellent governor, and there was a lot I liked about Gerald Ford. I think all three would take one look at today's Republican Party and have nothing to do with it.
//Taking financial advice from bartenders?//
well, to elaborate further... he has an MBA... has owned the bar for 33 years, owns a third of a great restaurant, two other commercial buildings...works his ass off, and can afford to go to Super Bowls. He is a Democrat.
to another question posed....My Congressman, not Senator, is a Republican that I have voted for for the last sixteen years. He's not great, but he is honest, rather bland... and the Dem's haven't found anyone better.
I was also, in the day, a staunch supporter of Bill Steiger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Steiger
"he was a strong supporter of tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy. He sponsored legislation reducing the capital gains tax, establishing OSHA, and securing environmental protection for the Great Lakes. The bills he authored on these topics include the Williams-Steiger Bill establishing OSHA in 1970, the Clear Lakes Bill establishing environmental protection for the Great Lakes, the Older Americans Act of 1965, the Elementary and Secondary School Act, the Manpower Act, and the Steiger Amendment of 1978 reducing the capital gains tax."
if Bill hadn't died, I would be voting for him still. If there was a Republican like him...I would vote for him. Unfortunately, there is not.
Credma, or Anonymous, or JTF,
Fannie and Freddie were not at the “epicenter” of the bubble and crash. It is false propaganda of the Right intended to distract us from the swindlers on Wall Street. Fannie and Freddie did not make those subprime loans; neither did they bundle and dishonestly sell toxic mortgage backed derivatives knowing fully well they were junk.
We can complain about those bonuses for “modest goals”. I don’t like it either. Senators from both parties are questioning those bonuses. But those persons were not responsible for the collapse of our economy. Why don’t the bonuses paid to those crooks responsible bother you? And speaking of double standards, you equate the Fannie and Freddie execs trying to clean up the mess with the swindlers who sold the subprime loans in the first place.
We are far more outraged at huge bonuses going to the very culprits on Wall Street, your heroes apparently. No comparison, but thanks for illustrating how double standards and ignorance go together.
SW Anderson, I'm not doing this to mock you or even claim that "both sides do it." Sincerely. What you believe about the right is exactly what the right believes about the left. I'll show you:
"I do hate Democrats' bullying, arrogance, underhandedness, lying, rejection of facts and science, disdain of truth, hostage-taking habit and anything-to-win-elections tactics.
I hate what Democrats did to Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin. I hate what they did to President Bush, and what they did to our reputation around the world simply to make Bush a failed president.
My feelings aren't born simply out of partisan competitiveness. They're motivated by understanding the harm being done to our country by today's radicalized political left - harm to the people, government and political system."
I'm sure you could provide plenty of evidence against the right. I could provide just as much against the left. This argument cannot be won by weight of evidence.
So I guess my point is that as deeply as you believe what you believe, so does the right. We're no more evil, and have no worse motives than you do. Our opposition to Obama isn't racial or even that partisan; it's a deep belief that he is harming the country.
Politics has always been a rough game.
In fact, we're nicer than when we started. So when people complain about it today... well I laugh.
Of course the two parties try to tear each other apart, that's just how it is.
And if you don't think both parties do it, you are lying to yourself.
"Fannie and Freddie were not at the “epicenter” of the bubble and crash"
Really, that's what you say. Then why did they need to bailed out?
Why aren't the Occupy people, all upset about the large bonuses being paid their top executives?
Heathan Republican wrote: "We're no more evil, and have no worse motives than you do."
I've been following politics since I was a teenager. Only one chief justice I can recall has ever been the target of years of campaigning to have him impeached. That was Earl Warren, ironically, a Republican. But those out to impeach him were cut from the same cloth as the Koch brothers, the Coorses, Richard Mellon Scaife, Limbaugh, etc. And it was largely because the Warren court upheld the right of black students to attend schools close to their homes, and state universities, just like white kids.
I only recall one modern U.S. attorney general who couldn't see the need for the DoJ to uphold people's rights to equal protection under law but acted vigorously against those who exercised their rights of freedom of speech and assembly, and of petitioning their government for redress of grievances.
"(Mitchell) brought conspiracy charges against critics of the Vietnam War, and demonstrated a reluctance to involve the Justice Department in civil rights issues. 'The Department of Justice is a law enforcement agency,' he told reporters. 'It is not the place to carry on a program aimed at curing the ills of society.'"
Mitchell's curious approach to being the country's top law enforcement officer got even worse, though.
"On February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up. . ."
I don't know of any Democratic AG with a record like that, or like the egregious record of another Republican, Alberto Gonzales, on whose watch the whole department was turned into a pro-Republican, anti Democrat political operation. For which Gonzales should have spent time in prison. Ironically, as with Gonzales' boss, Obama felt imposing justice on his corrupt predecessors would do harm to the country. So, they got away with it.
(continues)
(Note, the Mitchell referred to above is John N., Richard Nixon's AG.)
I only recall one president ever being obliged to resign in disgrace, as a means of avoiding impeachment and prosecution on a variety of felony charges. That was Richard Nixon, a Republican, whose lies included telling the country, "I am not a crook."
I only recall one House majority leader having to resign in the face of impending felony charges, subsequently being convicted and sentenced to three years in prison. That one is Tom DeLay, a Republican.
Shutting down the government is patently unconstitutional. Newt Gingrich, speaker of the House and his lockstep marchers, did it twice, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and causing problems for people and businesses across the country. No Democrat has ever shut down the government.
In all U.S. history, only one member of Congress has called out, "You lie" to a president delivering a State of the Union address. That ill-mannered lout was Republican Joe Wilson of South Carolina. After apologizing, he went on to use his outrageous insult as a fund-raising ploy.
There's a longstanding tradition that congressional leaders of one party don't go into a Senate leader of the other party's state to campaign against him. Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist tossed that little nicety aside in 2004 helping defeat Tom Daschle (by 0.10 percent).
Never in my lifetime have Democratic officeholders instituted systematic measures repeatedly to discourage voting and deny the chance to vote to people across the country, except in the pre-Voting Rights Act South. And Southern Democrats who perpetrated those tactics wasted no time becoming Republicans after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts were passed in the mid-1960's.
Only one president has authorized the use of torture on prisoners, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and U.S. law. That president was George W. Bush, a Republican.
There's much more, HR, but the point is made. Your claim of equivalence doesn't hold water. (I particularly resent your attempt to equate Cleland, a decorated veteran, triple amputee, excellent and dedicated director of the Dept. of Veterns Affairs and fine senator, with half-term Gov. Sarah Palin, who resigned rather than undergo investigation of corruption charges.)
Republicans of the past 40 years are in a class by themselves. They earned their rotten reputation the old-fashioned way and deserve every bit of it.
SW Anderson,
Wow, that's quite an indictment. I guess I should change my registration to Democrat now.
Apparently you think this argument can be won by sheer weight of the evidence. You know, I was responding to your own very heartfelt and sincere opinion of Republicans to demonstrate how sincere and heartfelt my own opinion is of Democrats.
Providing me a very comprehensive list showing how evil you think Republicans are doesn't change the level of my sincerity, nor does it disprove it. It would be pointless for me to try and offer a point-by-point rebuttal or offer my own list because you wouldn't believe it, and I know that you are already sincere.
And here I thought I'd made a pretty straightforward point.
I only recall one president ever being obliged to resign in disgrace, as a means of avoiding impeachment and prosecution on a variety of felony charges.
Well you can't hold it against the Republicans that Bill Clinton refused to resign in disgrace for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Only one chief justice I can recall has ever been the target of years of campaigning to have him impeached... by Democrats.
The same Democrats who were screaming "Segregation forever." And please spare me the lie they all became Republicans. Robert Byrd (Grand Wizard KKK) and George Wallace died Democrats having endorsed Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. The same Bill Clinton who said of Barak Obama
“A few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
The same Democrats that called Michael Steel an Oreo, have spent 20 years calling Clarence Thomas every racist name in the book, and are currently trying to come up with whatever they can about Herman Cain. A Republican who is the current front runner, and I have to add, is quite literally twice as black as Barak Obama.
I guess Republicans don't need someone... oh how did Harry Reid put it- without a "Negro dialect."
I don't know of any Democratic AG with a record like that
Lets try Eric Holder, the current AG. He only handed fully automatic weapons to a Mexican drug gang with intent to frame American gun makers and distributors with supplying criminals and terrorists. I guess to you that's just being patriotic.
As for shutting down the government, the results of those tactics were bipartisan budget deals that led to the largest economic expansion in American history.
In all U.S. history, only one member of Congress has called out, "You lie"
Truth hurts. It would have been better if all the Republicans shouted it together and walked out of the speech, but sadly one thing most Republicans lack is balls.
Never in my lifetime have Democratic officeholders instituted systematic measures repeatedly to discourage voting and deny the chance to vote to people across the country,
And never in my lifetime have their been a larger pack of scum that so vigorously defend voter fraud - funny how they demand IDs, background checks and expensive licenses to exercise the 2nd Amendment but not the right to vote. Wonder why that is? God forbid we require an ID at the voting booth. Then dead people couldn't vote anymore and Al Franken would just be a washed up actor instead of a U.S. Senator.
Oh really?
George Wallace? Died Democrat
Robert Byrd? Died Democrat
Bull Conner? Died Democrat
In fact, who were these Democrats who became Republicans? I can't think of any off hand. I can think of one famous OWS protester who used to be a Republican... till they threw him out of the party that is.
“media has their paid whores condemning the demonstrations across America against these criminal banks,” citing Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly as specific examples.
Sounds like you sometimes... only the problem is it's DAVID DUKE who said that last week. David Duke, once again voting DEMOCRAT.
And let us not forget FDR and his concentration camps.
Yeah, from rounding American Indians up and death marching them to Oklahoma (Andrew Jackson) to fighting a bloodiest WAR in American history for slavery (Jefferson Davis) or supporting the Klu Klux Klan (Woodrow Wilson) to supporting the bombing of black churches (George Wallace) on up till today your party has a laughable (and tragic) record on civil rights. I think Malcolm X said it best-
In this deceitful American game of power politics, the Negroes (i.e., the race problem, the integration and civil rights issues) are nothing but tools, used by one group of whites called Liberals against another group of whites called Conservatives, either to get into power or to remain in power
Free deserves a big cracker for his parroting.
Lying about a blow job was the great perjury and obstruction of justice. What “justice” would we be talking about? The GOP Starr Inquisition wasted millions of dollars on that??
But lying about WMD’s, connections to al-Qaeda, nukular aluminum tubes, biological labs, “aerial drones” etc. that killed thousands of Americans and uncounted thousands of others is all ok.
Dick's Scooter was a good team player for shielding his boss from outing a covert operative with serious perjury.
Just who said what racist thing? No examples were given, just accusations about Thomas and Steele getting called something or another. Nobody here called them anything racist. So far the facts about Cain say enough. He wants to raise taxes on everyone but the rich, and thinks China may be working on developing a nuclear program. And just who is the president of Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan anyway? I suppose calling him an attention-seeking buffoon counts as racist coming form me.
“You lie” wasn’t even shouted after a lie. And it wasn’t “balls”, it was itself a lie. It was brazen disrespect and an insult to America. And the party of the new Reich barely condemned Wilson.
Gonzales and Ashcroft defiled our Constitution far worse with torture, indefinite detention of citizens without charge or counsel, and warrantless surveillance of Americans. Not to mention running a completely politicized Justice Department working for the Republican vote suppression agenda. One US Attorney in New Mexico was fired because he didn’t press trumped up vote fraud charges. I guess Free would include David Iglesias as “scum that so vigorously defend voter fraud”, like the rest of us. A the federal level, only 24 people were convicted of or pleaded guilty to illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, an average of eight people a year.
In Republican World, a couple dozen fraudulent votes justify disenfranchising thousands of their Right To Vote. Yes it is a right, not a privilege.
By comparison, Holder is junior league amateur with his botched gun scam.
Both the Republican and Democratic Parties bear little resemblance to their past. Nixon would be tarred and feathered as a liberal now, and the Dems are as corporatist today as the Republicans were forty years ago.
Desperately reaching into past eras for pathetic examples to define our current Democratic Party are the best they can do? Sure Dems may be incompetent and sometimes criminal, but less criminal than the Right.
Oh, and where are the secessionists these days? The “Niggerhead” hunt club would be good place to check.
I just love it when they parrot Wallace and Byrd as “proof” the Democrats are the “real racists”.
"We all make mistakes. I made a mistake when I was a young man -- it's always been an albatross around my neck -- in joining the Ku Klux Klan. I think we can all profit by our mistakes. I think we've reached a new plateau, and I think it's going to keep going upward, that understanding and race relations." Robert Byrd
"I am an Alabama Democrat, not a national Democrat. I’m not kin to those folks. The difference between a national Democrat and an Alabama Democrat is like the difference between a Communist and a non-Communist." – George Wallace 1966
Oh, Duke said he voted for a Democrat? That logic tells us I’m a Nazi, because Hitler and I both had a German Shepherd.
What else does Duke have to say?
http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2009/02/david-duke-to-gop-racists-unit-001572.php
"As a former Republican official," writes Duke, "I can tell you that millions of rank-and-file Republicans are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore! We will either take the Republican Party back over the next four years or we will say, 'To Hell With the Republican Party!' And we will take 90 percent of Republicans with us into a New Party that will take its current place!"
Duke also takes a swipe at the new president in his Web message, accusing the GOP leadership of mimicking the Democratic approach to governance. "Obama is bad enough as President, we will not stand for Obama junior to be head of the Republican Party," Duke writes.
"The time has come for the Republican Party to stand up to Obama and defend American heritage, rights, and freedom," Duke continues. He ends his blog post with a call to arms for white Republicans: "Let's make this abomination in the Republican Party the last major party of White redoubt, as a rallying cry of resistance!"
Some liberal Democrat there, eh?
"Some liberal Democrat there, eh",
Yup, sounds like a supporter of Occupy Something to me.
Heathen Republican, far be it from me to suggest you should become a Democrat. I'm with Howard Dean in being from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I don't favor an influx of the shallow rooted and half hearted.
What I would like to see is for moderate Republicans with a conscience, ones who give a damn about serving the public as a whole, assert themselves and wrest control of that party from the bullies, crooks, liars, hustlers, half wits, civil rights resenters, religious-right zealots, paranoid gun nuts and big-money misanthropes now in absolute control of every bit of it.
I don't think it can be done, but would be glad to have you or anyone prove me wrong.
Nixon would be tarred and feathered as a liberal now
Damn right. His borrow and spend, inflationary policy would fit right into the Democrat platform these days.
Yup, sounds like a supporter of Occupy Something to me.
He's down at Zucotti park right now.
If your argument is superior, why delete? Its your blog- do what you want, but I always laugh when hate speech (whatever that is) is the excuse used to shut someone up.
As for OWS, I hope they stay out there forever- their bafoonery is a never ending 24-7 anti obama add.
Dave, do you see any irony at all in following up this comment, "this particular fascist has been obsessed with associating OWS with Nazis for a while now," by associating "The Right" and the "Tea Party" with Fascists and brown shirts?
Probably not.
Free,
His is not an argument. It is accusatory fascistic troll behavior that he's been warned about. If I am true to my word, I delete such behavior from the offender, but I printed the offending words didn’t I?
HR,
There's no irony associating real characteristics and exhibited behavior. When Right Wingers call me a communist, I correctly assert that fascists do the same thing to their opposition.
The bottom line is the troll spews hate and intolerance. I am intolerant of hate. See the irony there?
Most American Fascists are not members of a Nazi group. Some claim to be "patriot" groups, like that Hutari militia and that group in Georgia that was charged with plotting a ricin attack. These Right Wing wackos don't exactly get the same FOX(R) condemnation as the OWS though. I wonder why...
Same with the bombing of the Portland, Maine Occupy group. FOX(R) only wants to report violence by the OWS, not the violence against them. Again, I wonder why...
Most American Fascists are not members of a Nazi group. Some claim to be "patriot" groups,
You mean like when members of OWS try to recruit members of militia groups?
Hanging out with David Dude, trying to recruit the Michigan Militia.
Yeah, ordinary typical American behavior don't you think?
HT and free, now you've done it. You have pointed out the inconsistency of Dave's positions. There will be hell to pay.
Banned any minute now. ;)
Free,
I see desperation in your wild tale of insanity. I hardly need to respond to your story of one nut talking to other paranoid nuts, but I can’t resist.
Lookout! Here comes the New World Order to take away our guns and give them to Obama the Marxist!
It looks like your hero Glenn Beck wrote the militia’s view of OWS.
But the movement is being CONTROLLED by communists and marxists and anti-semites. Tides Foundation, SEIU, Code Pink… All orchestrating this protest. They publish the newsletters, They’ve taken out ads in papers for “Paid Protesters”
The Mighty Militia spokesman continued. “Ultimately, If you had decided to “Occupy Government” to bring change, I’d have a hint of respect for you. Rather, You’re interfering in private companies conducting private business and insisting government step in and assume control of that business.”
I see they still drink the “paid protesters” kool-ade with the rest of the Hannity Limbaugh swill, while their selective ignorance of the Constitution’s mandate to regulate commerce practically glows with irony.
While the mighty FOX(R) militia is busy scanning the sky for black helicopters and preparing to fight the UN in the backwoods, they are blissfully unaware that the New World Order they fear is actually multi-national corporations and banks. Yes, their good friends and masters, the "private companies conducting private business".
Like FOX(R) true believers, none of them can conceive the impact of those banks and corporations on anybody in their imaginary world.
The fact that an ignorant fascist troll, your number one fan here, is all excited over this should give you a clue...
So why don’t you feed your little pet troll and explain to him how you and the Michigan Militia know for a fact “there's been a huge number of "Occupy" people suggesting that Jews are the reason for all the problems.” He would love it if you reinforce his hatred and ignorance. While you’re at it, tell him how the unions brought about the Wall Street bubble and collapse and are destroying America. After all, fascists always need their scapegoats, and they love having useful idiots join their hate parade.
So, take your little partner out on the floor for that dance he's been tingling for, please, for our amusement.
Ah, well it was the Michigan Militia. Pretty much universally accepted as the largest and best organized patriot militia in America. Now you don't have to agree with the Michigan Militia, I don't on a lot of things. But the facts are - OWS Michigan was all down to join forces and the MM told them to get fucked. The point wasn't that the Militia was either right or wrong on anything... just that OWS was the one doing the contacting of... what did you call it? Right wing patriot groups? Yeah, that's OSW just dying to join up to... what did it say in the email? Oh yeah.
Occupy, in the end, is about forming militias, arresting people that have stolen private property and money, like the CEOs of several corporations.
Sure there are many there who advocate a "leadershipless" organization, and advocate non-violence and don't understand where militias have their place.
But that is NOT what Occupy is about.
Who said that, yeah it was traced back to the head of Occupy Lansing. Arrest people? OWS isn't about non-violence? Yeah, that sounds so slightly like the workers of the world uniting to have a revolution. Now what book did I read that talked about that.
That would be Das Capital. Right.
So you can blow your little smoke about Glen Beck screaming about Mormon Jesus or what ever Glenners is doing these days... I really don't know or care... didn't Fox News fire him or something? Yeah, anyway, you can blow smoke about Beck and FOX (R) and whatever talking points you wish to conjure up but things aren't looking too promising for OSW. Not with the crack head, antisemitic ex-jarhead who got smacked with a smoke grendade What was my favorite quote of his on his blog... oh yeah must have been the one about hating the Marines and doing coke.
Yeah, pride of Occupy Oakland right there.
Oh but I could go on, but I'll spare you the link fest and sum up. The hippies during Vietnam at least had a point. They were getting yanked off the street and being forced to fight in a war they didn't believe in. These OSW kids are whining about paying their student loans. The more they stay out there, the more they fight with the cops, the more we all get sick of the filth and drum circles and hacky-sack playing slackers, very quickly America is beginning to tire of OSW.
Seems just like Obama, America dislikes OWS the more they get to know them. That's why I hope they stay out there all winter. The longer they're out there, the stronger we get. This might as well be 1968 all over again.
Free,
And off you go onto the dance floor!
universally accepted as the largest and best organized patriot militia in America
I’m really laughing now. Yes and the Tea Party is universally accepted as the largest and best organized “patriot” organization in America. You betcha! Except more Americans agree that we’ve been ripped off by the elites than those who whine about the rich paying oppressive and punishing taxes....at the lowest rates in memory. Boo hoo.
You crack me up.
Yes, the militias, and the Tea Cult are universally accepted as the largest and best organized crossbred Right Wing extremists. Big News. Most Americans want nothing to do with either group, mind you.
But the facts are - OWS Michigan was all down to join forces and the MM told them to get fucked
Facts schmacts. This is you having falsely assigned a leadership role of the entire OWS movement to a person who emailed the militia.
I can see why a person would try to communicate to militia members that they are also part of the 99% screwed by the Wall Street/government complex. But, hah! Ya can’t fool them. They see you’re working for the New World Order.
I see the MM hates at least one Jew besides Soros. Yes the very Evil Mastermind behind the global Marxist movement, other than Soros, but still another Jew by some coincidence....Hmmm.
And a woman at that. The greatest threat to the militia is a woman? Anyway we all know the Evil One is none other than the Grand Mistress of the Global Communist Revolution, the super arch-villain, enemy of freedom and everything American, Roseanne Barr.
Yup. Roseanne. She is either an evil genius of James Bond proportions....or the joke’s on somebody.
Go see the hilarious answer to the why they hate the OWS movement. Well, besides the fact they are defending their New World Corporate Order.
You see, the OWS is nothing but “Marxists Activists & Union Thugs and a bunch of willing fools pissed off at the world because life is hard, and all being funded by George Soros and other Global Citizens and would-be masters.”
Just as we suspected all along eh? Commies, I tells ya, Commies!
You’re outraged at the idea that Wall Street crooks be arrested? Why, yes, of course you are. “Not guilty by reason of wealth” has been the law of the land, with few exceptions lately.
Your hatred for the injured veteran couldn’t be more abundantly clear. That’s exactly how authoritarian Neocons would feel about someone who found a conscience, and woke up to who he was fighting wars for.
Did you read the real human being part of the story in that link you provided?
”Christy De Ruyter, who worked with him at the sandwich shop, said she cried after seeing video of Olsen bloodied.
She added, "I was not surprised that he was at a protest, speaking up. Scott had gotten older, he'd grown up and gotten a voice. He wasn't a completely different person when he came back. He'd just seen a lot things. And I was proud of him, standing up for something he believed in."
“Proud of him”. I am too. He acted on his conscience. Look up that word sometime.
We can just imagine what you’d have called Olsen a few years ago, if he dared speak of his Commander in Chief the very words you just used about yours.
You’d have called him a traitor.
Free,
One more thing.
1968: The hippies during Vietnam at least had a point. They were getting yanked off the street and being forced to fight in a war they didn't believe in.
I commend your insight. We were right then, and we are right now. History has judged, and will judge again if it is to be fairly written.
Our point now is we are living under a government bought, paid for, and in service to the economic elite plutocracy.
Free,
Correction. One last thing. I have one request. Could you please direct us to a link that tells us how many Jews are in those militias?
Just wondering...
"One last thing. I have one request. Could you please direct us to a link that tells us how many Jews are in those militias?...Dave D
free, the above quote is a classic example of Dave's use of deflection in a debate that is not going well for him. Next he will ask you to prove that the MM is NOT full of racists, and that the Tea Party is NOT really a secret front for the Illuminati.
If you fail to take his questions seriously he will claim you are ducking honest debate, if you answer them, he will have deflected you from what he fears most, your providing proof that liberalism is a failed concept, if you ask him questions, he will ban you from his blog for asking questions, call your a troll and sick JG on you!
Keep it up, never waver, never retreat from what you know is correct.
Semper fi.
The Tea Cult and militias have a lot in common. They are both pro-corporate plutocracy, paranoid fanatics who hate the government, think liberals are commies, love to carrry weapons to meetings, hate Obama, hate OWS, and probably vote Republican, and don't have a lot of Jews and Blacks as members or friends. Oh, and they think they are more patriotic and better Americans than the majority that wants nothing to do with them.
Your kind of folks, as far as I can tell.
You don't suppose the Marines ever gave anybody a reason to hate them, right? I suppose not, and there are also no crooks on Wall Street; all honest bankers.
You betcha.
Just the Troll has shown us one more great example of how stupid or dishonest, or likely both, he really is.
"One last thing. I have one request. Could you please direct us to a link that tells us how many Jews are in those militias?...Dave D
free, the above quote is a classic example of Dave's use of deflection in a debate that is not going well for him.
The hateful little troll has projected his own deflection and distraction. Yes, it was the Righties that first brought up anti-semitism, Nazis, and militias.
No wonder I delete the hateful stupidity of trolls. Sometimes I'm amused, but I'm done now.
Well, OSW has a lot in common with commies. They both hate the rich, are paranoid fanatics who hate the government, think conservatives are Nazis, love to carry silly signs and giant puppets proclaiming class warfare, hate Rush Limbagh, hate the TEA Party, and probably vote Democrat, and don't have a lot of Jews and Blacks as members or friends. Oh, and they think they are more patriotic and better Americans than the majority that wants nothing to do with them.
Free,
"I know you are but what am I?" Your pathology is showing.
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMjm4LxFa1c">Your lack of a leg to stand on is showing.
Viva la Intafada, and OSW.
Free0352, you claimed...
"Well, OSW has a lot in common with commies."
You're funny.
By next year, once the derivative time-bomb explodes, you'll be marching with us. Count on it.
I'm cuban and czech and have families in both countries. We didn't stand for the socialism there, and it won't happen here. Enjoy the walk to d.c. - least you figured out who you should be protesting
Free,
That stunt would feed into the Righties' hate all right.
Your Borat guy asked "Kill the Jews?" and she said, "No." Then Borat repeats telling her what he says she thinks. You do this all the time. No wonder you like that clip.
Maybe you should click over to the Jesse Ventura clip for a more sensible perspective...but you'd rather not do that I guess.
Dave, I guess Free0352 has a problem with definitions, which I'm finding to be the case with other conservatives who frequent your site.
Intifada translates to "shaking off", and is an Arabic word often used as a term for popular resistance to oppression.
Sounds pretty simple to grasp to me. But wait, I'm not a conservative, so probably that's the reason. ;-)
JG,
And again we see the Rightist tactic of telling others what they think, no matter that it is contrary to what they say. They make great Thought Police.
Maybe you should click over to the Jesse Ventura
Jesse Ventura lol?
I guess we can add 9-11 Twoofer to your list of allies LOL. What a club!
What you "think" doesn't matter. What is matters. Intafada means freak'n Hezbullah. Another great ally for your cause!
BTW, you have to have thought before you can police it.
Free,
My thoughts never stopped you from telling me what I think before.
Sorry, JG's definition is more accurate than your narrow idea. It is uprising, whether by Hezbollah or others. Not everybody rolls over and accepts illegal occupation. That should justify your hatred for everyone who questions the Israeli Right too.
We're beginning to lose track of all the people you hate. It's getting to be a long list, with most Americans who disagree with you and everyone who questions the Israeli Right as well. It looks like you hate most of the world as well as most Americans.
Of course for you Ventura is a fool. Anyone who questions authority is a fool. Only the "sane" (Orwellian "sane") people like you unquestioningly believe Dick Cheney and the right wing corporate media account of events. I doubt Cheney planned 9-11, but I am certain he was delighted to have his Neocon agenda green-lighted by the propaganda coup resulting from the tragedy. At the beginning of 2002 70% of Americans wanted no part of invading Iraq. By March of '03 70% were duped into thinking Saddam was invoved with 9-11. You true believers must have loved that...at least unti Americans began to figure out they were lied to. Then you had to hate them.
Say, whatever happened to those nukular aluminum tubes and biological truck labs? You're the expert after all. And as a half Czech, maybe you can tell us about Dick's "pretty much confirmed" Iraq/al-Qaeda connection in Prague. Still pretty much confirmed?
We fools still have questions that only you sane people can answer.
You and your fellow true believers are the perfect "Oceanians" of Orwellian thought control. I'm happy most Americans are not part of your cult.
Too bad we will be paying the price for a long time for Dick and Dubya's war...well some of us. Your aristocrat masters will be paying less while some corporations pay nothing at all, being the very special persons they are.
So lets round this up. International Answer Commies, whiny college kids who want a free ride, David Duke, 9-11 Twoofers, and now Hezbullah.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Oh my bad, and I forgot wana-be militia. I can't keep track of all these weirdos! It's like a political-reject circus- all busting out of a left wing clown car. No wonder their poll numbers are plummeting faster than the temperature in Zucotti park! Have you seen OSW's latest numbers? Even Peloci is backing away. When hippies are your best hope for election, you know you're in deep shit.
You dearly love to tell me what I think
I'm not telling you what you think, I'm telling you what I see. Let me clearly tell you what I see. I see a guy who wants OSW to be the socialist change he's always dreamed of, and I see me punching holes in it left and right. I'v shown on this thread that OSW isn't a cross section of American youth, but a collection of lazy white kids, antisemites, homeless weirdos and commies - all banding together because their ideas are so impotent they have to camp out in the park and pout because it's the only way anyone will notice them. America is rapidly forgetting them, recoiling at their radicalism. At first Americans projected what they wanted onto OSW, but they more OSW kept talking the quicker Johnny Sixpack on Main Steet saw this wasn't anything he wanted to be a part of. Just like the left dumped Cindy Sheehan after she started spouting her left wing true colors, so too will the left abandon OSW.
Every time you've tried to defend this pathetic confederacy of left wing rejects, I've countered and now you're stuck. So you bring up the Iraq war and anything else to avoid the real subject. OWS is the best thing to happen to the Republican Party all election cycle. It's probably single handed kept Herman Cain alive in the polls, and it validates what Republicans and Libertarians have accused the left of all this time - what they really want.
Class Warfare
Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so.
free, the above quote is a classic example of Dave's use of deflection in a debate that is not going well for him.
So go change the subject to the Iraq war. It seems a standard operating procedure on this blog. You make wild assertions, I show you with hard facts linked with sources you're wrong, and you start screaming about aluminium tubes. I expect nothing less.
If I had the unenviable task of defending OWS, I'd try to change the subject too.
There you go.
Oh no, I said that Saddam caused 9-11. I want to hear the quote from Bush or Chaney where they said
"Saddam was behind 9-11."
Where is it, you said it was out there.
free.... chew on these bones
"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).
"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons." Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
Free,
Happy Veterans Day. You have my respect for your service.
of course my favorite Bush quote on who was responsible for 911
My administration has a job to do and we're going to do it. We will rid the world of the evil-doers.
* As quoted in "[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.bush.terrorism/ "Bush vows to rid the world of 'evil-doers" at CNN (16 September 2001)
"evil doers" GWB at his most articulate,definitive best. Wonder which comic book he got that one from.
gottzta go and trim my hippie beard.... it is friday and I am thinking of going with my commie terrorist daughter and Occupy Restaurant for a fish fry.
No, I did not.
Good, so you admit Bush never said Saddam was behind 9-11. Good. You also admit al'Queda was in Iraq when we invaded. Good.
Your blindness also has you falsifying what I really said.
Glad we got that cleared up. Just to make sure, you admit when I invaded Iraq there was Al'Queda there, who had been there for months - which is documented. You also admit the Bush Administration never said Iraq was behind 9-11. Good.
I refer to your unquestioning belief in your fearless authoritarian Neocons
Like when I'm arguing with conservatives about gay marriage, or immigration policy, or separation of church and state?
What you fail to grasp is I am only mentioning lies from your aristocrat Decider.
You mean the guy I never voted for. You voted for Obama, you have to own him. The only thing I ever a agreed with GWB on was invading Iraq. You could just as easily say I sided with Joe Liberman.
For Bush is wealthy and rarely wrong.
Except on TARP, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind. What's your point here? I don't agree with Obama on much, but I do back say, his incursions into Pakistan to kill terrorists, or into Yemen to kill terrorists. Would you say because I support the President because I agree with these things. You know me, huge Obama fan, and I agree with Barry exactly as much as I did GWB. In truth, the two are hardly indistinguishable anyway. They have the same policy on everything.
their side is winning the class war.
The only person fighting a class war here are socialists like you. Out of pure, naked envy. Just like the OWS punks, crying because they got cheap loans for college when most of the world can only dream of college. Poor, spoiled rich children, crying because in the real world not everyone gets a trophy. I hope they stay there a long, lone time. The more America sees them, the more it turns away in disgust. Recent polls have their support down into the low 20th percentile. They're imploding even faster than Rick Perry.
And I think you get the sense I'm right on that, and I bet it makes you mad. Being a socialist in America is like being an abused spouse. You get used (by Democrats) and when your use is complete they throw you away and slap you around. That's why Lennin had a term for you, do you remember it?
Maybe your loyalty to the elites will be rewarded some day.
You just don't get it. We don't want a reward, we want to be left alone by government. Just that one thing, that's all we want. Low taxes, few rules.
Free,
You also admit al'Queda was in Iraq when we invaded.
You excel at half truths.
I always admit to the truth. Even the truth that they were in Iraq only because of Bush's intentions to invade, not before. Isn't that right? Never mind. We know you believe Dick and the Decider.
I notice in your blind hatred for OWS that you completely ignore the real reason for it all.
Your hatred tells us they are jealous of the elites' wealth. The reality is they are outraged by Wall Street's corrupting influence on our government and unaccountability for their derivatives swindles that led to economic disaster.
To the Right, they are not guilty be reason of wealth. They want government “off their backs”. They want unlimited economic and political power for the aristocratic elites.
If envy really was the motivation for the protests, they would be protesting outside any rich person's home or business. They chose Wall Street for a reason. One you'd rather not see.
You don't like that reality, so you ignore it. Just like the reality that Bush and Cheney lied to get their war for crony profit and political power.
What amuses me most is the Righties think I am the naive and gullible one.
Free,
You mean you want low taxes and few rules for the elites. Your passion for the aristocrats' interests far exceed your libertarian outrage for the drug war and corporate welfare. You seem to love Cain's plan to tax the poor and middle class more.
I think the reason you believe the protests are about envy and Nazi anti-semitism is the fact the Right best understands, manipulates, and responds to negative emotions. Fear, hate, envy and such negatives are all the Right can comprehend that could be behind any cause. The Right scorns and dismisses notions of justice, fairness, equality and democracy. That stuff is for commie sissies.
Even the truth that they were in Iraq only because of Bush's intentions to invade, not before
But they were there. That's all that matters. We are at war with Al'Queda. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have gone there to kill the likes of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? We got into a pretty long fight with his crew of Arab fighters near Kabul in 2001. We wounded him as a matter of fact, and after my unit cut him and his 500 fighters off from Tora Bora he ran - first to Iran then after getting booted out of there to Iraq. That in my book is reason enough to invade. Hell, it wasn't like Saddam was going to let us in to get him. Two enemies, one invasion. Hell, that's just good tactics.
The reality is they are outraged by Wall Street's corrupting influence on our government
What was that quote I put up earlier?
"Occupy, in the end, is about forming militias, arresting people that have stolen private property and money, like the CEOs of several corporations. Sure there are many there who advocate a "leadershipless" organization, and advocate non-violence and don't understand where militias have their place. But that is NOT what Occupy is about."
Yeah, not really what I'm about. I don't like the bail outs, but throwing people on the box cars hasn't worked out well for other societies in the past. I see OWS for the useful idiots they are.
These kids wouldn't dare "occupy" some of the countries I have, where any one of them would be the tippity top of the 1%.
They want unlimited economic and political power for the aristocratic elites.
Nah, we just want some courts and some roads and that's about it. We want the government to go away.
If envy really was the motivation for the protests, they would be protesting outside any rich person's home or business.
You mean like -
THIS
OR THIS
OR THIS
Yeah, march on people's homes of business and protest it. Yeah, they'd NEEEEEEEVER DO THAT.
Now who's ignoring facts? I made you admit Al'Queda was in Iraq prior to our invasion of that country, and that the Bush Administration never said Iraq was behind 9-11. How're you going to handle this instance of me proving you wrong?
I bet you start screaming about aluminium tubes.
You mean you want low taxes and few rules for the elites.
Yup, everybody pays 9%, sounds like equality to me. If old Warren Buffet really pays less than his secretary, wouldn't 9% of the millions he makes a year be more than her presumably meager salary? Sounds like an increase to me? As for "the poor" they've got a free ride long enough. Time for them to pay their fair share. You're all about fair shares right? Zero isn't a share.
The Right scorns and dismisses notions of justice, fairness, equality and democracy.
Yes of course we should have more laws, more regulations, and more taxes. You can only be free when government tells you what you can and can't do every five minutes and 50% of your paycheck is paid to government. Yeah, I'll pass guy.
Free,
"any rich person's home or business" means random, sort of unlike Boehner's "random person" called Norquist.
They chose Murdoch and the Banksters neighborhoods, not because they were just any rich person. They were the same swindlers and allies of Wall Street.
So why aren't they protesting in front of Michael Moore's house? He's a random rich person, so why are they not jealous of him like the banksters? This is all far too nuanced for your absolutist views.
Nice try, meaningless as it was.
Thanks for confirming your contempt for the non elites and utter devotion to their greed.
It must be nice to live in the capitalist paradise where corporations pay zero taxes and the rich pay the lowest rates in memory. Where jobs and wealth magically "trickle down" when we cut taxes on the elites.
Yeah, that all worked out so well, didn't it?
let's have more of that, please.
You can only be free when government tells you what you can and can't do every five minutes and 50% of your paycheck is paid to government.
Sound reasoning there. I have no argument. ;-)
So why aren't they protesting in front of Michael Moore's house?
Because he's a communist. All this proves is that the goal here a socialist state and not outrage over some silly notion of "income equality." As if doctors and inventors like Steve Jobs should get paid the same as store clerks and janitors!
It must be nice to live in the capitalist paradise where corporations pay zero taxes and the rich pay the lowest rates in memory.
Actually we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Sure some get out of paying, but most don't. But lets assume for a moment you are correct and every corporation pays zero in taxes. Okay. We humble conservatives and libertarians want EVERY corporation to pay 9%. Whose fighting against that? Democrats. They like the current tax code. Now go vote for them. Remember, a vote for Obama is a vote for GE paying zero taxes!
Where jobs and wealth magically "trickle down" when we cut taxes on the elites.
Ah well, you could try living in China. They're raking in billions, how did their socialist system work out for the average citizen? Or Cuba, you could go check that out?
Or even European models, where unemployment is higher than ours and entire countries are going bankrupt at an ever faster rate.
Yeah, how did that socialism work out? Seems like Capitalism has worked out pretty well, when compared with the alternative.
Free,
We humble conservatives and libertarians want EVERY corporation to pay 9%
Ya, you betcha. And I’m a Republican. But when they pay that, or even less now, you call it oppression and punishment. I have a feeling you would continue to say so if the rate is locked at anything above zero.
Taxes are the price we pay for civil society. That’s why most Americans disagree with you.
I must say it is very accommodating of you to finally fly your John Birch/Koch colors. Yes, Moore is obviously a commie. You betcha. Not only is Moore a commie, I’m a commie, Democrats are commies, and 90% of the country that is to the left of you and Cheney are commies. Even Bush is a socialist to far Right fringe types.
Thank you for making it all so simple and clear to us. Now where did I put my little red book and Karl Marx poster?
Oh, that’s right, they’re rolled up inside my nukular aluminum tubes in the biological labs I had flown home from Iraq in unmanned aerial drones armed with anthrax bombs.
We hippie commies want at least what Saddam had for our hippie commie revolution against the socialist Obamanation.
I know my secret is safe with you, ‘cause al-Qaeda hates us hippie commies too. Unless you say otherwise.
You are, after all, the expert.
I have a feeling you would continue to say so if the rate is locked at anything above zero.
Actually, I would be all about the 11-11-11 plan or even the 20-20-20 plan but 9% sounds fine to me. I like a tax code you can fit in one sentence. Hard to find loop holes that way, and it's fair.
Taxes are the price we pay for civil society.
Agreed, they are just to high on some, and not high enough on others. That's why 9-9-9 is great. Equality, simplicity, transparency.
But you run along and go vote for that tax code that weighs about 150 pounds. When you pull the lever for Obama, that's what you'll be pulling for.
John Birch
Yup, I'm a member. My grandmother was one of it's first leaders. Proud anti-communist right here boy. Like I said, I come from Cuban and Czech families. We know the evils of socialism and communism personally. We know what it looks like, my grandparents saw it happen in their native countries before and made sure to teach us kids what to look out for.
I’m a commie
Well in the end that's up to you, but I took you for a socialist. Yes, there is a difference between a communist and a socialist. It's a matter of degree in commitment to collectivism. I think you'd fit in well with a government like say... Finland.
Even Bush is a socialist to far Right fringe types.
He was a Keynesian. He had two rounds of stimulus which were socialist, bailed out banks which was socialist, signed medicare D which was socialist. He was basically a very financially irrisponsible nanny stater. He loved big government, which he grew faster than Bill Clinton. That's right, IMAO Bill Clinton was more conservative than George Bush, at least on fiscal matters... which in the end is all I really care about.
Now where did I put my little red book and Karl Marx poster?
Next to your Che poster.
You are, after all, the expert.
The quicker you figure that out, the smarter you'll be.
Japan's corporate tax rate is 40.69 percent, for just one example. The U.S. rate is 0-38 percent, and few pay the 38 percent. The average U.S. corp. pays about 17 percent.
To see the long list of countries with corporate tax rates as high or higher than in the U.S., go here and learn.
Dave, I have to thank you for the hilarity you've brought into my life this morning. I've been reading the thread from the last few days - the back-and-forth between you and Free0352 - and I have to admit I can't figure out whether he's more afraid of al-Qa'ida or "commies".
Priceless!
It's ironic that the poor boy doesn't realize that neither is of any consequence, and that the real danger is lurking right in front of his nose.
How unfortunate.
SW,
Thanks for the handy link.
JG,
I'm happy you enjoy and share in our entertainment.
Maybe Free and I could go on a speaking/debate tour like Tim Leary and G. Gordon Liddy did way back in the early 80's.
There just may be a market for such entertainment. Yeah, I know that's kinda capitalistic /entrepreneurial of me to think of that. Maybe I'm not a complete commie after all. I guess Free’s right about that.
And I’m happy he picked Finland to be on my scale of socialism.
According to the Finnish constitution, it is the duty of the public authorities to promote the health of the population.
They lead the world in public education and are in the top rank in low infant mortality with 2.4 per thousand births. Ours is 6.5 per thousand.
And guess what? Finland has a private health care industry too. So even there, it’s not a complete “government takeover of health care”.
On top of all that, and like where I come from, Finland has quite an active hunting culture and large gun ownership. (An armed socialist is a polite socialist.)
I don’t know what I’d do without our buddy Free. He’s the Yin to my Yang. (I hope he doesn’t think that’s sexual.)
I don't know what you thought I meant by choosing Finland, but I put real thought into the choice. Seems you agree with me ;)
I was serious, your politics reflect the politics of Finland.
Mine reflect an amalgam of countries, places like Switzerland, New Zeland, and the good old U.S. of A.
I hear Finish is a beautiful language, maybe you could learn it and leave us Libertarians alone by immigrating? ;)
Free,
Finland sounds like a cool place. Good vodka, elk hunting, and health care if some drunk mistakes you for an elk.
And they even have a healthy disgust for Soviet Communism. Few Americans know the USSR invaded Finland in November 1939 before Hitler invaded Russia.
Free0352, you amusingly said...
"...Finish is a beautiful language, maybe you could learn it and leave us Libertarians alone by immigrating?"
Libertarians already live in a world of your own. ;-)
JG,
As a civil libertarian, I resemble that remark.
There were also strong allies with Nazi Germany... But I guess with Stalin staring you down...
Free,
That’s correct. While Finns have their uncomfortable history of relations with Nazi Germany, so did Henry Ford and Prescott Bush.
Poor Finland was between a rock and a hard place in WWII. We were actually stronger allies with the USSR than Finland was with Germany. Finland was not so much an ally with Germany; since they were not members of the Axis. Their treaties reflected their agricultural dependence on Germany and otherwise were clearly in the interest of self-preservation from the constant threat from Russia.
Some people cite the Finns’ swastika as evidence of their loyalty to Germany, but that had nothing to do with the Nazis. It is a very ancient symbol. In fact, one of the top German aces of WWI was Werner Voss, a Jew who decorated his plane with a swastika. He was no Hermann Goring. Maybe Hitler looked up from the trench and thought it was a nifty emblem.
The Finns never engaged in combat with the US or Britain, as did the official Axis powers Italy and Japan. Finland also did not participate with the Nazi persecution of Jews.
I can’t hold too much against them considering the necessities and circumstances in a World War.
The Finish government welcomed Nazi troops into Finland to help fight the Russians. It was at the least a Nazi ally. However, one cannot fault the Finns for the mistakes of their grandfathers. America around the same time were rounding up ethnic 3rd generation Japanese and putting them in concentration camps. Nobody is perfect. I lived in Germany its self for three years, and found it today a really nice place. A people from their history opposed to both Nazism and Communism. They suffered the brunt of both, paying for crimes committed before they were ever born.
For that matter, I also lived in Japan, though I found them a little less apologetic than the Germans. Mostly they won't talk about it. An over there it's very rude to bring up the subject. It's no a popular one in Germany either, but isn't the taboo it is in Japan. I saw many memorials to the Holocaust in Germany, but nothing in Japan for say, the Rape of Nanking.
Dave, you replied to me...
"As a civil libertarian, I resemble that remark."
Dave, just as all the conservatives who frequent your blog have thought all along, I proudly claim and admit that, yes, I am a Marxist!
Obviously, you feel the same way.
JG,
Now you've done it. Our cover is blown.
That fat, greedy, government-hating trust-funder Grover Norquist ought to be boied in oil and then strung up for the buzzards to feast upon.
Jack,
Tell us how you really feel. ;-)
Ah the tolerant left...
For the record, in my previous comment, about corporate taxation, I should have specified the average rate paid by corporations that actually pay taxes is 17 percent. A significant percentage of them either pay no taxes or receive a negative income tax.
The notion U.S. corporations are taxed into near paralysis is right-wing noise machine propaganda, pure and simple.
75% of employers are small business with under 150 employees and I promise they pay 100% of their taxes in 99% of cases. Are you really suggesting the small machine shop in Michigan or the doctor's office around the corner has the army of tax lawyers and accountants that it takes to get those breaks?
75% of employers are small business with under 150 employees
I am not trying to contribute to the debate, but I do have a question.
If I go out and need goods or services, almost all of them are provided by very large corporations. I have to go to the woods to find small businesses at all. The majority of people I know I know work for large companies.
Are we really saying that 75% of those employed actually work for small companies?
I too don't want to contribute to the debate... but John you're missing a big group of small employers.
Think of all the things you've purchased in the last week. Now consider that every gas station, dry cleaner, and non-chain restaurant is a small business.
In addition, most chain restaurants are actually owned by franchisees, which make them small businesses. In a large number of cases, when you buy a product made by a large corporation, you may be purchasing through a small business.
I got these stats from the Small Business Administration, the agency of government that tracks small business. They maintain 65% of most new net jobs were from small business since 1993. This also from my source -
Of the 15.5 million individuals whose primary occupation was self-employment (incorporated and unincorporated), the median personal marginal federal tax rate was 10 percent in 2008. Only 4.1 percent of the self-employed were in the marginal tax bracket of 33 percent or more.
Remember, that's the personal rate, not the corporate rate. Sure people take every tax break they can, so few people actually pay the 33% max rate. Hell, just owning a house can cut that rate. However - then you likely pay property tax. In truth, the owners of small business pay a very substantial rate when all the taxes are added up - about 50% of the income on average for a person making over 300,000 dollars. Once you hit about 5 million your net profit begins to expand as taxation doesn't affect the person as much (depending on taxes they pay for things they buy... like say a vacation house.)
You can't look at just income tax, you have to look at every dime paid in taxes.
Taken from my source-
Small business represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Employ half of all private sector employees.
• Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.
• Create more than half of the nonfarm private GDP.
• Hire 43 percent of high tech workers ( scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and others).
• Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
• Made up 97.5 percent of all identified exporters and produced 31 percent of export value in FY 2008.
• Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.
So, small business employed well over half American employees, and they make on average between 100k and 500k a year. They pay half that to government. What do you think they're going to do if you increase their rate?
Quit?
Move to China?
Lay off Employees to cover the loss?
Not hire or expand?
What have we seen lately? All of that.
Wow, you get long threads, doncha? I'm jealous!
Seconding the Norquist opinion. The buzzards would just spit him out, though. ;)
Daisy,
Yeah, those would be "random" buzzards at that.
These threads only get long, I think, because some of us just have to have the last word, childish as it seems.
Dave, you said...
"...because some of us just have to have the last word, childish as it seems."
That's not true! ;-)
The outrage of it all would make Lincoln turn in his grave. I figured by now, with all the fuckery the GOP has pulled, that Lincoln has turned over so much he doesn't know which end is up fer chrissakes.
Dusty,
That "party of Lincoln" crap is getting old.
The Party of Lincoln hasn't existed in over a hundred years. And the Party of FDR is also extinct. All we have left are the parties of Big Money.
The fact the the GOP does not resemble Lincoln's philosophy makes no difference, Dusty. They are the party of Lincoln, nonetheless.
They think if they can get Lincoln on board, then their philosophy is stronger. It makes me wonder why they don't feel that their philosophy stands on its own merits.
Post a Comment