more open mic

Obama and Walker: A Contrast in Campaigns

Keith Edwards

Tomorrow Wisconsin voters will be asked to make a decision whether or not to recall Governor Scott Walker after a sixteen month long effort by Walker’s opponents to oust him from office. But something else has been happening in the state of Wisconsin for the last sixteen months besides the massive recall effort – Governor Scott Walker’s policies.

Read more:



  1. COOL! I was unable to reply on the last page. Still, right now, I can’t comment on the last page. Can someone post how to get around that problem..I think Buck and VH have come across this trouble before too.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      I got around it by right-clicking on the ‘reply’ button and selecting ‘open link in new window’. Very annoying…

      • Thanks, but there’s no reply button either. I right clicked and double clicked everything I could..nothing!

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Well then…you’re out of luck!

        • I don’t know either. I did not do anything with or to the page before. I just deleted several of Charlie’s fog horns, thinking that might be an issue, too many video’s, but does not seem to have mattered.

  2. Mathius says:

    USW is trying to tell you something.

  3. Speaking generally – it seems that the major argument from the left is that Walker attacked the Unions so he inherently is against worker rights. I don’t think that argument has much merit and it does not seem likely to carry Barrett to victory – nor should it.

    My real question would be is whether Walker has implemented longer term goals in terms of fiscal management/sanity and strategic goals in education, enabling business and limiting the size/scope of government – or has he merely kicked the can down the road for someone else in exchange for shorter term goals he can parlay into more attractive national-level offices?

    • Ray…….good morning, Sir Hawkins…………………………..after reading everything he has put out several times… appears to me he has only stopped the hemorrhage….the blood is still flowing and the body is still in danger but he has stopped the severe bleeding. That is the first step…..triage. Now he has to fix it. I see the main problem is that people have been on the teat for so long….they do not care about the future and I believe that wholeheartedly. I believe that people live the pyramid scheme….and as long as the sugar keeps coming and the less they have to do for it, the more easy it is to become dependent. And dependency on any government is a great failing. It takes away the incentive.

      The OWS crowd was/is embarrassing to watch. This entitlement mentality. The Wisconsin labor unions have rallied around the normal battle cry of “union busting” and “collective bargaining” rights. But, after watching only what is put on the TV and after reading what the MSM puts out… is not union busting or collective bargaining that is the real issue… is the “bennies” that have been obtained. Collective bargaining works two ways…..BOTH parties must reach a conclusion. In the absence of an agreement, then it is dog eat dog after that with the deck stacked firmly in favor of unions.

      So, Wisconsin is financially broke. It has no money. To keep the bennies, there has to be revenue. To have revenue, there has to be a tax basis. So, the unions and the State government try to get together and there is an impasse. So, in the meantime, the prudent thing to do is to stop the bleeding….then repair the damage. This is what both parties need to do.

      So now, the Democratic Party, to their credit, has, as always, put up the smoke and mirrors and it is the governors fault….all the while Rome is still burning.

      D13’s answer to the problem: Let it burn. I like what the governor did but it would serve Wisconsin right to recall him. Then let us see what happens. I have always been for let it fail and the US government should NOT NOT NOT bail any state out.


      • Buck the Wala says:


        I agree with you that collective bargaining goes two ways. But you neglect the fact that the unions were willing to make all sorts of concessions. Despite this, Walker decided it was prudent to strip the unions of the bargaining rights going forward. How do you explain this?

        • I do not try to explain it because I believe in collective bargaining if there is a union present. In our own family situation, when we had over 400 employees, it was prudent that in order to avoid unionization (which I believe does not really benefit the people because unions are a for profit business regardless of their non profit status) for us to ask our employees to elect among themselves several representatives (we had operations in 6 states) and we, as a company, paid their way to headquarters, put them up in a hotel and paid an 8 hour wage per day for their time to see what our business plan was and we laid it out. We did not hide our audited financial statements and they had the option of hiring their own accountant, which we agreed to pay for. But, as you know, an audited financial statement and balance sheet are finite and to manipulate the numbers would not result in an audited statement. We found that when we put the actual workers in charge, they were far more prudent than we were and they were far more harsh on their own discipline. It was great. They recognized that a company had to have profit to expand and that the owners were entitled to a certain percentage of the profits for their own risks. They also recognized that financial reserves were needed for emergencies and that BORROWING money, no matter the interest rate, is counter productive, because interest then becomes an expense taken away from the bargaining process. This is collective bargaining by definition…and it was done without unions. What ended up happening, was that once they saw we were willing to open up the AUDITED financials, there was an immediate trust established. Once they saw that it was not easy to raise wages without raising rates but that raising rates resulted in loss of business if competitors rates were lower……it was counter productive to take away from profits. We even had a 100 percent 401 matching. Once we established profit margins and reserves, the rest of the money was to be spent in however they wanted it and they had the call on it. However, the caveat was that we established individual profit margins for each location and they had to live within their means at their location. The profit margins were different in each locale because of varying taxing jurisdictions and cost of living. Many times a location would make a profit where one would break even or lose. NEVER was there a rob Peter to pay Paul and each individual profit center had to adjust to make sure that all profit margins and reserves were met and that included G/O overhead. It worked quite well but that is collective bargaining. Only once did we close a location because they did not wish to give up what they had and wanted the others to chip in and the others said no way….you meet your obligations as we have ours. When no agreement was reached and no way to increase revenues…..we closed it up.

          The only reason that we are now use independent contractors is because the costs of health insurance, employment taxes, FICA, WH, U/E taxes, and reporting requirements became so burdensome, we gave the employees a chance to decide whether or not we stayed open. They chose independent status and we are still in business.

          In Wisconsin, I read the bargaining statutes and the contracts as they are public knowledge. I do not fail to see that the state government had no choice but to strip away some of the strike power that the unions had but did not strip away the bargaining rights of sitting down and negotiating wages and benefits. I also saw that the concessions, while there were some, did not even address the issue of a balanced budget. I saw that the Wisconsin unions did not want a balanced budget because of the austere measures that were needed. In other words, don’t gouge us….we do not know where to get it but not from us.

          The governor is correct in moving to a balance budget. Then from a balanced budget, negotiate within the means. Now, there is a surplus. The budget is still not balanced so…what to do? Take the surplus and give it back or balance the budget and pay debt. Long term….balance the budget and pay debt. Do not rely on the US tax payer…THAT is not fair and equitable.

          You are getting ready to see this globally.

  4. Buck the Wala says:
    • from john lott…

      Few Wisconsin public employee members agree to continue paying dues when given a chance
      A 54 percent drop in membership is pretty significant. What does it tell us that over half of union members aren’t willing to pay these dues? From the WSJ:

      Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees—the state’s second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers—fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme’s figures. A spokesman for Afscme declined to comment.
      Much of that decline came from Afscme Council 24, which represents Wisconsin state workers, whose membership plunged by two-thirds to 7,100 from 22,300 last year.
      A provision of the Walker law that eliminated automatic dues collection hurt union membership. When a public-sector contract expires the state now stops collecting dues from the affected workers’ paychecks unless they say they want the dues taken out, said Peter Davis, general counsel of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission.
      In many cases, Afscme dropped members from its rolls after it failed to get them to affirm they want dues collected, said a labor official familiar with Afscme’s figures. In a smaller number of cases, membership losses were due to worker layoffs. . . .

      • Otherwise known as “dues checkoff”…….I have always argued…want to beat a union? Do not agree to a checkoff. Not agreeing to a dues checkoff is not an economic issue that affects the viability of the company..therefore, it is not an unfair labor practice. In addition, it is not economic (wages and benefits and working conditions) in nature and becomes an illegal economic strike (a strike designed to force a hardship on an employer over non economic reasons)…..there is a provision that allows the permanent replacement of workers that participate in such. (From the NLRA: A unionized employees right to reinstatement after a strike ends varies based on the type of strike and the underlying reason for the strike. Employers are allowed to hire replacement workers during unfair labor practice strikes and economic strikes. Economic strikers who offer to return to work after the employer has hired permanent replacement workers are not entitled to reinstatement. However, if they can’t find equivalent employment elsewhere, they are entitled to be recalled as job openings become available.)

        A great weapon to use…..force the union to collect the dues….that is much harder.

  5. Buck, I suppose I shall continue the discussion here, since it appears comments are off on the last post, whether on purpose or accidentally or by means of a glitch. 🙂

    If we “provided” all of those things for all people, you are saying we would not have an income gap, which sounds like you do not believe it could be done without draining everyone to an equal level. I am not sure how that equates to a growing middle class or how you think that can be done without draining the middle classes and above to the point of oblivion, but I see what you meant now.

    Now, what if all those things were available because the economy was so successful? Lets say employment was 96% and wage levels were high because of unfettered labor negotiations, and the remaining people (the infirm and disabled in particular) were handled by charity, because the percentages of people making good money was high enough that charity to that level was possible, and there was no dependency on government so people took responsibility for each other. This sort of condition would still have a large income gap, but economic growth to the point that everyone had what they needed. There might not be a guarantee of that, but they have it with minimal effort (for the record, a minimal effort is required for government assistance too, I have seen the paperwork and so forth people have to go through to get help).

    • Buck the Wala says:

      “If we “provided” all of those things for all people, you are saying we would not have an income gap…”

      Absolutely not — I am saying that we would not be witnessing an ever-increasing income gap and an ever-shrinking middle class. I have never argued for full economic equality — that is just not possible nor, in my estimation, advisable.

      I think we largely agree on the importance of putting an end to the growing income/wealth gap in this country, but disagree as to how to do it. Is this a fair statement?

      • Not really. I do not have a problem with income gaps, I have a problem with people being in need. I have an even greater problem with people being kept in need and exploited. Now, that exploitation happens in the labor market sometimes, but if people are not restricted, they can combat this. It also happens in government, those least able to afford it are hit with regulations and restrictions at every turn, they are held back and then bribed for their vote. Government is much harder to fight since they can legally employ force and authority to make people do as they wish.

        I do not believe there is a limit on growth. Economics are not static, there is unlimited potential in an economy because growth comes from productivity, which in turn comes from human effort combined with technology. I do not think that putting a restriction on the top will work, for one thing, but even if you managed to, I do not think it is a good thing because such things will absolutely kill growth. Killing growth will hamper improvement in ALL the levels of income.

        The reason we have a widening gap and a shrinking middle class is because those at the top will always be able to avoid being drained of their wealth, and will find ways to expand their wealth. The only thing that can slow that is to free up competition so that many are accessing the means of building wealth, then you see a slow down in the wealth increases of the few and an increase in wealth gain of the many. IF you try, instead, to feed those at the bottom, you have to get that somewhere. Since those at the top will escape it, the drain falls to the middle class. Since they do not have unlimited resources or means of expanding their wealth, they are drained and decline. Progressive tax systems have always done this and they always will.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Define MIDDLE CLASS.

  6. Mathius says:
    • Buck the Wala says:

      Gotta love North Carolina….USW, what is going on there??

      • Mathius says:


        2. Choice and competition insure quality education. We support tax credits for
        parents who educate their children in private or home schools.

        Perhaps with better education, the NC GOP would have learned the difference between “ensure” and “insure”.. just saying.. Especially since

        5. English should be the official language of the United States.

  7. gmanfortruth says:

    🙂 What’s up, I’m surprised Black Flag isn’t trying to educate Charlie yet today. OH, wait, Charlie started blowing a horn to silence the debate that he can’t win (or understand). Oh well, economics would be far more interesting 🙂

  8. Disorderly conduct? A mother was arrested for cheering at a graduation ceremony? Sheesh…..(South Carolina)

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Good morning Sir. Hope all is well.

      Just finished reading the “instructions” for young JAC’s Graduation Ceremony next Monday.

      The “University Police” will be checking folks coming in the door and any stuff used to make noise or cause “disruption” will be confiscated. Including but not limited to air horns, balloons, beach balls, streamers, etc.

      Those screaming, yelling or otherwise conducting themselves in a “less than respectful manner” will be “REMOVED” by the “University Police”.

      Only APPLAUSE is the officially approved means of recognition.

      Having been to a few of these events I must confess I am not upset with some of the restrictions. But the “No yelling or cheering” seems a bit, how do I say this…………. PROGRESSIVE.

      On another note, I see Mr. Soros announced to the world this weekend that Germany is going to once again RULE Europe. Me thinks perhaps he is trying to fuel FEAR.

      Note three, followup on China, Gold and Currency. I spent two hours last week reviewing a report claiming that China is buying up Gold, mining companies and Gold claims in huge numbers. The proposition goes that China will then be able to use these gold reserves to back their currency and thus displace the dollar. Now I add that to your comments about Soros trying to manipulate Gold markets and I begin to scratch my head.

      Best to you this fine day.

    • Just read a similar story about a student in Ohio. The family and many others cheered for this kid as he crossed the stage. The principle is holding his diploma until he or he and his family and friends complete 20 hours community service. STUPID!

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    Communism’s finer moments! This is what Charlie and his ilk want 🙄

    It was Aug. 19, 1920. A military detachment of Red Army soldiers led by Bolshevik authorities steamrolled into the Russian town of Khitrovo to implement a policy known as “Prodrazvyorstka”; resource allocation in the name of national security which led to the confiscation of vital grain supplies and the starvation of millions of peasants.

    To be sure, multiple excuses were used to rationalize the program, all in the name of the “greater good.” But in reality, Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks saw the farming culture of Russia not as human beings, but as mechanisms for feeding city residents and the army; the power centers of the newly formed Communist government.

    This attitude of collectivism (and elitism at the highest levels) and the treatment of the food producing subsection of the populace as slaves to the machine predictably generated the desire for civil unrest and even rebellion. By the time the Red Army had entered Khitrovo, the region was already a tinderbox. After they had taken everything of value and began to beat elderly men in public view as an example to the rest of the town, a war had ignited.

    At the height of what was later called “The Tambov Rebellion,” between 50,000 and 70,000 Russian citizens took up arms against their oppressive government. These included Red Army soldiers who left their posts to join the cause.

    IMHO, anybody that promotes communism knowing it’s history is sick in the head!

    • Mathius says:

      IMHO, anybody that promotes communism knowing it’s history is sick in the head!
      Gee, I wonder what you would say about anyone that promotes democracy knowing it’s history..

      Let’s see, shall we..

      Only type of government ever to use nuclear weapons.
      The Tuskegee Experiment
      Slavery / Jim Crow
      Trucking System
      Massive corruption
      Eradication of an entire indigenous population
      Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc
      Historical military drafts
      Subjugation of homosexuals, DOMA, DADT
      Mass murder / infanticide*
      Bombing of Dresden
      Election of G. W. Bush!
      Draconian / puritanical drug laws
      More than a full percent of population in jail
      Patriot Act

      I could go on for days, but what’s the point?

      *I don’t agree with this one, but you do, so I’ll include it.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        That sounds good to me Mathius, and it serves as a great reason to do away with all forms of government, since you and I have now proven that all they do is kill innocent people. 😦

      • You gotta be kidding.

        Was there ever any time at all in your education for the study of History or did it all fall under what they call social studies?

      • Been hanging out with Rev Wright lately?

        “g–d— America”

        • Mathius says:

          Nope… just pointing out that the US does plenty of bad things too.

          So if you’re going to bash communism for the terrible things which were perpetrated under it’s banner, then you have to bash democracy by the same logic.

          (Not that I think communism is an even remotely viable political system, but that’s beside the point.)

          • Just A Citizen says:

            No you don’t.

            If my proposition is that Communism is immoral and repugnant then all I must do is prove my point.

            Comparing to other systems neither proves nor disproves that argument.

            It is a STRAWMAN fallacy.

            • Mathius says:

              No, it’s actually a Tu Quoque. A strawman fallacy is where you misinterpret his argument in order to make it easier to attack. So, for example, if I had taken his argument and then suggest that it’s odd that he supports starving the city dwellers and military in communist countries – of course that’s not what he supports, which is why it’s a strawman. What I did was point at his statement and say “YOU TOO!” Thus the Tu Quoque.

              But that’s beside the point.

              The reason it’s beside the point is that I accept his conclusion that communism (at least as implemented by the USSR) was immoral and repugnant. Thus I’m not deflecting or avoiding (thus no fallacy) – he’s won his argument. I’m just moving along and pointing out that, since that’s such a good solid reasoning, he must also consider American democracy immoral and repugnant by the same. exact. logic.

              His argument was: terrible stuff was done under communism, therefore communism is evil. Therefore anyone so promotes communism is sick in the head.

              Great, fine, whatever.

              So, we’ll take his exact argument and swap out one word: terrible stuff was done under communism democracy, therefore communism democracy is evil. Therefore anyone so promotes communism democracy is sick in the head.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I will concede yours was not a great example of Strawman. Except I see it as more of a total diversion rather than YOU TOO.

                Your argument was far more like: “Squirrel”.

                Now to your actual argument. Your list is ridiculous. If you want to compare the murderous effect of each then compare them on equal grounds.

                So if you want to include those killed by the USA in WAR then count all the dead caused by Russia and China in their WARS as well. That would include the millions of Germans slaughtered by the Communists in their march on Berlin.

              • Mathius says:


                Hello there…


                Now, the fallacy of the ‘you too’ is the diversion. That is, it allow you to win the point or change the subject without addressing the issue. That is, if I had rejected his assertion that communism (at least under the USSR) was evil, and had used the tu quoque in order to divert, that would be a fallacy, however, I cede the point. As such, I have not committed any fallacy.


                So if you want to include those killed by the USA in WAR then count all the dead caused by Russia and China in their WARS as well. That would include the millions of Germans slaughtered by the Communists in their march on Berlin.

                So, if I understand your implication right, there’s a certain number of people a government can kill before it becomes “evil” in your mind? By further implication that line is somewhere between the US kill count (Maybe as many as 10 considering Korea, ‘nam, and Iraq.) and the USSR (something like 60mm?).

                So: 10 million kills, not evil. 60 million kills, evil. Did I get that right?

                What about injecting people with syphilis without telling them, denying them treatment, and then watching the progression of the disease for decades? Is that evil?

                I’m not saying the US is WORSE than the USSR. But I am using gman’s logic to prove that democracy (at least as enacted in the US) is evil and that “anybody that promotes communism democracy knowing it’s history is sick in the head!”

              • Just A Citizen says:


                You do not understand me at all. Or you are simply again trying to change the argument by projecting meaning into my statement.

                I simply said if you wish to compare the two then compare Apples to Apples.

                Establish your criteria first. Then provide data for each system relative to that criteria.

                For example, Number of Citizens Killed by their own Govt might be a criteria. Or, number killed during War, or number killed in establishing the Nation State.

                Regardless, GMan’s claim is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. Anyone claiming to support Communism is sick in the head.

              • Mathius says:

                I don’t wish to compare communism and democracy. I’m pretty sure communism is far, far worse.

                But I’m saying that his logic, when applied to the US (his EXACT logic) reaches the inevitable conclusion that “anybody that promotes communism democracy knowing it’s history is sick in the head!”

                Do you disagree?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I find it odd that whenever someone on SUFA makes a claim about how capitalism doesn’t work, they meet a wall of resistance claiming that this is not capitalism. Yet, those same people will be quick to point to the USSR as an example of what will necessarily happen under communism.

              • Buck,

                Because one is an economic system and the other is a political system.

                Mercantilism is political system which imposes certain economic controls.

                Communism is a political system which imposes certain economic controls.

                But Capitalsim is a economic system.

              • Mathius says:


                I simply said if you wish to compare the two then compare Apples to Apples.

                Jac, I DON’T wish to compare the two.

                I cede the point that communism (at least as implemented in the USSR) is evil.

                I wish to evaluate, as a standalone, the United States of America based on the logic which have been using in the conversation.

                That is, government of country X does something evil, therefore government-type country X is evil.

                The argument (just for reference) was that the USSR starved it’s citizens, therefore the government-type (communism) is evil.

                So, taking that same line of reasoning (and not comparing the US to the USSR, just applying the same logic), the government of the US has done the terrible things I’ve listed and much more, therefore the government-type (representative democracy) is evil.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        from the article:

        At the height of what was later called “The Tambov Rebellion,” between 50,000 and 70,000 Russian citizens took up arms against their oppressive government. These included Red Army soldiers who left their posts to join the cause.

        Vastly outnumbered, and technologically outclassed in every way, the guerilla fighters managed to infiltrate multiple levels of Bolshevik society and government and strike debilitating hits against Russian infrastructure. So great was the threat that Lenin, along with Red Army leadership, ordered chemical warfare to be used in the forests where guerrillas were thought to be dug in, as well as summary executions of civilians, many of whom were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

        Concentration camps were built; mostly to house women, children and elderly people thought to be related to insurgents and to be used as bargaining chips. Eventually, the rebellion diminished, but not before Lenin was forced to end the policy of Prodrazvyorstka along with many other directives that had angered the Russian public.

        The Soviets later attempted to erase all memory of the event, destroying records and removing public figures who might recount what had happened. However, the fight against collectivist control and state power continued through numerous movements until the break-up of the empire decades later.

        • Mathius says:

          So your argument, again, is that because the US never did anything THAT evil (that we know of, anyway), that the US isn’t evil?

          Did I get that right?

          Boy, you set the bar pretty high for the definition of “evil.”

          • Just A Citizen says:



            But since you raised the question, when did the US Govt use “chemical warfare” weapons against its own population?

            When did the US Govt round up citizens and march them off to death camps…just because they voiced opposition to the Govt?

            My definition of “evil” is quite simple and discrete. It is you that suffers the disease of “relativism”, not me.

            • Mathius says:

              Chemical warefare againgst it’s own population Nothing comes to mind other than such examples as tear gas for riot control. But, I suppose that ignores the use of chemical weapons in war. That’s just fine, right?

              When did the US Govt round up citizens and march them off to death camps…just because they voiced opposition to the Govt? Death camps? Nope, nothing comes to mind. Then again, how many people died on the Trail of Tears or in Manzanar? And they didn’t even have to voice opposition to the government. But because we didn’t (necessarily) intend to kill them, that’s just fine, right?

              Maybe Flag can come up with better examples of the above?

              My definition of “evil” is quite simple and discrete. It is you that suffers the disease of “relativism”, not me. So what, exactly, is your definition of evil? Yes, other countries have done worse – far worse – than I can come up with for the US, but does that mean that we should ignore what the US has done? If I’m suffering from “relativism,” why is it that you’re the one who keeps comparing the actions of the US to others? If your definition is so discrete and simple, why not stand the US up on it’s own and compare it to your litmus test(s)? Are the actions which I have listed evil? Is the perpetrator (the US government) evil? Why/why not?

  10. I guess I had better turn myself in…..unless the drones already took my picture….I just spread Orthene fire ant killer on an area infested with fire ants. I am a murderer.

    • Mathius says:

      Well it was nice knowing ya..

      • I preferred boiling water but the screams of the little critters was deafening… my my clan….so a nice slow poisoning is much better. If you watch these critters, they are quite organized….they will bring out their dead (no Monty Python, please) and line them up in little rows. It is quite interesting.

        @ G Man…..nah…In Texas, PETA stands for People who Eat Tasty Animals….and we drink 44 oz big gulp sodas as well.

        • The whole “soda” ban has me wondering if we’re the only state that drinks POP

          • Mathius says:

            Pop? What’s that?

            I’ve heard old folks talk about sodapop… is that what you mean?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            We drink “pop” here as well, you are not alone.

          • Ok Anita, I will bite…..what state?

            • know.. with the SPARTANS! Go GREEN! 🙂

              • Ahhh….Michigan…….The Apple Blossom State…and the White Pine….not to mention the Robin and the Brook trout and home to the Green Darner Dragonfly………what is a Spartan? I thought they were all wiped out centuries ago.

              • least you didn’t throw the Wolverines out there..

                I’m between a rock and a hard place now. My daughter has two years under her belt from MSU (graduated in Hawaii), but now her employer is U of M. I may need to get one of the split MSU/UM flags.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Look out Colonel, you may have a PETA infestation if your no careful.

  11. Special Note to Mathius……….did you know that you must now protect me….I am your new best friend….At our cattle auction, our herd for sale this month was bought by the meat producer that supplies………………………Inn and Out. Be nice to me.

    • I might also add….we do not use nor feed our cattle steroids. Brangus….grass and grain fed…

    • Mathius says:

      That’s awesome!

      Have you tried it yet? I strongly suggest you order a “3 by 3 animal style” (4×4 if you’re hungry, 5×5 if you’re ambitious and hungry, 6×6 if you’re ambitious, hungry, and have the ability to unhinge your jaw like a snake).

  12. Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe plans to highlight a little-known speech by an EPA regional administrator who admitted on video that the Obama administration’s air regulations will kill the coal industry.

    “Lisa Jackson has put forth a very powerful message to the country. Just two days ago, the decision on greenhouse gas performance standard and saying basically gas plants are the performance standard which means if you want to build a coal plant you got a big problem. That was a huge decision,” Region 1 EPA Administrator Curtis “Curt” Spalding says, in footage filmed at Yale University.

    “You can’t imagine how tough that was,” Spalding continued. “Because you got to remember if you go to West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and all those places, you have coal communities who depend on coal. And to say that we just think those communities should just go away, we can’t do that. But she had to do what the law and policy suggested. And it’s painful. It’s painful every step of the way.”

    Read more:

    • gmanfortruth says:

      IMHO, This is a treasonous act by Obama and the EPA. He should be charged, tried, convicted and hanged from the nearest lamp post. Jackass dog eating scumbag!

      • Sorry G!, can’t agree. This is only illegal, good for ten yr’s in prison and fines. Now the Fast & Furious case involves multi-national murders, 25-life. Treason was the sharing of secrets in the OBL raid and calls for a firing squad, not hanging.

  13. Notre to SUFA: Do not pick on me. You have to deal with Mathius, the Inn N Out Meister. Special Note to Buck: What say you now, counselor?

    • Mathius says:

      Colonel, you know I’ve always got your back.

      Especially if it gives me an excuse to go somewhere where it’s 110F and I can get a real burger. If you need help in Antarctica, Buck’s your man.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Wait…what am I supposed to be saying here?

      And as to burgers, please forgive Mathius – he is in a bit of a mood after discovering that NY burgers are better than anything LA has to offer (including the admittedly delicious In N Out burger).

      • Mathius says:

        Not better. Roughly equal.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          One word for you…denial. It ain’t just a river in Egypt!

          • Mathius says:

            Look, it was good. It was very good. Maybe next time I’ll order a double-double and see what happens?

            And let’s not forget that we’re comparing a fast-food chain to a premier steak house and still arriving at a statistical tie.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              No — you are arriving at a statistical tie due to your state of denial. No one else is coming to that conclusion. I’m sorry, but I just can’t let this one go.

              • Mathius says:

                Until I can try both within a short time of each other, I cannot determine which is superior. It’s too close to call. This, by itself, is a very impressive accomplishment and I fully intend to go back (if only it weren’t so incredibly inconveniently located!).

              • Buck the Wala says:

                We’ll go back for dinner one time — to get the whole cow.

              • D13

                but I have everything against unions that only care about their members and not the big picture.

                The Union does not care about its members.
                It cares only about the Union leaders and the institution of unionization.

                You have your causality reversed.
                You listen to the rhetoric and observe their action, see a difference and suggest the actions are misguided in achieving the rhetoric.

                I ignore the rhetoric and watch the acts – the same acts, repeated and repeated, over different unions and industries, everywhere. They are the same acts. This demonstrates that is what the union is designed to accomplish and any words contrary to that are lies.

  14. Charlie

    I do have a problem with a gap that wide … probably because I cannot accept that one person could earn a billion dollars on their own (that does go to some of my Marxist belief but we’d never agree there, I don’t think)

    But Charlie, that is an argument you have to make to the people who paid that guy a billion, not the guy who earned it.

    He didn’t steal it. People, freely, gave it to him.

    So you are mad a people giving money to this guy – but since they wanted what he had, you’d have to argue with people’s needs and wants.

    So you pick on the billionaire – as if he was the problem.

    But he is the solution to other people’s problem, or they wouldn’t have given him the money.

    That’s the fallacy of Marx – he was a demand-side economist, like Keynes. He believed consumption ruled the economic house, and the suppliers were the thieves.

    But Say, long ago, demonstrated that supply creates an economy, and inherent in supply is demand.

    This makes sense, by looking at yourself. You always have at least one customer to your product – yourself. And you cannot satisfy yourself until you first produce.

    As usual, Charlie, your economics screws you up.
    Your envy is all you have.

    • charlieopera says:

      Sorry, fellas (and gals) … I don’t have enough time to play today … I’m kiling myself at work …

      So here’s your envy for you, BF … a new twist.

  15. @ BF……supply and demand is not hard to understand, I did not think but it is not just Charlie…it is amazing how supply side economics is not understood at all. Without demand there would be no supply….what would be the point in having widgets when no one wants one. But Charlie, does understand it……he does not agree with it.

    As a matter of fact, he is doing the very thing that he is against. He is a writer and he sells books. Wonder why he does not give them away. He is practicing the very thing that Marx was against. He produces a product and if people want it…they buy it. Supply side….unless I am a senile old Colonel who knows nothing…….sigh.

    • D13,

      I do not agree with this statement at all:
      “Without demand there would be no supply”

      Say’s Law says this:
      “There is always a demand for all production, no matter the supply, at some price

      This is where economists say “The market needs to clear it’s overproduction” – otherwise known as a fire-sale.

      There is always a price that the supply will be bought – the price being low enough to invoke the Marginal Utility Law (“buy two, get one free” concept)

      This is where Keynes perverted economics – he denied Says Laws – and stated that production would have no demand – because he perverted the Pricing mechanisms by government intervention (Socialist interventions).

      By government edict in preventing prices to fall to clear the overproduction, indeed, there are no buyers and the market remains locked.

      But one merely needs to understand the market place is an auction – high bid wins – and works like an auction – oversupply gets sold very cheap.

  16. Keller made several attempts to reach the supervisor, Michael Hill. Finally, Hill returned Keller’s phone call and explained that orders had come from the Obama administration to check out every communication with Armendariz. Hill gave Keller the impression that everyone who had tried to reach Armendariz had received a visit from special agents.

    Larry Keller is a patriot, who responded to a pompous EPA eco-thug. For that he was threatened with intimidating representatives sent at the behest of Lisa Jackson, administrator of Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA under Jackson has become Stalinist.

    Recall, the EPA was originally established in 1970 via an executive order produced by President Richard Nixon entitled, “Reorganization Plan Number Three.” The action was meant to be an olive branch to the hippy movement as a sign that Nixon’s administration was going to be serious about fighting air pollution. The move was one of Nixon’s worst.

    During the past four decades the EPA has morphed into bureaucracy that directly employs 12,000 people, and sucks up a budget of nearly $10 billion annually. Its goals have nothing to do with clean air or clean water–instead the EPA is on a regulatory conquest to vanquish personal property rights, diminish capitalism, alter consumption patterns, and recast the American lifestyle.

    Keller calls the incident a “life changing experience.”

    I call it, Eco-Tyranny.

    Read more:

    • Just A Citizen says:


      With a special note to Todd.

      This is why many months ago in my “proposal to reform Fed govt” I stated that while the “mission” of EPA should be retained in part, the agency itself needs to be disbanded.

      The place is filled with “religious zealots”. And their “religion” does not involve Christ or Mohammed, or Humans for that matter.

      • Mathius says:

        The place is filled with “religious zealots”. And their “religion” does not involve Christ or Mohammed, or Humans for that matter.

        So they’re Jews?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Anti Semite……………

          I’m turning you in to that outfit dedicated to saving all Jews from evil thinkers.

          Buck is probably a member so you are going to reallllllllyyyyyyyyyy regret it.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Hey…why am I “probably a Member”??? I’m insulted and turning you in along with Mathius!

            • Mathius says:

              Go ahead, turn me in, see if I care. I know the secret Jew handshake.

              Also the secret password..
              Judge: Mr. Mathius, If I were this young man, I’d countersue you for defamation of character, and generally wasting everyone’s time. What do you have to say in your defense?
              Mathius: Tubal Cain. (1,000 points for the reference, no cheating)
              Judge: The court rules in favor of Mr. JAC and sentences the defendant to a month in Gitmo where he will be forced to listen to Sesame St. songs played at loud volume, may God have mercy on his soul. (JAC knows the judge too)


              • Come on Mathius……give me a harder reference…..Interesting to your spelling of Tubal Cain……..secret handshake of the Freemasons………

                Not to be confused with Tubalcain of the Hebrew Bible?

                Did I do good?

              • Might I add a far more ruthless punishment…….along with Sesame street…..precisely at 2200hrs, Gitmo time……the music changes to….”It’s a Small World After All” for 8 hours.

                This I have been through…..1,000 Raptor points for location.

              • Oh, I forgot.,…..that during the secret handshake…..Tubal Cain was also the password.

              • Mathius says:

                You did well.. the quote was actually from News Radio (great show back in the day), but the password is, of course, the freemasons so I award you half-credit.

                the music changes to….”It’s a Small World After All” for 8 hours.
                This, I have been through as well. We’ve spoken before about my older brother. One of his (many) “games” was to lock me in a closet for hours with the same (annoying) song on a loop. I spent 5 hours locked in a dark cramped closet listening to Poor Unfortunate Souls from Little Mermaid on a loop before my parents found me and let me out. I was 6 or 7 years old.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                To this day, Mathius goes into spasms at the mere mention of the Little Mermaid…

              • Mathius says:

                Admittedly, I am not a huge fan of that particular movie..

  17. charlieopera says:

    @Buck … I find it odd that whenever someone on SUFA makes a claim about how capitalism doesn’t work, they meet a wall of resistance claiming that this is not capitalism. Yet, those same people will be quick to point to the USSR as an example of what will necessarily happen under communism.

    Thank you, sir.

    Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and to some degree Castro, used Marxism to suit their purposes … much like the 1% here use “freedom” and “patriotism” to suit theirs …

    now play nice …

    • Buck, Charlie

      I think we also include China, but to be fair, who is you example of a successful communist/socialist/fascist/marxist government you would have us use? Germany, Italy?
      North Korea? Cuba?

      Which we also are prone to point out that Europe is BECOMING socialist. Point being, they are not yet, just closer to this than the USA. And where their economies are still hanging on, there you will find private business providing that prosperity despite over-governance.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        But that’s exactly the point — just as you can’t point to an example of a true capitalist/free market society, there is no example of a true communist/socialist society. Both ideas, in my opinion, are completely utopian and dare I say incapable of existing on a large scale.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Once again with the knee jerk reactions taught by the elite professors.

          Good lord man, please explain why FREEDOM can work for small groups but just can’t work for “large scale”.

          But before you start, keep in mind that those poor “natives” that the Europeans “exterminated” numbered in the millions, were scattered across this continent and lived without a central Govt.

          • Buck the Wala says:


            The Native Americans may have numbered in the millions, but as you say they were scattered across the continent and members of distinct tribes. The tribes ranged in size of population, culture, and…wait for it….GOVERNMENT!

            This is no knee jerk reaction — I do not believe you can have either true free market capitalism OR true communism. All evidence points to me being correct in this. Unless you care to point to a true free market system currently in place somewhere…

            • Ok, but now answer the freedom question.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                First please provide an example of true freedom (by your standards) in a small group.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              The TRIBES DID NOT HAVE GOVT. At least most of them did not.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                I should say, none that I am aware of.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Tribes did have a government to some extent — they had chiefs (a number of tribes if I remember correctly even had elections) who ruled over the tribe; they had councils to create and enforce laws; etc. etc. etc. Does this not qualify as a government? If no, then why?

                And again, as to population, the tribes were a much smaller socio-political unit than a modern city/state/country.

              • Buck,

                As you do not have a comprehensive nor complete definition of government.

                “monopoly on violence within a geographical area”

                The Chief did not hold a monopoly on this violence – he acted more as a “President” of the organization – but had no more or no less a “vote” in the tribe as any other.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck the Wala

              Chiefs did not RULE over the tribe. They were Chieftains not Kings. The Council was just that, a council, not a governing body. It provided judgments, advice and recommendations. The council and chiefs might decide on a course of action for the group, but NOBODY HAD TO FOLLOW IT under threat of violence or force against them. They could move on and join another family group if they wished.

              No Chief or Council could create a law or rule or make a decision that was not supported by most of the people and then enforce that decision upon those people. They could only govern via “consent” of the governed. They were selected as leaders based on courage, performance in battle, and WISDOM.

              Even raids upon the whites and other tribes were the decision of those who wanted to go, and not dictated by the Chief.

              Govt = A monopoly on the use of “legal force”/ “initiation of force/violence” within a specific geographic area.

              Tribes, like all other human groups, had established rules and penalties for violating those rules. But there was no Sheriff or Governing Entity that captured the offenders and then executed justice per the law.

              The Council might pass judgment, but then the penalty would be administered by the people. Among Comanche that might mean they were killed by their fellow members. In others it might mean they were simply shunned.

              Indian tribes were nothing like what we consider Govt. That is a title we bestowed upon their form of “governance” or “mutual cooperation”.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                “Among Comanche that might mean they were killed by their fellow members.”

                How very non-violent of them…

                You say potatOH, I say potAHto — I would still argue the tribes had a form of government. The chiefs and councils most certainly (as you yourself say) created laws and enforced those laws upon the tribe (the fact that ‘most of the people’ supported such law is irrelevant). You say: “They could only govern via ‘consent’ of the governed” — this is just as true today with our own government.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Buck the Wala

              Sometimes I wonder if you can read.

              The Chiefs and Council DID NOT ENFORCE the laws. The PEOPLE enforced the laws.

              So you can argue they had Govt all you want. But they DID NOT HAVE GOVT. So now your argument amounts to “yes they did so I can now rationalize everything after this”.

              But where is YOUR definition of Govt that can be supported by logic or reason?

              In the Comanche case for example, the Chief/Council would determine if the law of murder had been committed. If so then it was up to the family of the victim to administer justice. They could KILL the murderer or take their property, or chase them away under threat of killing.

              This is actually a perfect example of Anarchy Society.

              You can’t seem to understand the difference between “consent” in making laws as opposed to our system which only claims “consent” but really means, “do as we want until you revolt”.

              In the tribal case the entire tribe was involved in major decisions. It could take days to deliberate, discuss and then form proposed actions. In other words, the Chief’s final recommendation, or decision, was not made UNTIL he knew he had the support to have it followed. It was an expression of the consensus already reached.

              That Buck, is NOT how OUR GOVT WORKS. Nor any other GOVERNMENT.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                I’m trying to follow along and apply your definition of government here, I truly am. But sorry, I just don’t see how this is not a form of government. Yes, it is a different government than what we have, I’m not denying that. But it remains a form of government.

                And once again lets go back to population size — in a small tribe, we can institute a true democracy with every member being involved in every decision; this is completely unworkable in a large city/state/country.

                Let’s try to continue this tomorrow. For now, I’m outta here!

              • Buck

                Try offering something coherent as a definition – because right now, all you have is a mumble.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Not true. Russia, China, N. Korea, etc etc are ALL examples of TRUE COMMUNIST countries.

      • Mathius says:

        who is you example of a successful communist/socialist/fascist/marxist government you would have us use? Germany, Italy?
        North Korea? Cuba?

        Who is your example you would have us use of a VLDG or anarchy?

        • Very DAMN Little Gov. is just wishful thinking so far. And it might not work, communism sounds good in theory but it’s reality is something else. Myself, I think it would be the most successful form of government possible until significant changes in the world’s culture occur. Anarchy? You mean Flag’s no gov. utopia? I don’t really buy into that one and no, it also is not present in today’s world.

          But then you are trying to do your apple/tofu thing again. In today’s world, there are governments that CLAIM to be communist, democratic, republic’s and dictatorships. There are economies that CLAIM to be capitalist.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Here is where the critics, and supporters, of Marxism and Communism make their mistake.

        The system HAS WORKED everywhere it has been applied. IT has worked completely and effectively and efficiently. Just as it was expected to work by the screwballs who devised it. Given the moral and ethical foundations that support it, there was NO OTHER OUTCOME POSSIBLE.

        Lets not forget the outcome of the REVOLUTION was to be a “DICTATORSHIP of the PROLETARIAT”.

        Capitalism, on the other hand, did not invent nor require violence nor dictatorship. It is both a very Generic and a Specific term. As a “general” term it can include systems that are corrupt and in fact use force against the people. But the difference is that the ethic supporting Capitalism does NOT require force. Unfortunately the general definition does not prevent it either.

        Communism is specific, however. It is based on violence and can survive no other way but with violence.

        • Capitalism, on the other hand, did not invent nor require violence nor dictatorship.

          Is sure seems to have thrived from violence … unless you put your blinders back on, lock yourself in a closet and repeat your mantra a few hundred thousand times.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Capitalism does NOT require theft to survive. But thieves will thrive under any system if they are not caught, including Capitalism.

            Your precious Communism and Socialism actually REQUIRE theft and violence against innocent people to exist, let alone be maintained.

            Capitalism is an ECONOMIC system resulting from the actions of FREE PEOPLE. The RIGHT OF ALL PEOPLE TO TRADE and PROPERTY are its only requirements.

            Communism and Socialism are POLITICAL systems constructed to deliberately interfere with these two basic human rights. They are systems DESIGNED to constrain or eliminate both the right to trade freely and the right to property.

            They are the direct violence against FREEDOM.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              JAC, Is it not easy to see the denial from the left of their evil desires? It is as plain as day today. Shameful and discusting.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                For some it is not so much their desire as it is their refusal to THINK.

                Without hard thought they can continue to live according to what they FEEL is a moral cause or system, all the time ignoring the evil standing right there next to them.

                The challenge is that these are core principles, and as such they are very hard to dislodge. It takes great effort and courage for someone to challenge their “belief” system and then even more courage to ACCEPT TRUTH and then to CHANGE.

                DENIAL in all its forms is simply easier to accept and live with on a daily basis. That is until the Crock rises up and snatches you by the neck. But then it is too late.

                But that will not deter me from trying to save a few more good people before I depart for grander adventures.

                Live free my Pennsylvanian friend. And of course, BE HAPPY.

            • Minus the typo, reread, JAC:

              It (capitalism) sure seems to have thrived from violence …

              DENIAL … you’re awful good at it.

              Capitalism has turned the U.S. into a third world country …. it’s as simple as that.

              • Typical Charlie, stuck with an incorrect concept, he will never lose it.

                Capitalism abhors violence – shuns it and moves away from it; that is why capital flies away from violent turmoil and not into it.

                Mercantilism, however, does require violence – imposition of terms of trade and commerce on free men, local and foreign.

                Mercantilism is a SOCIALISM, Charlie – government-run economy. You want to replace a feature of socialism with more of it… bizarre, you are.

  18. Are you ready for the recall recount?
    Rick Moran

    Democrats in Wisconsin are already preparing the ground for a recount if the race is close.


    “We’re very much anticipating that there’s a chance that we could be in a recount scenario,” said Mike Tate, chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. He said the party will have more than 440 lawyers in the field on Tuesday “doing election protection activities but also tasked with recount preparation, making sure that we know where absentee ballots are at, making sure that we have a strong handle on what’s happening out there.”

    The deeply polarized Badger State also has fresh experience with an excruciatingly close race. JoAnne Kloppenburg requested a recount last spring after losing a Wisconsin State Supreme Court race to incumbent David Prosser by less than 0.5 percent. The recount had Prosser leading by about 7,004 votes in that race, which was seen as an early referendum on Walker’s efforts to curb collective bargaining rights.

    Kloppenburg penned an op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in the wake of the recount, saying the scrutiny uncovered “significant and widespread errors and anomalies” in the election process.

    Naturally, Republicans are keeping mum on the prospect of a recount, preferring not to acknowledge the possibility when Walker leads in the polls.

    Ben Sparks, a spokesman for the Republican Party of Wisconsin, declined to comment when asked whether the GOP is girding for such a scenario. And Walker told reporters on Monday that he’s not thinking about a recount at this point, Wisconsin radio station WTAQ reported.

    There is going to be a recount. Even if Walker wins by 6-7%, Wisconsin Dems will pay for a recount and then, like Kloppenburg, seek to delegitimize the winner by saying that the vote wasn’t fair.

    Besides, who knows how many ballots they’ll suddenly “find” in Milwaukee? Or Madison? They will count, and recount, and then count some more until they get the result they want.

    It’s clown-car politics, except it really isn’t funny.

    Read more:

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I see BOTH sides falling into this rhetorical trap that is working against the UNIFYING fabric of our Republic.

      The story line is now “WE WILL WIN>>>>>>>>>>>IF THE OTHER GUYS DON’T STEAL THE ELECTION”.

      This of course means that if WE lost THEY had to have stolen the election. No other answer is possible.

      And thus the cynicism and the outright anger and rage against the OTHERS is erected and maintained.

      • Agree. I think it is shameful that the USA, as it presents itself to the world on being a nation where the law is unbiased and upheld, where every vote counts and voting is the right of every citizen, that we have so much documentable voting fraud. It’s constant throughout our history up to today…

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Honestly, I don’t see how you could ever ELIMINATE all fraud.

          Hell, it starts with the Candidate. How many of them are frauds in and of themselves?

    • I believe Kathy said she signed up a couple months back to be on the recount committee.

      JAC, And thus the cynicism and the outright anger and rage against the OTHERS is erected and maintained….Just last night Frank Luntz was at it again with the focus group, in Madison..the audience was split 50/50. Someone brought out unemployment numbers that were supplied by the govt. The other side brought out different unemployment numbers supplied by the govt. A big argument followed on who was right. Luntz jumped in to wrap it up by saying something to the effect of ‘how are we supposed to move forward when we can’t even agree on FACTS. There can be no positive movement when there is no agreement on facts.’

  19. ;(

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    SUFA, As we head towards the results of the Wisconsin recall election, I do have a question. When Walker wins, will the unions and the left realize that the majority don’t want their bullshit anymore?

  21. Just a little fun for today…..


    His name was Bubba, he was from Mississippi. And he needed a loan, So…

    He walked into a bank in New York City and asked for the loan Officer. He told the loan officer that he was going to Paris for an International redneck festival for two weeks and needed to borrow $5,000.

    And that he was not a depositor of the bank. The bank officer told him that the bank would need some form of security for the loan, so the Redneck handed over the keys to a new Ferrari. The car was parked on the street in front of the bank.

    The Redneck produced the title and everything checked out. The loan officer agreed to hold the car as collateral for the loan and apologized for having to charge 12% interest.

    Later, the bank’s president and its officers all enjoyed a good laugh at the Redneck from the South for using a $250,000 Ferrari as collateral for a $5,000 loan. An employee of the bank then drove the Ferrari into the bank’s private underground garage and parked it.

    Two weeks later, the Redneck returned, repaid the $5,000 and the interest of $23.07. The loan officer said,

    “Sir, we are very happy to have had your business, and this transaction has worked out very nicely, but we are a little puzzled. While you were away, we checked you out on Dunn & Bradstreet and found that you are a Distinguished Alumnus from Ole Miss University, a highly sophisticated investor and multimillionaire with real estate and financial interests all over the world. Your investments include a large number of wind turbines around Sweetwater, Texas. What puzzles us is, why would you bother to borrow $5,000?”

    The good ‘ole boy replied, “Where else in New York City can I park my car for two weeks for only $23.07 and expect it to be there when I return?”

    His name was BUBBA….

    Keep an eye on those southern boys!

    🙂 🙂 🙂


  22. Walker wins Wisconsin recall election and sends a major message to all liberals, your ideals and economics suck!

    • IMO, this is a graphic indictment on Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Democratic policy nationwide. These are only the FIRST americans to say, “we don’t want your freedom and liberty sucking policies”! There are more to come. This does not mean Obama will most certainly lose in November. But it does say that a lot of his policies and followers Nationwide and in Congress are in a lot of deep doo-doo right now.

      • The even better part was to see Lt. Gov. Kleefisch win her office by the same wide margin. And the Democrats thought they had her. She has had some very ugly things said to and about her. Naturally for the Left.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        I don’t think you can take this as an indictment against Unions/liberals/Obama/Democrats or anything else. And you certainly cannot extrapolate the results of this election to a nationwide reading of tgd upcoming general election. Two facts get in the way of this reading from the exit polls:

        1) 60% of voters indicated their belief that a recall should only be held for criminal misconduct – meaning even some Barrett supporters from 2010, who do disagree with Walker’s policies, voted for Walker here; and

        2) Voters supported Obama over Romney by a 53-42 majority.

        • Buck, Who is reporting this, MSMBC? The end result is that the unions got slapped down and were told that they are not “entitled” in Wisconsin anymore. The thieves have been schooled, next up, Obama and his treasonous, America hating, socialist administration 😀

          • Naten53 says:

            the same news polls that said Walker led by 3% and that it didn’t mean anything because it was within the margin of error…

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Not sure where I came across those numbers last night, but it was based on the exit polls.

            All I’m saying is that it would be a mistake to assume this can be extrapolated into a national general election 5 months away. And seeing that you know that, I will give you bragging rights for this ‘win’…at least for today. 🙂

  23. On Wisconsin!!!!! Woot! Woot! Woot! Sanity prevails!

  24. I am so glad it appears to be a landslide….anything close and the Dems would be crying foul……demanding a recount….etc etc etc. They will probably still say the other side stole it somehow….

  25. A Puritan Descendant says:

    Wisconsin! 🙂

    Will Charlie see the truth, and see modern unions for what they are ( 🙂 ), or blame it on Obama for not supporting the unions?

    • Obama knew better than to come anywhere NEAR Winconsin. I think he knew the Dems had no chance of defeating Walker, and getting involved would have just painted him with the same paint brush even worse than it already will. I readily admit that Obama is far from stupid when it comes to Politics. He will find some speck of good news in this dookey pile somehow.

    • WANTED: OBAMA VOTERS ! Illegals, Felons and the dead welcome 😀

  26. Democracy died tonight? How much more Democratic could it be? Isn’t Democracy majority rule? Sounds more like sour grapes to me. The unions are not the all powerful OZ after all.

  27. @ Buck……..Re: Wisconsin recall. One interesting point that I did not know….the first recall that was won by the incumbent. But, hard for me to figure… was a great grass root effort on both sides to get the vote out. But I saw the same polls as you about the recall in that many people did not like the idea of trying to overturn an election through recall. Even some of the hard line democrats did not like it albeit for differing reasons. It was a huge political gamble run by the labor unions and where I will disagree with you on one particular item, I do think it was an indictment to the Wisconsin Unions and to the bloated State Government pension plans. I also think that it was also an indictment to bloated US Government as well as the exit polling did show that people also mentioned the US Government….so that means that the current administration may have a problem brewing there….but the indictment was more so on bloated pensions.and not the 1% that has been in the news.

    The other reference (I am looking for links) I saw was on tv where it was reported that San Diego and some other city have also voted to slash public union pension and retirement plans…….but that was on TV. I am sure there is something out there…..I will try to find it. If I understood it correctly, this could be a growing tide of public backlash at PUBLIC employee unions.and not unions in total.

  28. The Wisconsin fiasco … proves a few things:1) the 1% has what it wants most, the little guys feeding off each other (workers vs. workers) … 2) Barack Obama is as useless as tits on a bull to the working man (thank you, Mr. President and your co-hort Tumpka for NOTHING) … 3) things can only get worse before they get better …

    Now, you all play nice today …

    • Goooood Mooooorrrrniiiing, Canoli Man……………It was interesting that Obama did not even make a call to help…..he knew it was a lost proposition, I guess. Dunno.

      What I think is even more interesting is the link that posted about two cities in California….that seem to mirror this Wisconsin election. I was also interested in t he exit polling among hardline democrats that were against the recall and voted so and also, the comments made about bloated Federal Government.

  29. @ Buck……something else that is coming to my mind (as feeble as it is)…it appears that where “public” money is concerned, I think it is becoming more non partisan when budgets are out of control. There simple is no money available. What is happening in New York, Michigan, California, and even Rhode Island…..the money is moving out. This is not a is real and it is not the weather that is doing it. When the tax base becomes diminished, you are simply out of money.

    One of the things that was pointed out the article that was posted, was the fact that the tax money in California is going to the public union pension funds and the roads and bridges and infrastructure is suffering…..I think people are waking up to this. As you know, I have nothing against unions but I have everything against unions that only care about their members and not the big picture.

    Another thing about Texas that is good is that there is no money coming out of the State General Fund/Treasury to fund cities that are not within their budget. This forces the cities to balance their budgets as well. There are no six figure firefighters or policemen or teachers here…everyone works within a budget. I do not see the same in other states and I have never understood how any city can run a deficit anyway. You cannot and I cannot……

    • Buck the Wala says:

      You make some good points, you really do. But I’m sorry, I just can’t abide by the rhetoric that it is all the evil unions and pensions for public employees that are bankrupting our cities. (Note: I am not saying that this is the rhetoric you are using) There is a lot more going on here, as you realize.

      • *Cough*

        For Buck, there is nothing about facts that possibly could derail his irrational thinking.

        As Churchill quipped, he’d stumble over the truth, pick himself up, dust himself off and continue on as if nothing happened.

        It is the unions – primarily the pensions and open-ended health benefit clauses – that is bankrupting the cities and states. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.

        GM went down due to pension fund problems.
        State and local governments are going down for the same reason – open-ended health benefits, and over promised pension benefits.

        Unions destroyed the job market by demanding higher-than market wages. Business left. Government’s can’t leave, so they renege.

        What happened to General Motors is going to happen to most pension funds in most municipal governments and most state governments over the next 10 to 20 years. One by one, they are going to go belly up.

        State and local governments have only one way out politically: stiff the retirees.

        • Agreed but Medical benefits in pensions were no big deal back in the day. Going from $ 500 per year to $10,000 per year sure screwed things up. If inflation is at 4% and medical costs rise at 10%+ we get to that famous unsustainable point.

          Lot of factors there.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Nope, sorry BF, pensions are just not the cause of the current economic crisis nor the deficits in municipal/state/federal governments. It just isn’t true.

          • As I said, Buck, facts cannot penetrate your mind.

            • Here Buck, is some facts.

              I will not hold my breath waiting for yours.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Its funny…I was thinking the same exact thing!

              Look — are pensions a contributing factor insomuch as they are an obligation that the governments must pay going forward? Of course! But did the pensions cause the current crisis? That would be a resounding no! So why should the pension holders be penalized and made to suffer for a crisis they did not cause? Why should government be able to renege on these promises/obligations? You want to work towards changing pension plans going forward? Be my guest..and I may support you in that endeavor depending on the proposed plan. But let’s stop with the rhetoric that past pension deals got us in this mess and the evil unions and pension holders must suffer because of it.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Changing the rules of the pension contributions “going forward” is all that was done in Wisconsin or in other places. Yet it created riots.

                What is being spread around the Fed Govt by the CURRENT Administration is that CUTS to EXISTING retirement benefits are coming.

                How does that sit with you? Your guy is pushing for CUTS to Fed Employee Benefits.

              • Buck
                I understand that you are a person who only sees things about 1 inch in front of their nose – you’re a Socialist, naturally, and as such a short-time frame thinker.

                But did the pensions cause the current crisis? That would be a resounding no!

                Of course it did.

                But as a short time preferenced person, you do not understand that the cause of the crisis happened about 10 years ago, when these deals were inked.

                You liked those deals then, and argued they were affordable, then.
                You utterly ignored those – like me – who warned that they were based on a FED-fueled economy, and the moment that stopped, these pensions and health plans would not.

                But you and your ilk – back them – were as ignorant about economics as you and your ilk are now.

                C’est la vie.

                So why should the pension holders be penalized and made to suffer for a crisis they did not cause?

                1. They did cause it by demanding higher-then-market wages and benefits and pensions. They were ignorant and naive to believe these would actually be paid ‘forever’
                2. Their unions did this to them
                3. They elected their unions to do this to them.
                4. They got it – good and hard.

                Why should government be able to renege on these promises/obligations?

                Why should taxpayers pay extravagant pensions when they are barely holding on themselves?

                It is never the government that pays, Buck – that is your naivety thinking it does.

                You want to work towards changing pension plans going forward? Be my guest..and I may support you in that endeavor depending on the proposed plan. But let’s stop with the rhetoric that past pension deals got us in this mess and the evil unions and pension holders must suffer because of it.

                It was the past pension deals that got this mess!

                What else was it???? Future pension deals????

                The unions are not necessarily evil – their means was evil; government action.

                Pension holders WILL suffer – get used to it.

                It will either that tax payers or the tax eaters.

                Government will have to choose between them.

                Those that pay government salaries
                those that compete with the budget for government salary.

                Guess which one will lose.

              • Wait Buck……..think of it this way…..The CAUSE of the current financial issue is not the problem…it is here. The answer is not printing money. In the advent, that revenues cannot be increased to cover costs….what would you do? As a financial manager, I am going to the highest cost first, If it is pensions, then I have to make a decision. What is priority….Pensions do not carry any more priority than services… is one of the costs. Nothing more.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Ok, a few quick points:

                JAC — No, that is not all that was done in Wisconsin. Also, Obama is not my guy and never was. You should know that by now.

                BF — I believe Charlie would laugh at you calling me a socialist, but ok. And good job at ignoring the multitude of other issues that actually did cause the crisis.

                Colonel — I agree that we need to look at everything given the problem we currently face. But even if pensions are the highest cost, you must first address the underlying causes that got us here. And this is not the pensions. So I’ll ask for your thoughts — why should it be the pension holders that are penalized for the crisis they did nto cause.

              • *Scratch head*

                FED-fueled economic insanity, cheered by Buck and ilk
                Pensions based on said economy, cheered by Buck and ilk.
                Economic insanity warning by BF and ilk, boo’d by Buck and ilk.

                Economic insanity unravels – as per BF and ilk, Buck and ilk say “nope, that wasn’t the problem”

              • Buck the Wala says:

                From an article by Ezra Klein:

                “Whatever fiscal problems Wisconsin is — or is not — facing at the moment, they’re not caused by labor unions. That’s also true for New Jersey, for Ohio and for the other states. There was no sharp rise in collective bargaining in 2006 and 2007, no major reforms of the country’s labor laws, no dramatic change in how unions organize. And yet, state budgets collapsed. Revenues plummeted. Taxes had to go up, and spending had to go down, all across the country.

                Blame the banks. Blame global capital flows. Blame lax regulation of Wall Street. Blame home buyers, or home sellers. But don’t blame the unions. Not for this recession.

                Of course, the fact that public-employee pensions didn’t cause a meltdown at Lehman Brothers doesn’t mean they’re not stressing state budgets, and that the pensions they’ve been promised don’t exceed what state budgets seem able to bear. But the buildup of global capital that overheated the American housing sector and got packaged into seemingly riskless financial products that then brought down Wall Street, paralyzing the economy, throwing millions out of work, and destroying the revenues from state income and sales taxes even as state residents needed more social services? The answer to that is not to end collective bargaining for (some) public employees. A plus B plus C does not equal what Gov. Scott Walker is attempting in Wisconsin.”

                Now one salient point here: “the fact that public-employee pensions didn’t cause a meltdown at Lehman Brothers doesn’t mean they’re not stressing state budgets, and that the pensions they’ve been promised don’t exceed what state budgets seem able to bear”. Given this fact, yes, pensions do need to be reviewed as part of a host of other issues and changes need to be made going forward. But stripping unions of their collective bargaining rights? Forcing pension holders to bear the brunt of cuts in an effort to restore fiscal health to a crisis the pensions did not cause?

      • As an evil pension collector from NYC, I fall on both sides of the issue. I never got an hours overtime in 21 years to enhance my pension and do not think that this mechanism should be allowed. In other, stronger City Unions, I saw “impartial arbitration” award larger sums to unions than they had initially asked for, something that continues out here in the suburbs for reasons both unquestioned and unanswered

        Civil service pays a whole lot less, in most cases than the private sector. We are end loaded in that our pensions and post retirement benefits make up for what we did not earn at the time. The issue today is that salaries, certainly in the suburbs, are at least on par with private sector workers and there should be a trade off and re-negotiation of past “deferred” compensation deals. For example, after 5 years, I believe NYC cop is at 55M while a Bergen Co, township cop is pushing 90M. Guess who does the real heavy lifting?

        The Colonel could expound on this since he was in the $ 89.00 per month Army before it went voluntary and started paying an adequate (barely) salary. Heavily subsidized booze, cigarettes, gasoline, food, clothing and PX goodies by and large went out the window when the troops could compete. Military service pensions should not be cut since after 20 years , the 50% is only on base pay, not allowances. Cut out the subsistence and housing allowance and the salary is back under the poverty line.

        • Oh God…you had to remind me? Ninety bucks a month PLUS $120 housing allowance….$210 bucks per month to support a wife. However, an apartment costs $110 per month back then….all bills paid. Wife worked at $450 per month….we were rolling in dough.

          See answer above to Buck….

      • Just A Citizen says:


        The State and Local Govts have been living on the assumption that they could grow their budgets indefinitely. This is driven by Public Unions who gain power of the vote via their organizing and money donations.

        The first graph of this reference shows all govt spending. Note the growth in State and local. Also notice the “blue” which is Fed transfers to the States and Local. This is spending that should be added to the State and Local sections.

        Farther down you will find graphs of spending on Education and Health Care that also show massive increases.

        Those States with very heavy Democratic Party control and strong Public Employee Unions have been headed for a cliff for some time. The Recession simply brought the reckoning day forward by about ten years.

      • Thank you for I am not using that rhetoric…however, I am using common sense…Anytime a budget that funds pensions over 25%….is not going to make it. I have not read the report yet that BF sent…..but anything over 25% is unsustainable. I am not an expert mind you but I can read financials. Plus….it is exponential. I am saying that when you start a budget and you have to cut…you look at the largest cost first…..( I believe you inferred that once when discussing the National budget and the military budget.) Just because it is pensions, does not give it priority. However,that said……..I would go to the largest cost first and that appears to be Public Pensions and Retirements.

        I do not know the answer but I know numbers and I know what escalating percentages and exponential increases will do.

  30. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    I commented above that cuts were aimed at “future” benefits in Wisconsin and elsewhere. Having just finished the article Gman posted it appears the San Diego and San Jose proposals were also for “current” benefits.

    However, employees were given a chance to increase contributions to keep the existing benefit package.

    As for the size of the problem, from the article:

    San Diego’s payments to the city’s retirement fund soared from $43 million in 1999 to $231.2 million this year, equal to 20 percent of the city’s general fund budget, which pays for day-to-day operations.

    San Jose’s pension payments jumped from $73 million in 2001 to $245 million this year, equal to 27 percent of its general fund budget.

    Please note that the California problem and solutions are different than Wisconsin, which got all the UNION and DNC attention.

    By the way, MEDICAID is probably the biggest budget buster at the STATE level.

    • It IS the biggest that I have found so far….and THAT is exponential as well.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Yes it is, with a CAPITAL “E”.

        States all over the west are CUTTING Medicaid Benefits to bring budgets in line. But all we see in the media is fighting over the Govt Employee Unions and Benefits.

        Added Note on Wisconsin: Those who live by ENVY and “group identity politics” alone will eventually die by ENVY and “group identity politics”.

        The DNC Progressives never thought that dividing us into groups and playing on the have and have not fiddle would eventually turn the public eye to those who, as a group, are living off them directly and doing far better than they. The GOVT EMPLOYEES.

        Hope your day is unfolding well Colonel.

        Great post yesterday on collective bargaining. Well done Sir.

  31. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    Per you: Ok, a few quick points:

    JAC — No, that is not all that was done in Wisconsin. Also, Obama is not my guy and never was. You should know that by now.

    I am unaware of any law passed in Wisconsin that reduced the benefits given to current retirees. If you have something then please share.

    You have stated that you voted for Obama and will do so again. You support his Progressive rhetoric and seem upset only because he has not lived up to it quickly enough. Yet you say he is not your guy?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Wisconsin — Walker did a lot more than simply reduce benefits (see: collective bargaining, stripped).

      Obama — Yes, I voted for Obama and I will vote for him again (as he was preferable to McCain and Romney). I do support his progressive rhetoric, but again, he has failed on many of these counts. It is not that he hasn’t lived up to it quickly enough; it’s that he hasn’t followed through on much of his rhetoric. Now I don’t believe Obama deserves 100% of the blame for this, but you know the saying: ‘The buck stops here’

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Reducing the STATE level control over Union bargaining is NOT an attack on BENEFITS TODAY.

        And for the record Collective Bargaining was NOT stripped. It was only the “benefits” that was removed, not the base salary or other issues.

        Now a related question. WHY should these Unions have STATE level bargaining POWER over their local tax jurisdictions? Should not the local teacher union have to negotiate with the local school district?

      • Buck, I understand the feeling (lesser of two evils) and I agree (he is “probably” that) … but he’s failed on so many levels (you’re correct) … nothing near progressive. I can’t forgive him for not protecting workers with the bailout … but now with the unions … his disappearing acts (twice now) … I can only hope he losses to this other putz (Romney) but he probably won’t. I don’t want him rewarded … and my feeling is the sooner it all falls apart the better (besides, Romney will probably wind up being more progressive than Obama) …

  32. @ Buck…the article from Klein that you posted seemed to reinforce what I was saying (remember I am just a dumb ol’ retired Colonel who knows nothing)……but he was quite correct in that nothing has changed in the NLRB nor NLRA that makes unions at fault, The fault lies equally with the “negotiators” and the inability to properly look at the numbers and quit assumptions that everything was going to just continue to prosper. There is a breaking point. City negotiators did not perform due diligence to the city and union negotiators did not perform due diligence to their workers. Just like our Federal Government, the can was kicked down the road. There were no stop gap provisions or fail safe clauses……

    BF is saying the same thing but he says it in academia language that loses interpretation. So, now, today, the bubble is at its breaking point…ok we got there. People are going to get hurt and the austerity must set in….and it has to start with the biggest expense….if it happens to be Medicaid and Medicare…ok. It it is pensions and retirement systems that are open ended…..ok…..but there has to be a starting point. I do not think that BF (and I am not speaking for him) means that unions are evil and pension holders are evil. He has recognized, as I have, that there is no more money. You cannot run a deficit and since a State cannot just print money like the FED….austerity measures must come into play.

    To stop the bleeding, it seems feasible that you cap the open ends. If that is pensions, then, yes, they suffer. If it is medicare, it suffers. Austerity is no friend to anybody but it is preferable to the alternative. So, from my viewpoint, taking emotion from the equation, and just look at the numbers. Stop exponential costs…cap them and then eliminate them. I see no other way…..but I am just a dumb old retired Colonel who knows nothing…..(except Raptors)

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Hmm…we could always send in the raptors to sort things out. Make use of that fancy rapto-shuttle you had built ahead of its time.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Also I fear raptors are really the only solution out there, as austerity just doesn’t work.

      • Please explain why austerity doesn’t work.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I submit to the Court, the UK, People’s Exhibit A.

          Since austerity measures were adopted:

          –Nearly every component of the private sector has contracted
          –The economy shrank back into a recession
          –No job growth
          –The unemployment rate has risen
          –The situation is likely to worsen as more spending cuts take effect

          • That’s where we are now. Seems like austerity worked in Wisconsin in less than two years.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Hmm…austerity in WI, you say??? Let’s see:

              — less money in the pockets of middle class workers
              –diminished consumer spending
              –one of the worst records for job growth in the country

              Need I go on?

              So let me ask you a question — how has austerity worked?

              • Something worked. He inherited a 3 billion dollar deficit and now has a surplus. Explain that.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Anita, no one is arguing that making drastic spending cuts won’t impact a budget, but that fact alone doesn’t necessarily mean doing so is a good idea long-term. After all, as I mentioned above, austerity in WI has meant reduced consumer spending and reduced job growth.

                Not to mention a few nifty accounting tricks here and there…

              • Buck the Wala says:

                From one article: “By gutting public education to the tune of $2.6 billion and slashing more than $500 million from public healthcare, along with skillfully kicking the can down the road with accounting tricks that pass debt onto future budgets, Walker has given the appearance of a balanced budget. But when using the GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) that Walker promised to use, Wisconsin’s deficit will actually be more than $3 billion at the end of the biennium – a larger deficit than Walker inherited.”

                From another: “Walker is twisting the truth. First of all, every governor balances the budget—it is mandated. But despite the fact that Walker used many of the same accounting tricks of other governors in the past, the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB) still estimated that the state would have a $143 million budget deficit in 2013, when the current biennial budget ends. The Walker administration itself told the federal government it would have a deficit so that it could kick people off of BadgerCare. And although Walker and Republican legislators cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations, they raised taxes on low-wage workers and caused tuition to increase throughout the University of Wisconsin System.”

              • Buck,

                Let’s see: — less money in the pockets of middle class workers –diminished consumer spending –one of the worst records for job growth in the country Need I go on?

                Yes, please go on.

                Let’s here your economic theory that spending improves prosperity.

                I await your explanation. I doubt one will be forth coming.

              • they raised taxes on low-wage workers and caused tuition to increase throughout the University of Wisconsin System.”


                Hooray for austerity!


                Meanwhile, of course, let’s ignore the effect of cutting billions from the school budget.. nothing bad ever happens when you don’t educate kids well enough. I’m sure they’ll be able to compete just as well as students from neighboring states.

                And elsewhere….

              • Mathius,

                Meanwhile, of course, let’s ignore the effect of cutting billions from the school budget.. nothing bad ever happens when you don’t educate kids well enough.

                What crap.
                Educate “enough” … to whose standard? Yours? Then you pay for it.
                Theirs? Then they pay for it.

                Mine – nope and I do not want to pay for it.

                The US is full enough of degree carrying idiots – they can’t get a job now with one, they are in debt to six figures and they don’t know much more than when they started.

                If education is important to you, you will work to get it, but get off my back.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Move along…nothing to see here…

                BF, I’m not going to get into a debate on economic theories with you — I know where you stand; you know where I stand. You’re not going to budge, nor even acknowledge that there is more than one viable theory. So its not worth the effort.

              • Buck
                BF, I'm not going to get into a debate on economic theories with you — I know where you stand; you know where I stand.

                No, I don’t

                You have never offered your economic theory – ever.

                You don’t stand on anything – you seem to make it up off the top of your head.

                The only smart thing is not to debate with me on economic theory – you’ll lose.
                The sad thing, you refuse to learn about economics.

            • It did?

              That’s news to me

          • An utter lie.

            There has been no cut to government spending – it was higher then last year.

            Only the truly insane can call spending more money “austerity”

            • It’s “austerity” because they screw the lower classes to help the upper classes.

              Sure, it’s not your “traditional” definition of austerity, but it’s close enough by Fox News standards.

              • Mathius

                . Sure, it’s not your “traditional” definition of austerity, but it’s close enough by Fox News standards.

                What crap.

                Now there is a traditional definitions vs. your flaky ones.


              • Flag, please try to note the sarcasm with which I wrote that.

                Care to try again?

    • D13,

      Yep, on all points.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    A little more meaningful news for the day:

    Ray Bradbury Dead: ‘Fahrenheit 451’ Author Dies At 91

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    In the SPIRIT of compromise I would like to offer the following with respect to the entire Govt Employee Union issue.

    I will support Collective Bargaining at what ever level they can negotiate.

    But, they will NOT have the power to STRIKE,


    The Unions will be prohibited from participating in Political Action of any kind in any form.

  35. Y’AARGH!

  36. Buck the Wala says:
  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Austerity and Recessions

    How convenient for the Statists and Central Bankers.

    By using the definitions which THEY create there is no way to CUT Govt spending more than a percentage point or two without causing a RECESSION.

    No matter how healthy the overall economy or what the jobless rate looks like.

    BECAUSE Govt spending is PART OF GDP, which is used to determine when a “Recession” occurs.

    Not only do they Stack the deck, then they deal from the bottom.

    So Buck, this should tell you what I think about your claim that Austerity has caused England to slip into Recession.

  38. #1
    Governor Scott Walker’s budget turned a $3.6 billion state
    deficit into a surplus
    For the first time in six years, school tax levies are down.
    Without reforms, homeowners would have paid hundreds of
    dollars more in property taxes this year
    Governor Walker’s budget protects health care coverage for
    seniors and the neediest families in the state
    The Governor’s reforms helped balance the budget while still
    offering employees a generous pension plan.
    The Governor’s reforms improve education in the state,
    particularly in the districts utilizing the tools that are now
    available to them.
    With reforms, Wisconsin’s teacher to student ratio in the
    classroom remains low
    The Governor’s reforms end abusive overtime practices.
    The Governor’s reforms allow school districts and
    municipalities to manage staffing based on merit and
    The Governor’s reforms allow school district officials to
    make budget decisions and set work rules based on what’s
    best for education.

    I could go on

  39. @Buck
    What the heck does it matter what is to blame? The cost of pensions is rising, blame the increasing longevity of people. Blame the rising salaries, percentages of which represent higher pension costs. Blame the increase in employment, increasing the cost of pensions when those people retire. Those are all good things, should we blame them? They are part of the reason for rising costs. Blame does nothing to fix the problem.

    The real estate bubble burst, we should all just pull money out of our butts and bail out the whole industry because its not their fault, right? It does not matter if it is their fault or not, budgets have to change. The economy is hurting, thus revenues are hurting. So, budgets have to be adjusted. A company goes under, thus people lose their jobs. Why should they be punished, they should keep their jobs, right? No, there are not jobs to keep, they are gone. A company has to be restructured, like GM, tons of people were laid off and retirements restructured, etc. Their fault? Doesnt matter, they still get laid off (by the government who bailed them out, no less).

    Prattling on about whose fault things are and fairness is completely irrelevant. I can demonstrate, like BF and others, that pensions are a massive expense and have been for some time, they weigh budgets down. The longer they are active, especially considering the expanding lifespan of people, the more expensive they are. Reality is reality. Something must be done, you cannot just force people to pay more taxes to cover the poor government workers pensions, its not the taxpayers’ fault either! Stuff happens, deal with it. A union can either run a company under or renegotiate and deal with the reality of the economy and the success of the business. Government is different, they can use force to extend unsustainable costs by taxing or deficit spending, but eventually reality will catch up. And what makes the government workers so special? Why do they get extended benefits when others do not? Nothing, they do nothing any better or more worthy than anyone else. If private sector is hurting and has to tighten belts, then government has to as well. That is reality. Deal with it.

  40. Black Flag,

    If education is important to you, you will work to get it, but get off my back.

    Let’s move away from the question of who pays for it. Let’s imagine you’re paying 100% for your own children’s education. (this would include the opportunity cost of you or your wife educating them yourselves with respect to lost income).

    1. Given this, how important do you consider “education” in a formal sense? (that is, not a general ‘going through life’ sense, but a structured ‘lesson’ setup – again whether home schooled, alternative school, or traditional (ie, “normal” public/private schools) – don’t fight me on the definitions, you know what I mean).

    2. As a follow up, what are your general thoughts on home school vs alternative school systems vs public (assume a “good” district) vs private education? (ceterus paribus)

    Not looking for a fight here… just your general ruminations..

    • If I may be so bold, since this topic interests me greatly, I will give you my unsolicited answer as well.

      1) Formality of education varies based on personality. There are those who do better with structure than others, and with varying structures at that. The right fit, however, can be best found by those who know the child best, which is usually the parents. A bit of trial and error may be needed, but changes are most easily made at home, second most easily in the private school market. The existence of options is the greatest boon of keeping education private, as public school tends to be inflexible. I personally do well with some structure and scheduling in education, I am a better student in a class or school than in a self-study environment. My homeschooling helped improve my self-study, but my mother imposed a schedule on my because it worked better. Also, we used a homeschool group to access other people for socialization as well as home teachers with expertise in certain things, which also helped with academic performance overall. My two younger sisters had a far less structured version, and did well also, but that worked better for them than it would have for me.

      2) My observations of public school in recent years have horrified me. In theory, public education could have some advantages over homeschooling, mostly in terms of resources and expert teachers. The structure of classes, however, in public and most private systems involves a lot of peer-only interaction, which is not really good socialization. It also tends to be a less personal approach as schools handle students in bulk, making customization the least possible in public school and the most possible in homeschooling, with private education in the middle somewhere. The potential for expertise, especially in higher education is a good thing tho, so I think the ideal would be some sort of hybrid. Public education as it is, however, I would not want to send any child into that dearth of thought, intent on the creation of drones.

    • Mathius

      Black Flag, If education is important to you, you will work to get it, but get off my back. Let’s move away from the question of who pays for it.

      No, that is the only question.

      Education is an economic good, which benefits the consumer (student).

      Who pays is the student, for that is who benefits.


      • Sweet Jesus, you’re dense. I swear, your skull would put a neutron start to shame.

        Did you bother reading the rest of what I wrote or did you feel like just taking a crack at my sentence then, tired from the exertion of hefting that dense skull of yours, decide to go take a nap?

        All you had to do was read… one… more.. sentence…

        • *neutron star

          Adding, (upon examination of BF’s comically over-sized head) “the thing’s hollow—it goes on forever—and—oh my God—it’s full of stars!”

        • I did – but it was a red herring to the topic of dialogue.

          You will get a response on the other stuff later.

    • Mathius,

      As promised.

      Let’s imagine you’re paying 100% for your own children’s education. (this would include the opportunity cost of you or your wife educating them yourselves with respect to lost income).

      I am paying for my own
      We homeschool and my wife is the primary educator and has no income of her own.

      1. Given this, how important do you consider “education” in a formal sense? (that is, not a general ‘going through life’ sense, but a structured ‘lesson’ setup – again whether home schooled, alternative school, or traditional (ie, “normal” public/private schools) – don’t fight me on the definitions, you know what I mean).

      Very important, which is why we homeschool.
      Teaching important, lifelong lessons is in dangerous hands in a “public” school.

      There, you do not control their agenda, their courseware, their lessons, their teachers, their environment.

      We utilized the “Thomas Jefferson” style with our daughter – and it works beautifully.
      Classics, Not Textbooks
      Mentors, Not Professors
      Inspire, Not Require
      Structure Time, Not Content
      Simplicity, Not Complexity
      Quality, Not Conformity
      You, Not Them

      It is little wonder that our little one (not so little anymore) is off to get her pilot’s license at 16, and before she gets her driver’s license -like her Dad did. And she will be completing her 1st year of college courses next year – on the path to getting her degree by the time she is 18.

      …and she is just a normal kid…

      This all would be impossible if she was public schooled.

      2. As a follow up, what are your general thoughts on home school vs alternative school systems vs public (assume a “good” district) vs private education? (ceterus paribus) Not looking for a fight here… just your general ruminations..

      Frankly, the parents of the child are the best to determine that for the best interests of their own family.

      I chose homeschooling – however I understand that not everyone can or wants.
      I understand the costs and sacrifices, but the benefits -for our family- massively outweighed the loss of income, 2nd car, European vacations, etc.

      I can offer advice and observations about MY experiences with home/private/public schooling, but by no means do I believe I know what is best for you and your family.

      • Teaching important, lifelong lessons is in dangerous hands in a “public” school.

        There, you do not control their agenda, their courseware, their lessons, their teachers, their environment.

        What about socialization? Is it all about control? Do you not fear brainwashing them (as much as you seem to fear they will be brainwashed elsewhere–I’m assuming this)?

        • What about socialization?

          When learning a new skill, do you hang around others who do not know what to do, or do you hang around people with experience?

          Why stuff a bunch of kids together who do not know how to socialize – in hopes by trial and error they figure out
          Put kids with adults who do know how to socialize, and teach them directly.

          Socialization is zero effort.

          Kid is in a percussion band, going for 3 weeks of flying this summer, in a ski club, swim club. If anything, she into too many things.

          Is it all about control?

          Yep, and keeping her as far away from it as possible.

          Public school kids are subjected to some of the best propaganda masters in history whose purpose is to build unthinking robots like Buck. They hit the kids when the kids have no intellectual firepower.

          When my kid hits the world, she’s learned to build up her propaganda immune system – a critical thinker.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            “unthinking robots like Buck” – careful there BF, it’s comments like that that get you the fog horn.

            Serious question though – I understand and respect your decision to homeschool and raise your daughter this way. But what about your own education: Were you homeschooled? Did you go to private/public school? I ask because so many people who do homeschool criticize public education as propaganda, when they themselves clearly emerged successful and with their own thoughts in tact.

            • And then one has to define successful, Buck. I know you’re being gracious and speaking to wealth and education, but what if BF’s daughter decides she wants to be Maureen Dowd-like? I’m pretty Dowd comes from a very conservative family. It happens … and what if it does? Does BF shun her?

            • Buck

              But what about your own education: Were you homeschooled? Did you go to private/public school? I ask because so many people who do homeschool criticize public education as propaganda, when they themselves clearly emerged successful and with their own thoughts in tact.

              In spite of the public school system I did fine.

              I was essentially homeschooled – school taught me nothing but bad lessons. My interests and ability was so far in advance of my class, I self-taught myself almost everything.

              However, the measure – like generalizations – fail at individuals. You will find examples of those that did ok.

              But across broad society, public school fails. The reason: government monopoly.

              You cannot teach others without a license from government. Government prevents competition in education. Like all monopolies the product drops in quality as the price rises over time.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                In spite of the public school system….or because of it?

                Couldn’t it be that, because of your experiences in public school, because of your teachers and professors, you began to question what you were being taught? You began to take a closer look at matters, read up on issues, on your own? Perhaps had you been exposed to only your parents’ view, you would not have begun to questions things and self-teach.

              • Buck,
                No, the term is correct “in spite of”… when you act in opposite of the designs of a system, you “spite” it.
                When you act in alignment of the designs of a system, it is “..because of it”.

                It is an err to believe that an end which is opposite of the goal of a system happened because the system worked because it failed. That sentence really does not make any more sense then yours.

                So, no.
                ..IN SPITE OF..

                Couldn’t it be that, because of your experiences in public school, because of your teachers and professors, you began to question what you were being taught?

                The questions came first, the confirmation of my observations came from public school.

                Perhaps had you been exposed to only your parents’ view, you would not have begun to questions things and self-teach.

                No, my parents put me in school, and they believed in the school system. Both of them were firm Statists – my iconoclast attitude was foreign to them.

                I came to my own mind because I questioned the rote education I was given.
                When no reasoned answers explained things, I looked them up, and found out why – the “authorities” were lying. That lead to more questions.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                “I came to my own mind because I questioned the rote education I was given.”

                That’s sort of the point of my question. Had you not been exposed to this ‘rote education’, perhaps you never would have come to your own mind.

              • Buck, Buck, Buck.

                I am no measure of public schooling.
                I was questioning curious iconoclast by the time I could talk. Ask my mom.

                With or without school, I would be who I am.

                I cannot say that for anyone else.

              • Buck,

                But again my point.

                It is a fair argument that public schools, formed where education is suffering, creates higher education.

                The web is full of the ‘tests’ given to 5th graders -say- 50 years ago. They’d stump most college kids.

                That’s the problem.

                It is not saying education is “bad”
                It is not saying “public” education of the masses is bad.

                It is saying that the defects of monopolies always infect the systems of that monopoly
                -whether it is a monopoly on violence
                -on cars
                -on footwear
                -on money
                on education.

                In all cases, the quality of the product decreases over time as the price increases over time.
                This is a defect of all monopolies

              • Buck, what you are describing is a bad situation motivating good. Now for some, without a severe failure or without someone saying you were a failure, you would not have tried so hard to recover or prove them wrong. Some would even say that they would not have come so far had they been born into priviledge, that it was the struggle of poverty that strengthened them. That is, as BF said, true in individual cases, but not in most. If you were an advocate of such thinking, you would say it would be best for everyone to start life in poverty with bad parents and worse education so that they could “gain strength”. Your logic would be that boosting self-esteem was bad for people, that providing for them was evil, that loving parents were a disadvantage. Its a ridiculous statement. Struggle is important, but purposely supporting or creating struggle, especially for children, is counter productive. Challenges are good, sufferring is not. If he is challenging his children and facilitating them to grow their minds as best they can and question everything, even himself, that is ideal, I know of no one in history that has complained about such an upbringing, or found that it was a disadvantage to them. Reaching for some farthing of support for public schools by claiming the idiocy of the teaching creating more critical thinking is just silly.

          • Critical thinker completely brainwashed by what YOU believe … I don’t see the difference you fear (from what you’re doing at home) … you don’t want her to socialize with lesser minds or you fear she might form her own opinions?

            I’m rooting for her …

            • Charlie,
              You do not understand freedom, let alone someone who has a free mind.

              You are trapped in the hell of your own mindset – and your opinions hold no merit to me.

              • Nor do yours hold anything for me, BF. I just feel terrible for your daughter having to go through life with a brainwashing fanatic. All your statements are declarations (as if from above). You give no ear to anything but your own thoughts. Aside from megolomania (which I suspect has your picture next to it in the dictionary), you push it on others (apparently ram it down your daughter’s throat). That’s sad.

              • Charlie,

                You are a man who denies reason.

                What makes you sad or happy or your thoughts are a complete mess without any measure to make sense of it.

                Frankly, I don’t give a damn about what you think.

  41. @Buck
    Ok, so lets say that I am willing to go down the rabbit hole that there is no possibility of “real” capitalism or “real” socialism because nether have happened before. What is the solution? What justification for expansion of socialism of any sort is there? What can be demonstrated as an advantage in progressivism over the long term? What evidence is there that progressivism improves the lives of the middle and lower classes or reduces costs on an economy or promotes economic growth of any sort? I do not need an example of pure socialism, just an example of a society which improved economically by adopting more socialism and restricting the free market. I know there are cases where socialism was better than, say, a dictatorship, but I am talking about countries that were free and became more progressive instead. Can you show significant improvement in their economic growth and any reduction in income gap?

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Jon, I don’t have time to dig up historical examples, bar graphs, pie charts, excel spreadsheets, or anything of the like. But take a look at the US for an example – look at the growing middle class post WWII. Look at the effect of Reagan’s and Dubya’s policies. Look at the effect of Clinton’s.

      • Buck,

        But take a look at the US for an example – look at the growing middle class post WWII. Look at the effect of Reagan’s and Dubya’s policies. Look at the effect of Clinton’s.

        Post-WW2 was the largest contraction of government and government spending in US history-creating one of the greatest economic booms in US history.

        And look at the recent policies – largest expansion of government spending in peacetime history – and economic disaster.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          US spending decreased from post WWII? Really?

          Oh wait, I see what you’re doing — you are selectively looking at ONLY the immediate few years after 1945 when we weren’t fighting a war which resulted in immediate decreased spending. Is that the case? Because I’m pretty positive that spending increased from lets say 1947 on.

          • Buck,

            And as usual you’d be wrong

            Year: 1945
            Receipts: $45,159,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $543,714,000,000
            Outlays: $92,712,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $1,116,252,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: 1.54

            Year: 1946
            Receipts: $39,296,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $436,579,000,000
            Outlays: $55,232,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $613,628,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: -40.43

            Year: 1947
            Receipts: $38,514,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $374,356,000,000
            Outlays: $34,496,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $335,301,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: -37.54

            Year: 1948
            Receipts: $41,560,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $373,624,000,000
            Outlays: $29,764,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $267,578,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: -13.72

            Year: 1949
            Receipts: $39,415,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $359,071,000,000
            Outlays: $38,835,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $353,787,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: 30.48

            Year: 1950
            Receipts: $39,443,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $354,593,000,000
            Outlays: $42,562,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $382,632,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: 9.60

            Year: 1951
            Receipts: $51,616,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $430,477,000,000
            Outlays: $45,514,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $379,587,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: 6.94

            Year: 1952
            Receipts: $66,167,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $541,246,000,000
            Outlays: $67,686,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $553,671,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: 48.71

            Year: 1953
            Receipts: $69,608,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $565,217,000,000
            Outlays: $76,101,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $617,940,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: 12.43

            Year: 1954
            Receipts: $69,701,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $561,790,000,000
            Outlays: $70,855,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $571,091,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: -6.89

            Year: 1955
            Receipts: $65,451,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $529,499,000,000
            Outlays: $68,444,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $553,712,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: -3.40

            Year: 1956
            Receipts: $74,587,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $594,458,000,000
            Outlays: $70,640,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $563,001,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: 3.21

            Year: 1957
            Receipts: $79,990,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $616,723,000,000
            Outlays: $76,578,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $590,416,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: 8.41

            Year: 1958
            Receipts: $79,636,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $597,270,000,000
            Outlays: $82,405,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $618,038,000,000

            % Change in Spending From Previous Year: 7.61

            Year: 1959
            Receipts: $79,249,000,000
            Receipts (Inflation Adjusted): $590,405,000,000
            Outlays: $92,098,000,000
            Outlays (Inflation Adjusted): $686,130,000,000

            As you can see, until 1949/50 – the Korean war – spending fell.

            With surges in the economy, the 1950’s are often recognized as the decade that eliminated poverty for the great majority of Americans. By 1955, the country had pulled out of the previous year’s recession and gross national product (GNP) was growing at a rate of 7.6 percent. The boom was so great that the budget for 1956 predicted a surplus of 4.1 million.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              Hmmm…to be fair, I’ll have to take a closer look at the numbers throughout this period. Based on charts I have come across it shows a slow but steady rise in spending (resulting in periods of growth and prosperity). It is the periods of immense spending increases with cuts in revenue (under Reagan and Dubya) that have resulted in recession.

              • And the recession under Carter? What caused that? How about the immense spending with little revenue increase under Obama, is that a good idea?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                As I’ve continued to look into this, I’m willing to agree with you on your post below — there are way too many variables at work here to say its all about spending. But I maintain that simply making huge cuts to spending — especially having those cuts fall squarely on the poor, lower and middle classes — is not a good idea.

                But immense increased spending under Obama? Overall growth in spending has been the slowest it has been under any other President over the last 40 years. See:

              • Don’t bother making that point, Buck.. they’ll never listen to it because it goes against what they’ve already decided to believe.

              • Is that with or without the spending that occurred on his watch that he pinned on Bush?

              • Debt is misleading. Look at deficits which DRIVE the debt. WHY is the debt expanding?

                What’s DRIVING the expansion in debt?
                Wars (Bush)
                Bush Tax Cuts (Bush, though to be fair, continued under Obama)
                Economic downturn (Bush, arguably Clinton/Reagan)
                Economic recovery measures (Bush/Obama)
                TARP/Fannie/Freddie (Bush)
                And a tiny bit of other (Obama)

              • Buck the Wala says:


                As Mathius points out, you are looking at debt.

                But, on the issue of spending, even if we attribute the portion of the stimulus passed by Dubya, Obama still has the lowest growth in spending for decades. Yet all you hear about is how he somehow presided over the most massive spending increases in all of history. But don’t let facts get in your way!

              • Baseline budgeting
                Obamacare pushed forward until after the next election
                Fuzzy Math

                Someone needs to explain to me the difference between debt and spending. Seems to me the debt goes higher as a result of higher spending. At least that’s how it works in my budget.

                Outta here for a while…..

              • Someone needs to explain to me the difference between debt and spending. Seems to me the debt goes higher as a result of higher spending.
                Yes, Anita, more spending leads to more debt.

                But think of it this way. You earn a certain amount of money every week.
                One day, your husband goes out and buys a shiny new car. (wars spending etc)
                So, out of your paycheck goes the car payment.
                But you can’t afford this, so it starts adding to your debt.
                Then, he cuts his work hours and starts bringing in less money (Bush tax cuts).
                So the shortfall becomes even larger and the debt piles up faster.

                (post election) you take over finances for your family.
                But you can’t just stop paying for the car (wars) – your predecessor signed up for it and you’re stuck until you can get rid of it. So you keep making the payments and going deeper into debt.
                And you don’t force your husband to increase his work hours (end tax cuts). You try, but he and his friends won’t let you.
                So your shortfall is big.
                And, unfortunately, just before you took over, your own company has cutbacks (which are due to his mismanagement) and starts paying you less (ie, recession, therefore even less tax revenue). And now your shortfall is even bigger.
                So the debt starts piling up even faster and faster.
                You make some cut backs where you can, and the shortfall/deficit is smaller, but not substantially so.
                And the debt continues piling up.

                So a few years go by, you’re trying to sell the car (end the wars). You’re trying to force your husband back to work (end the bush tax cuts / increase revenue). You’re investing in your company, trying to stimulate an expansion to increase your own income (stimulus to end the recession / increase revenue).

                But now your husband walks up to you and yells at you for all the debt you’ve racked up while you were in charge. “What?” you say. “Me!?” you say. “Me? I didn’t buy that car. I didn’t cut my hours. I didn’t crash the company into a brick wall. You did that. I’m just dealing with your mess.” And then, rather than talk about that, he just goes off and keeps yelling about how much the debt has increased on your watch.

                Does that make sense? I could try to write this clearer, but I suspect you were actually being facetious and I don’t want to spend any more time on it.

              • Mathius,

                Yeah, but that is not what happened.

                Not only are you paying for the car, while reducing your hours worked – but YOU started to spend more too!

                Sorry, no, Obama is as stupid as Bush and the rest of them.

              • Buck, just because the stimulus was first proposed by Bush does not mean you can absolve Obama of all involvement, he signed and fiercely supported it, even claimed it was his idea. So, no, that is Obama’s spending. It might have been Bush’s pending if he had done it in time, and then it would be one more thing I hate about Bush, and yet another proof that he was just a progressive like most of the other goons in Washington.

                Secondly, growth in spending is irrelevant. SPENDING is the issue. Growth in spending can only be justified by equivalent growth in revenue and/or GDP. So even by your chart, Bush does a HUGE expansion, and then Obama spends even more, just not as much more than the previous administration. It still shows his administration is spending too much. If gas jumps to $5 per gallon under one administration, and the next one it only climbs to $5.30, does that make it less expensive?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Yes, Obama did spend more, but it was the slowest growth in spending in decades (even taking into account the stimulus — which goes to Mathius’ point of “You’re investing in your company, trying to stimulate an expansion to increase your own income”).

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Jon, you are correct in the sense that yes, under Obama, spending did still increase. But the debate is over whether or not Obama presided over the largest spending increases in history. He did not. He has actually lowered the growth in spending. Will this alone solve the problem? Of course not. But who is claiming it will?

              • And boost his income he did, that and the income of his cronies. He didnt really do squat for his “company” tho, the impact on the economy as a whole was negligible. And This debate is not over the largest spending increase, it is over the largest debt increase. Sure, income is down, but in real life, that means you have to spend less, not more. No one is saying slowing growth in spending will solve anything. Everyone is saying cutting spending severely will solve the problem. Obama is unwilling to do this. Further, he has expanded liabilities enormously, its not just the now, its the future with things like the health care bill, etc. A lot of people look at Bush’s unfunded liabilities but only Obamas actual dollars spent. Its really easy to screw around with numbers and make something look better, or worse, than it actually is. These charts I see floating around are complete hogwash, every one of them.

        • And look at the recent policies – largest expansion of government spending in peacetime history – and economic disaster.

          Disaster for the working man … goddamn BOOM for the 1% …

      • Buck, please………..let us look at Clinton……he did exactly the same thing that Walker did…..but he picked on the military instead of education, I know for I was there. He hurt the military more than Carter did… the name of austerity, mind you. As you said, it is easy to have a surplus when you do draconian cuts. But let me remind you, that Clinton did not stay with in his budget either year he was in office and he never balanced the budget. creating s surplus is NOT balancing a budget. Every politician knows how to do creative accounting….just as you do when you do your estate planning. You massage and manipulate numbers to fit whatever parameters are available to you.

        As to the Texas article you asked me to defend…… is where it belongs……in the outhouse. I have seen many articles like this….so when you would like to compare Joisy or New York in any category……you pick it. Liberals dislike Texas and that is just fine with us…we are independent and we like it that way. We are prosperous and we like it that way. As the article said, Texas would benefit from Obamacare more than anyother state……but we are smarter than that….and are against it for a better reason……it is a disaster and will break any state that does it. Deficit spending is a catastrophic.

        But I will do all the research and compare ALL the factors to Clinton……and then I will compare Texas to Joisey…..

      • Buck, there were a lot of factors in the period you picked. Productivity geared and motivated population, almost no overseas competition on the global market since no nation of consequence had escaped devastation of the war, etc. I will discount that period as proof of anything if you will, there are arguments of the beginnings of the New Deal kicking in and high taxes on the upper class for part of that period, there are also arguments for rapidly dropping federal spending AND stable currency due to a lack of deficit spending, combined with a period of opening up investments to a wider range of people and more exposure of government corruption in its dealings with business (as compared to the pre-union period).

        So what else you got? The increase of freedom and trade has, in almost all cases under all governments had an advantage. The renaissance, the industrial revolution, etc. In some cases, such as the silicon revolution, the primary growth was fueled by the lack of regulation in that specific industry, because it was too new and the government had not yet figured out how to get its paws on it. Even with the supposedly rampant presence of “hackers” it was a huge boom and even security was better than it is now that there are a bunch of regulations.

    • What justification for expansion of socialism of any sort is there?

      I’ll take a stab at this one, Jon. People working together for a common good.

      What justification for expansion of capitalism of any sort is there?

      • Charlie

        People working together for a common good

        Why would they do that, Charlie?

        I mean, would you do something to cause suffering to your wife because it benefits your neighbor?

      • Charlie, you are referring to the theoretical reasons for socialism, which of course all sound good. In the same vein I would respond that capitalism involves all people working within mutually agreed upon arrangements for whatever purposes they wish, with complete freedom, permitting maximum prosperity and innovation, and no violation of anyone’s rights. You would, of course, laugh at this view of capitalism as absurd because you do not see it doing this in real life. By the same thinking, I do not see socialism actually functioning as people working together for the good of all. The question I asked Buck was, what evidence in real life indicates an advantage in expanding socialism or socialist-type policies? I can present evidence in history that prosperity increased as freedom of trade increased and government interference was decreased. What can you present in socialisms history that shows socialist policies to have created a societal or economic advantage over capitalism?

  42. For Matt and lovers of fine soda (pop) all over.

  43. Ha! This is a fun conversation to watch. Simply, Wisconsin chose the path of fiscal responsibility yesterday. Fortunately for us, there are enough people that now understand the bane that is public unions. It is an unsustainable system, period.

    Are all our problems fixed? Not by a long shot, but as a state, we’ve chosen to deal with the issues now, rather than become IL or CA.

    I have faith that Buck and Matt really are smarter than they are portraying in their posts here, as far as understanding this simple concept. You two really have the talking points down pat though.

    • We copy/paste them straight from the Liberals Newsletter.

    • As far as someone stating our public schools have taken a hit through this? Are you kidding? Our public schools are much better off due to their ability to restructure benefit packages alone. We’ve got a lot of work to do to really improve public education, but removing (some of) the ball and chain of the unions is a first step. I think even a lot of public school teachers would agree with this.

      As far as the business climate? We have gained jobs and I hope Walker uses this second victory to now implement “Right to Work” to further entice businesses to come to our state.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        “We have gained jobs”…yet according to the Liberals Newsletter which Mathius and I subscribe to, WI is not seeing businesses move to the state en masse and is actually suffering from a poorer business climate in terms of job growth.

        • I could be wrong, but isn’t WI dead last in the nation in terms of job growth?

          I think he promised something like 250k jobs.. at his present rate, that might take a looong time…

          • Buck the Wala says:

            I remember reading it was 50 out of 50 (or 51 out of 51 if you include DC) but can’t seem to find that statistic right now.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Kind of reminiscent of Romney’s claims of how his business experience makes him qualified to run for President and create jobs…yet as Governor, MA was 47 out of 50…go figure.

    • That’s what it sounds like.

    • And you’ll still vote for Obama (WI) … why he hid like the spineless POL he is.

      What you did was take a whack at your fellow middle-class and poor bretheren … all for the good of who, exactly? You made it tougher for teachers and firemen, etc., to make a living and retire. Great … you should be proud of yourselves … hopefully they’ll remember and keep you on the back of the soup kitchen lines some day …

      • HA! It’s the teachers and firemen who gave up 35million to fight the people who are going to pay them. They could make a better living by keeping the 35 mil in their pocket.

        (but this is just anecdotal..not common sense..anecdotal)

        • The people don’t have a nickel to their names … it was outside money fighting outside money … bu that’s just a fact … not anecdotal, my love.

  44. For Buck: The Brookings Institution just looked at how well cities had emerged from the recession. The rankings are based largely on job creating and housing.

    Five of the top 10 are in Texas, with the state capital Austin leading the list. CBS News senior business correspondent Anthony Mason reports.

    Every time the Austin, Texas company “Bazaarvoice” adds a new employee they bang a gong.

    The gong rang 240 times last year at Bazaarvoice. The 5-year-old company hosts and analyzes website customer feedback for clients like Best Buy and Macy’s.

    Kelly Grey was the latest hire this week, after moving to Austin from Connecticut with her husband and two kids.

    “The economy is doing better here,” Grey said. It took Grey just a month to find a job as a client manager.

    According to a recent survey, Austin weathered the recession better than any other place in the country, and now leads the nation in job growth.

    Welcome to Jobstown, USA

    Projects like Samsung’s $3 billion expansion of its Austin plant have added hundreds of jobs. Austin’s unemployment rate (7.1 percent) is more than two full points below the rest of the country.

    Bazaarvoice CEO Brett Hurt thinks Austin’s doing something different.

    “There’s an amazing creative energy here,” said Hurt.

    Thousands of talented graduates pour out of the University of Texas every year. The state has no income tax, and Austin has low taxes and house prices and a rich cultural scene.

    Dave Porter’s job at the Chamber of Commerce is to entice companies from more expensive states like California.

    “We are very aggressively recruiting,” he said. California has a “bulls eye right on it.”

    California-based Sun Power is not leaving the state, but the solar company is opening an operations center in Austin after the city offered up to $900,000 in hiring incentives. Sun Power plans 450 hires.

    About 80 percent of jobs created in Austin come from local companies. At the Austin Technology Incubatorat the University of Texas, Isaac Barchas gives very young companies office space and helps them find funding.

    For Austin, nurturing new companies is paying off in jobs.

    “It’s really like taking shots on goal,” Barchas said. “You want to have as many shots as you can, because you never know which ones going to put the ball in the back of the net.

    “When you score the benefit is huge,” Mason said.

    “When you score the benefit can be another Dell or another Google or another Intel.”

    Austin’s entrepreneurs say there’s no secret to their success. It’s just an entire community committed to job creation.

  45. For Buck: Whether by providence or policy, Texas is a job-generating wonder. From 2001 to 2010, Texas had annual employment growth of 1.15%, the third best in the country. What’s most remarkable about that number is that it came while the population was growing 1.89% every year. And the job growth was diverse. From 1998 to 2008, Texas spun out tens of thousands of jobs in business services, oil and gas production, transportation and logistics, heavy construction services and financial services. So while its unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high, at 8%, it is now employing fully 8% of the country’s workers.

  46. For Buck:

    One policy Perry can claim credit for is tort reform. In 2003, he championed a bill imposing a $250,000 cap on punitive damages. Dallas Fed chief Peter Fisher has called tort reform “one of the most important things” fueling Texas’ job growth. “The reason [companies like John Deere] are locating their new production” in Texas, Fisher told CNBC in early June, “is largely driven by that issue of tort reform.” Supporters of unlimited punitive damages say they are necessary to prevent companies from pricing human cost into harmful but highly profitable products. But AT&T, among others, has said that business is better in Texas thanks to its tort reform: only 2% of its litigation costs are in Texas, compared with 40% in California or Ohio, Fisher says.

  47. Ok, Walla Man, this is a start. Now compare your state.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      My state is in shambles…after all, we have Christie as governor…need I say more?

      But remind me never to say anything even remotely derogatory about Texas again. Seems I unleashed a beast…

  48. Jon, the answer to Jersey’s problems are simple. Look at this list:

    Richard Codey January 12, 2002 January 15, 2002 Democratic 1⁄5
    [note 39]
    52 Jim McGreevey January 15, 2002 November 15, 2004 Democratic 1⁄2
    [note 40]
    53 Richard Codey November 15, 2004 January 17, 2006 Democratic 1⁄2
    [note 34]
    [note 37]
    54 Jon Corzine January 17, 2006 January 19, 2010 Democratic 1
    [note 41]
    55 Chris Christie January 19, 2010 incumbent Republican

    Yes, the Democrats left it that way!

  49. @ Charlie, Your comment “The people don’t have a nickel to their names … it was outside money fighting outside money … bu that’s just a fact … not anecdotal, my love.

    This is such bullshit, your credibility is getting smashed this week, and your swinging the sledge hammer.

  50. Gman, the day I worry about you using the word credibility is the day I cut them off with a butterknife.

    All outside money …

    But keeping backing BF … it makes it easier for us to laugh.

  51. From the files of you gotta be kidding…….

    The Obama administration on Wednesday acknowledged a wide-ranging definition of “green jobs” that includes bus driver, bicycle-shop clerk and other unexpected lines of employment, which the chairman of the GOP-led House oversight committee said is being done for “clearly political purposes.”Issa suggested the administration is reclassifying such jobs to prove that billions of taxpayer dollars, through the federal stimulus program, have created green, or environmentally-focused jobs – a major initiative for President Obama.

    Does someone who sweeps the floor at a company that makes solar panels — is that a green job?” Issa asked.

    “Yes,” replied Galvin, who also acknowledged that a bike-repair shop clerk, a hybrid-bus driver, any school bus driver and “the guy who puts gas in a school bus” are all defined as green jobs.

    He also acknowledged that an oil lobbyist, if his work is related to environmental issues, would also have a green job.

    • Obama is a waste of human flesh. He is a true compulsive liar! He even lied in his own auto-biography for Pete’s sake, can it gat any worse than that. I often wonder if people that support him are those who will be known as the “Zombie Apocolypse” . 😆

      • Obama is a waste of human flesh. He is a true compulsive liar! He even lied in his own auto-biography

        I don’t think he’s a waste of human flesh … as to lying, what Pol doesn’t lie? As to lying in an autobiograpy … duh … they’re supposed to be self-serving masterpieces of bullshit. The key clue is “auto …”

        Yet, he’ll win again in November … so get used to him.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Interesting how the concept of Eugenics has changed from eliminating the “undersirable” PORTIONS of humanity to simply eliminating humanity itself.

  52. ROTFL!

    Evolution’s Sweet Tooth
    Published: June 5, 2012

    OF all the indignant responses to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to ban the sale of giant servings of soft drinks in New York City, libertarian objections seem the most worthy of serious attention. People have certain rights, this argument goes, including the right to drink lots of soda, to eat junk food, to gain weight and to avoid exercise. If Mr. Bloomberg can ban the sale of sugar-laden soda of more than 16 ounces, will he next ban triple scoops of ice cream and large portions of French fries and limit sales of Big Macs to one per order? Why not ban obesity itself?

    The obesity epidemic has many dimensions, but at heart it’s a biological problem. An evolutionary perspective helps explain why two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese, and what to do about it. Lessons from evolutionary biology support the mayor’s plan: when it comes to limiting sugar in our food, some kinds of coercive action are not only necessary but also consistent with how we used to live.

    Obesity’s fundamental cause is long-term energy imbalance — ingesting more calories than you spend over weeks, months and years. Of the many contributors to energy imbalance today, plentiful sugar may be the worst.

    Since sugar is a basic form of energy in food, a sweet tooth was adaptive in ancient times, when food was limited. However, excessive sugar in the bloodstream is toxic, so our bodies also evolved to rapidly convert digested sugar in the bloodstream into fat. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors needed plenty of fat — more than other primates — to be active during periods of food scarcity and still pay for large, expensive brains and costly reproductive strategies (hunter-gatherer mothers could pump out babies twice as fast as their chimpanzee cousins).

    Simply put, humans evolved to crave sugar, store it and then use it. For millions of years, our cravings and digestive systems were exquisitely balanced because sugar was rare. Apart from honey, most of the foods our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate were no sweeter than a carrot. The invention of farming made starchy foods more abundant, but it wasn’t until very recently that technology made pure sugar bountiful.

    The food industry has made a fortune because we retain Stone Age bodies that crave sugar but live in a Space Age world in which sugar is cheap and plentiful. Sip by sip and nibble by nibble, more of us gain weight because we can’t control normal, deeply rooted urges for a valuable, tasty and once limited resource.

    What should we do? One option is to do nothing, while hoping that scientists find better cures for obesity-related diseases like heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. I’m not holding my breath for such cures, and the costs of inaction, already staggering, would continue to mushroom.

    A more popular option is to enhance public education to help us make better decisions about what to eat and how to be active. This is crucial but has so far yielded only modest improvements.

    The final option is to collectively restore our diets to a more natural state through regulations. Until recently, all humans had no choice but to eat a healthy diet with modest portions of food that were low in sugar, saturated fat and salt, but high in fiber. They also had no choice but to walk and sometimes run an average of 5 to 10 miles a day. Mr. Bloomberg’s paternalistic plan is not an aberrant form of coercion but a very small step toward restoring a natural part of our environment.

    Though his big-soda ban would apply to all New Yorkers, I think we should focus paternalistic laws on children. Youngsters can’t make rational, informed decisions about their bodies, and our society agrees that parents don’t have the right to make disastrous decisions on their behalf. Accordingly, we require parents to enroll their children in school, have them immunized and make them wear seat belts. We require physical education in school, and we don’t let children buy alcohol or cigarettes. If these are acceptable forms of coercion, how is restricting unhealthy doses of sugary drinks that slowly contribute to disease any different?

    Along these lines, we should ban all unhealthy food in school — soda, pizza, French fries — and insist that schools provide adequate daily physical education, which many fail to do.

    Adults need help, too, and we should do more to regulate companies that exploit our deeply rooted appetites for sugar and other unhealthy foods. The mayor was right to ban trans fats, but we should also make the food industry honest about portion sizes. Like cigarettes, mass-marketed junk food should come with prominent health warning labels. It should be illegal to advertise highly fattening food as “fat free.” People have the right to be unhealthy, but we should make that choice more onerous and expensive by imposing taxes on soda and junk food.

    We humans did not evolve to eat healthily and go to the gym; until recently, we didn’t have to make such choices. But we did evolve to cooperate to help one another survive and thrive. Circumstances have changed, but we still need one another’s help as much as we ever did. For this reason, we need government on our side, not on the side of those who wish to make money by stoking our cravings and profiting from them. We have evolved to need coercion.

  53. Interesting … nothing like liberty … Walker had 7 X’s of OUTSIDE MONEY (GMAN) …


    • From what I’ve read-this 7 to 1 meme is false-they left out all the millions that the unions spent to try and defeat Walker. As far as corporations-they seem to be just as likely to support a democrat as a republican. And I really never heard any democrat worried about outside money or interference-as long as the outside help came from the Unions. Besides all that outside money the republicans raised -guess what- the democrats had the same ability-I guess a lot of democrats didn’t want to waste their money on this one. Or maybe the democrats message is losing it’s appeal when reality of the consequences of their policies are staring people in the face.

      I’d say the biggest mistake the unions ever made-was making Walker a big deal-the very well publicized fight-pointed out the truth of just how Unions work.

      • Right, it’s left wing propaganda … because the right doesn’t do that.

        The point was money owns the government … money born of capitalism …

        • Just A Citizen says:


          The usual contradiction of concepts in an argument.

          IF money owns govt, then it does not matter where money is born.

          • Actually, JAC, you’re wrong (as usual). Capitalism facilitates the money to be concentrated in the hands of the few … they then buy/corrupt a government for their purposes; it is an absolute guarantee of the capitalist system (which leads to third world status). Al Capone may have been a thug, but he wasn’t a fool. “Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class.”

            Bada-boom, bada-bing.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It has been reported that the Dem Lt. Govt spent twice as much as the Rep incumbent.

        And he LOST. So why is money only an issue with Walker himself?

        Lets remember back to Fiorina and Whitman races in California two years ago. Remember the “oh my god they are buying the election” meme? They LOST.

        So what does this all mean? Dem WHINING is BULL SHIT.

        Why you ask? Because it is based on a “premise” that must be true to support the whining. That is that people, the voters, are completely susceptible to advertising purchased by money. That they are totally ignorant and malleable.

        Yet they push for DEMOCRACY.

        They want the MOB who is so stupid they can’t make informed decisions to control the govt.

        This is the Dem argument in a nut shell.

        Now one could say this is all true. Because wouldn’t the Dem party be the most likely to benefit from such a devious scheme?

        Ahhhhh……….. I may have to rethink my comment. 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        If money was considered the equivalent of “argument” then given the amount of effort required to get through to most people, I would say we need MORE MONEY.

        A 7:1 advantage is just NOT nearly enough. 😉

  54. Seems to me Minnesota needs a good “Stand Your Ground” law and a very easy concealed carry permit law. That would solve this problem real quick !

  55. Still have a smile on my face and am really enjoying the spin – on SUFA, locally and nationally. This clip really had me shaking my head though.

    • Maddow might be right here. When the Dems, through the Unions, can no longer force public employees to pay dues to fund their coffers, it may be a tough time for them in the future. But it’s interesting how no one on the left ever seems to have a problem with this whole forced dues thing.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I watched Maddow’s show last night. Almost the whole damn thing. It required bourbon but I did get through it.

        The entire show was a “rationalization” of this theme. The R’s are buying govt, Democracy is under threat, the R’s are trying to undo Dem money and suppress minority voting (voter ID). She even had Pelosi on to “support” all these claims.

        If I had only known that contributing to an elephant would make them all go apoplectic I would have given more years ago. Now, I need to go find my check book.

  56. @BF … Actually, no putz. My daughter is a liberal Republican (RHINO, I guess it’s called). One son is the same, the other a liberal but not a socialist. Like Matthius, he wants to be a rich hedge fund manager, but I suspect his MBA (from Baruch) won’t get him there.

    No, BF, my kids were brought up in public schools, two went to Albany (because it was what they could afford) and they are all fine and dandy, each with their own personalities. They were all liberal like me until they reached the twenties and formed their own opinions (which I hope changes from year to year). While i have no problem with home schooling, I can’t imagine having a dictator doing it for me. You sir, are chaining your daughter’s mind and that is as criminal as it gets.

    • LOW BLOW Charlie. You have no idea of BF’s relationship with his daughter, nor how his daughter accepts being home schooled. That family is doing something right if Flagette will have a college diploma 4 years early. HOMESCHOOL ROCKS!

      • Anita,

        You know what irks me.

        Most every kid could do that.

        Here is the weird thing – she will not get a High School diploma – we aren’t taking a public school curriculum so no High School Diploma saying you took the curriculum.

        But, she will get a degree instead.

        Ask your kid – what do you want more, and HS diploma or a college degree. I’d bet it would be the latter.

        Yet we wast our kids time getting the former first.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          What is truly sad is that even a college Degree is needed to “validate” ones knowledge to those who don’t know better.

        • Most every kid could do that. No. They can’t.

          Most every adult is dumb.

          And most every kid is even dumbER.

          Smart kids are the exception. High achievement is the attainable only by the select few. The masses – “most every kid” – is not capable of this.

          • No. They can’t.

            Yes, they can

            There is nothing essentially “special” about Flagette – she is a “normal” kid – gifted in some areas and not so much in others.

            So she plays to her strength and mitigates her deficiencies.

            But what she is not – she is not burdened by the whole much of a lot of crap that school system places on her education. She is not tied to a desk doing a subject she has no interest in.

            Instead, she works on what interests her – which I know in your experience, really is not “working” but fun. Her skills in that area go exponential, and she willing puts the necessary time to become proficient.

            Then, something else interests her, and repeat.

            Eventually, since the world is loosely intertwined over all subject matters – she crosses all essential bridges – but when she does, it is with gusto, enthusiasm and natural learning at its peak.

            Because she need to get her math up so to go flying – she did 3-grade equivalents in Math in about 4 months. A walk in the park.

            But entangle a kid in the typical public school – with their drudgery, it is no surprise such a thing appears impossible for you.

            Kids going into Grade 1/2/3 are always full of eager, spit and fire.
            By Grade 10/11/12, they are counting the days until their freedom – if even they got that far.

            Only in the public school system can such a thing turn a naturally curious being into a being that dreads being curious.

            • Example:
              She joined a percussion band – never played a marimba, but she liked the sound it made.

              Within a couple of months, she is doing solo’s for the bank in their gigs.

              She wants to practice at home – but a Marimba of the quality she wants is over $25,000 – that’s too much even for me.

              So, she found a guy in Australia over the web that helps people home-build their own symphony-class marimba.

              So she chose Paduk wood from Africa for its ringing tone, and with me helping, built her own marimba – total cost (not including time) $1500.

              So, let’s check what she learned:
              -playing a new instrument in a band.
              -very fine work working (sanding to a 1/1000 of an inch to get the right notes)
              -lots of math and angles, etc. etc.

              We probably could sell her marimba for $25,000 too!

              Who has the dedicated time of a few hundred hours to do this in the public school?

        • What kind of degree will she have BF? Homeschool, online, other?

      • Anita: No low blow at all. If you can’t see what this guy is, you need glasses (my love). He’s nuts, pure and simple. An absolute autocrat. For all his bullshit about his hatred of socialist and statism, he turns around and locks his kid in their house not to let her play with more liberal minds?

        I have nothing against home schooling at all … so long as the parents aren’t control freaks. He admits to that.

        Come on with this clown already. The guy is so full of himself he probably rises with hot air six times a day.

        Look at his first reponse to Matt in their discussion … “Have you learned nothing?”

        Who TF is he? The other day he advocated people up and moving across the country to land a $25 an hour job flipping bugers in North Dakota; that was his “proof” that the poor are lazy? Becuase they don’t jump up and take off without a guarantee the job will be there when they get there (not to mention housing, etc and whether or not they had to walk to get there). He’s a big winded fool … likes to impress himself with sycophants … I never came across a bigger bag of wind in my life.

        • I crack myself up….pass the popcorn.

        • I never came across a bigger bag of wind in my life.

          Glenn Beck, perhaps?

        • You are a idiot.

          You bitch and complain people don’t have jobs, and when you are shown to be a fool about that claim, you make up new stories and fantasy about why people won’t take good jobs.

          Your Socialist mentality – let other people do the work so you can enjoy their money.

          You are lazy in your thinking, irrational and often quite childish.

          Too bad.

          • And you, BF, are one HUGE bag of wind …:)

          • and when you are shown to be a fool about that claim, you make up new stories and fantasy about why people won’t take good jobs.

            I’m thinking you need to have your head examined … or maybe you’re backed up and need a good flushing (let some of the bullshit in your brain filter down and out).

            NYTimes: Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it.

            So, according to your brilliant theory, 46.2 million people should be flocking to North Dakota for a single $25.00 an hour burger flipping job. They should just assumed that nobody in the state of North Dakota will take the job (as good as ND is doing, it is not 0% unemployment). They should just drop everything going on in their lives (family, sickness, whatever other “fantasy” as you call them) and even if they don’t have the gelt to make the move, they should what, start jogging (so they get there first)?

            You are an absolute buffoon, BF.

            • Charlie,

              You have the economic intelligence of a fly.

              Labor is an economic good, just like any other economic good and obeys all the laws of economics – no more and no less.

              Unemployment is an merely an oversupply of labor.

              If you are selling your book in a place that saturated with that book, do you continue to try to sell in that place?

              There are four things you can do.
              1) Nothing, and not make any sales.
              2) Move to where your books will sell.
              3) Lower the price of your books to sell more.
              4) Write a new book.

              Same with labor.
              1. Sit and do nothing – and hope other people will feed you (or steal)
              2. Move to where there are jobs.
              3. Take a low paying job.
              4. Find a new career.

              But you always and only like #1.

              • BF, you have the brains of a fly.

                It is 2012 … not 1830 … 42,000,000 are going to pick up and move to ND.

                A fly … at best.

              • They *all* have to move – just a few.

                Not *all* apple growers have to move to LA, just because NY market may be full up.

                As supply diminishes as other go seek more profit elsewhere, the price locally goes up as does the demand.

                It is called, my economically illiterate friend, “clearing the market” – also know as a “fire sale”.
                Inventory – in this case, over abundance of labor – begins to “move”, including local.

                But as long as the incentive is to stay put, the market cannot clear.

                What would you expect apple growers would do, instead of searching for a new market for their produce, they were paid to continue to grow apples and paid a fee to stay where they are, whether they had any customers or not?

                Why would they go anywhere?

                Same applies to welfare/unemployment payments and labor.

                Watch – when unemployment payments end, unemployment figures will go down and jobs filled will go up. Everytime – EVERY TIME – this is what happens. Why?

                No more money so people find a job.

                All unemployment payments does is keep unemployment higher for longer.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Point of Order on this whole South Dakota thing.

                If you want a job there you don’t even have to move.

                Contact them. They will come and interview you. If you are hired they will pay for your training. They will pay you to work in the fields.

                They will pay to fly you home on your days off. They will pay you while you are on your days off and pay to fly you back to work.

                Now………………WHY are they still looking for HELP?

        • Anita was right Charlie, you are out of line. Even your statements and accusations are way off base in this, further demonstrating your close-mindedness and incredible inability to listen and comprehend what other people actually say rather than what your prejudgement of them assumes they are saying.

  57. Frankly, I don’t give a damn about what you think.

    BF, I’ll try not to kill myself … 🙂

  58. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck the Wala

    “But the debate is over whether or not Obama presided over the largest spending increases in history. He did not. ”


    Who’s name is on the spending bills?

    Who was president when the bills came to vote and then for signature?

    Your claim is a childish game of numbers and ignores the reality of Leadership and Responsibility.

    If Obama doesn’t want credit for the spending increase in 09 then he can’t take credit for any “jobs created or saved” as a result of that spending.

  59. Black Flag,

    In all cases, the quality of the product decreases over time as the price increases over time.
    This is a defect of all monopolies

    Some industries lend themselves naturally to monopolies. These industries, such as ones with high barriers to entry (ie, rail or telecom), would naturally become either monopolies or cartels. Either by competition whereby the best kills off the others or by merger. If is the US justice department wielding anti-trust law which keeps this from happening.

    In a free market, what happens?

    With predatory pricing (not judging this.. that’s just the term), with high barriers to entry, with an artificial lockout on competition (ie, Ma Bell wouldn’t allow other carriers to connect to their system, forcing you to choose Bell, or have no access to their customers), with economies of scale, with interlocking directorates, et cetera, et cetera. How does the Free Market cope with all this stuff (and more!)? And, further, if monopolies DO emerge as the natural end result, and if all monopolies always produce inferior service at higher prices, then how do you square this with your belief that the free market definitionally always produces the “best” result?

    • Mathius,

      We’ve been through the theory of monopolies before – have you learned nothing?

      Some industries lend themselves naturally to monopolies.

      There does not exist, nor have ever existed a “natural” monopoly. All monopolies are artificial.

      All monopolies derive from violence – a government edict preventing entry or creating a barrier to entry from natural competition.

      These industries, such as ones with high barriers to entry (ie, rail or telecom), would naturally become either monopolies or cartels.

      Completely untrue.
      In FACT, where competition was unfettered, there were hundreds if not thousands of companies in those industries (see Chicago Telephone companies after the end of the Bell patents).

      Cartels always fail, since there is no non-violent enforcement of compliance with the terms of a cartel and lots of profit and benefits if one is among the first to break from it. Thus, they always try to form, but they always dissolve soon after.

      All monopolies -bar none- exist by writ of government.

      Either by competition whereby the best kills off the others or by merger.

      How does one “kill” competitors?

      By offering the best product/price ratio.

      By the fact there is competition can only mean that the incumbent does not have the best product/price ratio.

      There is obvious some defect in the incumbent’s offering that exposes them to competition.

      You believe that by manipulating one of the components of that ratio – the price – the incumbent can manipulate the ratio to eliminate the competition.

      But no matter the product, there are those that will pay the price for quality – and the incumbent cannot “artificially” raise his quality like he can “artificially” lower his price.

      At some point, the incumbent can no longer subsidize the buyers of his less-then-premium quality product – which always happens at the time the incumbent suffers financial hardships.

      At the point he needs capital to improve quality is the time he suffers capital losses due to his subsidizing.

      The result: probable bankruptcy.

      No matter how you cut the cake, no incumbent can “kill” competition.

      A similar argument regarding mergers.

      If it is to acquire a better product, then the consequence is the same as if the competitor “won” the product battle – his product replaces the incumbent, merely under the incumbent’s name.

      Should the incumbent then raise the price on this better product thusly purchased, he changes the price/quality ratio, and opens the market to competition once again – exploiting the price change.

      If it is remove the competition, but no change to the incumbent product line, another competitor will rise to fill that gap just like the merger partner rose to fill that gap, since was there before, and now exists again

      No matter how you try, unless you use government violence, you cannot eliminate competition – you can only mitigate them by constantly working to improve quality, lower price and eliminate your own business’ defects and deficiencies as exposed by your competitors.

      The benefactor of all of this: the consumer.

      If is the US justice department wielding anti-trust law which keeps this from happening.

      It does exactly opposite.
      Anti-trust law confounds business.

      It is a law that is applied post-facto.

      You do not know if you have broken the law by merging until after you go down the path of merging. You cannot get any ruling until after you do the deed.

      As such, it massively increases business risk to all business – law that cannot be known is enforced after the victims of that law act, but they have no way to know if they act, they have broken a law.

      With predatory pricing

      No such thing is sustainable, and no such thing returns a benefit.

      You sell your product below your cost so to make it more attractive then a competitor – who can sell his product above his cost, but lower than your cost.

      You are paying your customers to buy your product. Every sale is a loss to you.

      Artificially lowering the cost of good below its market value will cause a rise in sales of that product up to exhaustion of supply. Success! You are outselling your competitor …. and losing your shirt!

      It would be a better business decision not to sell, if every sale costs you money!
      But this is what you claim is a good idea! (I can see why you do not own your own business).

      Eventually, this company cannot sustain the losses and ends the subsidy to its buyers – raising the price.

      But since nothing has changed – the quality is the same, the product is the same, and now the price returns to the same the same conditions that attracted competition has returned… and guess what? They come back.

      Now what do you do? You have exhausted your capital in paying off your customers, returned to normal to try to recoup your losses – and who shows up? Competition! … at time when you are capital-depleted.

      Only the most naive business men attempt “predatory pricing” – and then only once in their careers.

      , Ma Bell wouldn’t allow other carriers to connect to their system, forcing you to choose Bell,

      A total lie

      You are correct that Bell did that – but you are WRONG in the consequence.

      What the other guys did … ignored Bell and started building their own.

      It was not until Bell got the government to stop these competitors from bypassing Bell under the 1914 Communications Act, that Bell was able to survive

      Again – it was government edict that created the monopoly, otherwise Bell was toast. They were losing their shirts against the competition.

      or have no access to their customers), with economies of scale,

      Economies of scale is a false dichotomy. Not everything in a company is scalable or benefits from size.

      Yes, some legal depts. and accounting do benefit from scale … adding a zero to the end of a number does not require 10x more accountants.

      However, most companies suffer from size increase due to the increase in middle management – the bloat in the middle – not only the cost, but the increase in bureaucratic muddling, slows the company to a crawl – this is where the “faster, smaller companies” pillage that market place.

      And, further, if monopolies DO emerge as the natural end result, and if all monopolies always produce inferior service at higher prices, then how do you square this with your belief that the free market definitionally always produces the “best” result?

      Because your “if” cannot exist, therefore neither does your problem.

      A fantasy hypothetical problem needs no real solution.

  60. June should be a good month. The Walker win in Wisconsin is an embarrassment to the Dems and unions, not to mention that the SCOTUS will be throwing Obamacare in the fire as unconstitutional. Yes a nice month 😀

  61. Buck, Matt, Todd, Crazy Charlie:

    “So, progressives: What is the right percentage of a government budget to be spent on public sector pensions? If this requires that cities and states simply need to come up with bigger budgets (through increased taxes) precisely how much bigger would be appropriate? If you don’t want to increase overall budgets, what other government services are you willing to cut?”

    • Take whatever is necessary from the top investors in whatever businesses function in said city and lessen their profits to pay for the services they get to use for inequitable distribution of profits. Yes, redistribute the wealth.

      Next question …

      • Kristian says:

        So you want the people who invest the most, top investors, to profit less because the guy who didn’t invest the same amount is getting less? Nevermind that the guy that didn’t invest as much, because he chose not to, is gaining more than he would normalyy. Is that what I am reading here?

        • I’m hesistant to speak for Charlie, but I think the problem is right here:

          because he chose not to

          I don’t think he thinks we necessarily should help people who CHOOSE not to help themselves. I think he thinks we should help people who CANNOT help themselves, whether through lack of economic opportunity or otherwise.

          I suspect he would suggest that the reason these people “chose” not to invest is that they were working minimum wage jobs and hadn’t been able to save enough to invest anything since he was too busy trying to keep the lights on.

        • People on the fringe of middle-class (more falling into poverty every day) I suspect can’t think about investments. They are trying to survive. To begrudge some poor SOB who gave to the city/state etc. 20-30 years of his/her life a friggin’ pension while CEO’s walk away with multi-million dollar golden parachutes (some after bankrupting their companies) is beyond criminal. I have no problem with “investors” (whether they’r eactively “killing themselves” or sitting on their duffs, having to share inequitable profits with those who get them to and from work; save them from fires, revive their hearts after a heart attack, defend them from being mugged, etc.. not to mention those who teach their kids (and probably taught them) … no problem whatsoever.

  62. Matt..thanks for your explanation on spending vs debt…I was buying it all along , then BF showed up and ..well… he blew your theory out of the water. So I have to revert back to my original position 🙂

    • Anita…it is pretty simple…..if you borrow money to spend….you have created debt. The government is no different than you.

      • Yes, true. But you should blame the people responsible for the creation of the deficit which created the debt, not just the guy who was on watch when it piled up.

      • Let me get this straight. Debt is a consequence of spending more than you have. The more debt you have means you spent more. So if our debt is higher now than when Bush was in office..that means Obama has spent more…which means I was right to begin with..I just got there a different way. Right, Buck?

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Wrong Anita.

          The issue we were discussing above was whether or not Obama has presided over the largest increase in SPENDING. He hasn’t. Spending has grown at the slowest rate in decades.

          Now…whether or not Obama has presided over the largest growth of DEBT is a different discussion.

          • That puts me back to square one. Explain how our debt is larger now without spending more. Yes, I realize there is interest on debt which creates more debt…but I don’t think we accumulated 6T in interest in four years. (not getting smart..just doesn’t make sense)

            • Buck the Wala says:

              See Mathius’ storyline above. Does a good job of explaining the answer to that exact question.

              Spending is still increasing, just at a much slower pace than under past Presidents. Add to that the interest piling up. Add to that reduced revenue coming in. What do you get? More debt. Our whole point is that everyone is so convinced that Obama has presided over some massive increase in spending – he has not. This has nothing to do with an increase in debt.

            • That puts me back to square one. Explain how our debt is larger now without spending more.
              Yes, we’re spending more. No one says we’re not. But it’s not MUCH more.

              Just try to remember that DEBT is the amount you owe. And DEFICIT is the change in the amount you owe.

              So if you’re living outside your means, then you have a deficit. And each month your DEBT increases.


              Yes, I realize there is interest on debt which creates more debt…but I don’t think we accumulated 6T in interest in four years. (not getting smart..just doesn’t make sense)

              Right, it’s not interest. It’s that Bush (and, yes, Clinton and Reagan) signed us up for all these things which we are still paying for every year. Like that car payment I was using as an analogy. Each month, you have to keep cutting that check. And each month, since you don’t have the money for it, it adds to the debt.

              And since Bush cut taxes (decrease in revenue), it means that the government is taking less in to begin with. Add to that that the recession, which started before Obama took office, which further decreased revenue. All this means that the GAP between revenue (money in) and expense (money out) expanded dramatically. This is a bigger DEFICIT (shortfall). The amount of the deficit every month is added to the DEBT (like leaving your credit card unpaid.. it just sits there and racks up, and each extra dollar you spend gets added to the pile).

              So, right as Obama takes office, the DEFICIT explodes into this huge number. He adds a little bit to the pile with the stimulus, but in reality, he has been very good about not increasing the size of the deficit (also, political realities don’t permit it, so he shouldn’t get all the credit). But just because he’s not adding much of his own spending to the deficit doesn’t mean the debt stops growing. There’s all that stuff from earlier (recession, wars, tax cuts) which means that we’re taking in less than we spend.

              So THAT is what’s driving the debt. If you got rid of that stuff, there might still be a deficit, but it would be tiny. And if that were the case, then the size of the debt would STOP growing.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            YES HE HAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


        • Try it again… I’ll use numbers and maybe this will work better:

          you earn 200 / month.
          Your living costs (keeping the lights on, etc) costs $100.
          So you have $100 left over. A surplus!
          Your husband looks at the surplus and decides he’d like to cut his work hours by $50 because, hey, we’ve got more money than we need. Simultaneously, he signs a new car lease for $150. So that’s $50 in lost income and $150 in increased spending.
          Now you’re EARNING $150 (normal – bush tax cuts) a month and paying $250 (100 normal + 150 car (ie wars)). Uh Oh! Deficit. That is, you’re spending $100 more than you’re earning.

          So far so good?

          So your husband stays at the helm for a while and racks up $1000 in debt.

          Then you take over, the economy crashes right before, and instead of earning 150 (normal – tax cuts), you’re earning 100 (normal – tax cuts – recession). And your spending goes up A LITTLE due to trying to kick-start your business (stimulus) to 275 (100 normal + 150 car (wars) + 25 stimulus).
          So, if we check the balance, you’re paying 275 and earning 100, thus a net loss per month of 175. This is your deficit. (deficit is the INCREASE in debt every period). Your DEBT is INCREASING by this amount every month.

          So when you take over, at month 0, the debt is 1,000
          Month 1: 1,175
          Month 2: 1,350
          Month 3: 1,525
          Month 4: 1,700
          Month 5: 1,875

          Each month it went UP by the DEFICIT (the difference between income and expense).

          Now, at month 5, we can look at the DEBT and say, WHOA! It’s huge! What’s going on. It almost DOUBLED on your watch. And that’s true. It did. But why?

          In this scenario, your “share” of the debt is really just the amount you increased spending, which is that $25 / month = $125. The rest was inherited or created by things you aren’t responsible for (car, shorter hours, economy).

          Maybe that was a little clearer? Let me know..

          • I was with you til I took over..that’s when some off the wall numbers popped cuts, recession, stimulus…

            Maybe the other guys will chime in…….but for now you guys champion more spending until it gets ugly..then its all fuzzy numbers..but that’s another topic.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Is all much simpler than all the ” lets suppose this and that”.

              They are claiming that because Bush increased spending at a higher percentage over Clinton than Obama did over Bush this somehow means that Obama has not “overseen” the largest increase in spending.

              BUT, what they ignore is that Obama is President. The INCREASE in spending is an annually approved event. HE HAS APPROVED THE EXACT SAME INCREASE EACH YEAR.

              An INCREASE I might add that included HIS DEM PARTY STIMULUS and other fun things that HE AND THEY added to the 2009 spending bills.

              And that it was Obama and the Dems who approved the final 2009 Budget.

              They are playing games over the “technicality” of the word “increase” relative to the FY 2009 Budget which they want to blame 100% of on BUSH. That is because the FY 2009 Budget was proposed in FY 2008 by Bush.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Here is a graph that displays the basis of what Matt and Buck are claiming. It is the third graph, just after the end of “page 2”.

              Note the jump in spending in 09 then small drop in 10 then another jump in 11. But the jump in 11 is a smaller % of the previous year expense than the 08 to 09 jump.


              This report contains a pretty good description of the deficits, what caused them and who was involved. The Dems are guilty as sin and Mr. O has his prints on “part” of the 09 budget.

              One other thing. The “expenditures” in 2010 dropped because the Budget was not spent. Stimulus and TARP money was carried over to 2011 and 2012.

              So it is important in these “arguments” to make sure everyone is using the same data set and assumptions. That is usually NOT the case.

          • Matt, this is crap. I understand you exaggerated things for clarity of your point, but come on. Bush tax cuts had an impact of around 130 billion per year IF you buy into static revenue accounting (which I do not, but will for this argument). Total revenues in the lowest year, 2009, were 3.6 trillion, putting the impact of the Bush cuts at around 3-4% or less for the period of time they have been in place. That means your 200 per month got dropped to 194 by the “big cuts in revenue”. The husband was also working with a lot of spending obligations and added a car, yes, but he did not do all the adding, a lot was before him as well. So he is gone, and there are his unfunded liabilities, plus a stimulus approaching that $50 mark, PLUS some MORE unfunded liabilites with unknown costs, like buying another car but on a balloon payment, so you only increase the total spending by a small percentage, especially if you disreguard the $50 that one year, but you have this big balloon payment looming (health care), so your unfunded liabilities and real spending is immensely high, every bit as irresponsible as the husband was, and your revenue is BACK UP TO WHERE IT WAS WHEN THE HUSBAND WAS IN CHARGE! Yet, you are STILL SPENDING WAY MORE THAT IS BEING TAKEN IN!

            I do not absolve Bush of anything, the man was one of our worst presidents ever. At least until now. In some ways he really was worse than Obama, even. But comparing the relative healthiness and palatability of cow dung to monkey dung hardly makes me less critical of what is on my dinner plate. I don’t smile and say, hey, I might be eating cow chips, but it sure is better than that mokey $h!t! I will just skip dinner I think….

  63. Florida joins Texas in telling Department of Justice to go to hell. Both states are going to purge the voter roles of illegal voters. DOJ trying to stop such actions….both attorney generals said…up yours. NOw we shall see what happens.

  64. Charlie’s Dream World

    Our tax-funded schools are at the forefront of ferreting out crime. They may not teach students very well. Test scores may be falling, as they have since 1963. But one thing is sure: the schools are alert to major infractions.

    Spitballs are one. In earlier days, little boys made them out of paper and spit. But not today. High-tech spitballs have entered the sacred halls of learning. New measures are required to deal with this.

    A 14-year-old honor student — scratch that: ex-honor student — has been suspended for shooting plastic spitwads.

    In December 2010, freshman Andrew Mikel II was kicked out of Spotsylvania High School for the remainder of the school year under a charge that the “spitwad” incident constituted “violent criminal conduct” and possession of a weapon. School officials also referred the matter to local law enforcement for criminal prosecution. Although no one was harmed, the Spotsylvania County Circuit Court upheld the disciplinary action in May 2011.

    This may sound like an over-reaction to you. You may think it is another example of the first law of bureaucracy: “Some bureaucrat will eventually enforce an official rule to the point of utter absurdity.” Actually, this case does conform to this law.

    The Rutherford Institute has taken the case.

    The Rutherford Institute has filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case on behalf of Andrew Mikel, asking the Court to find that Andrew’s conduct did not constitute “violent criminal conduct” and that the school’s actions were irrational and violated the constitutional guarantee of due process of law.

    “Andrew Mikel is merely the latest in a long line of victims whose educations have been senselessly derailed by school administrators lacking in both common sense</b. and compassion,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “We have moved into a new paradigm in America where young people are increasingly viewed as suspects and treated as criminals by school officials and law enforcement alike. It is our hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will recognize the need to right the wrongs being perpetrated against young people today in the name of zero tolerance.”

    Here are the facts.

    On December 10, 2010, Andrew Mikel, a freshman at Spotsylvania High School, was sent to the principal’s office after shooting a handful of small, hollow pellets akin to plastic spitwads at fellow students during lunch period. Andrew, an honor student active in Junior ROTC and in his church, was initially suspended for 10 days and charged with criminal assault and possession of a weapon under the school’s Student Code of Conduct. The Spotsylvania County School Board later upheld the suspension of Mikel for the remainder of the school year. School officials also referred the matter to local law enforcement, which initiated juvenile criminal proceedings for assault. Andrew was then placed in a diversion program, and had to take substance abuse and anger management counseling.

    The Rutherford Institute sued. The circuit court ruled in favor of the school board. The Rutherford Institute has appealed to the Supreme Court.

    I hope the Supremes take the case. This would make a great headline. “Supreme Court De-Criminalizes Spitballs.” Or even better, “Supreme Court Criminalizes Spitballs.”

    With those two possible outcomes, I think the Court will decline to hear the case. A pity.

    If you think it’s time to consider homeschooling, you’re right.

    When some students carry guns to school, while others are charged with criminal spitballing, it’s time to leave tax-funded education behind.

  65. Hey, BF …

  66. Curious- Especially those on the left-what are your thoughts about Clinton’s resent actions and this-he’s old and senile-Wow

    Kate Hicks
    Web Editor,

    Jun 07, 2012 06:16 PM EST

    Explanations of Bill Clinton’s very candid endorsement of the Bush tax cuts and Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital have run rampant. Some have even said he’s hoping for a Romney win to pave the way for a Hillary candidacy in 2016. But the former president’s aides have a simple, if cold, reason for their boss’ remarks: he’s too old to hold his tongue.

    The genuine explanation, say people close to Clinton, is the same one that usually is the case: He was simply saying what he really thought, but in fuzzy, free-associating language almost guaranteed to produce controversy.

    This was a habit that Clinton usually learned to control as president. But the circumstances now are much different.

    Clinton, say associates, while mentally sharp, is older and a step off his political game, less attuned to the need for clarity and message-discipline during interviews.

    “He’s 65 years old,” said one adviser, explaining how Clinton in a CNBC interview managed to say that the economy was in recession when it is not.

    Harsh. Of course, it’s a ridiculous argument to make: Romney himself is 65, and Hillary will be 65 just before the 2012 election. Indeed, just weeks ago, Clinton was seen as an elder statesman of the Democratic Party, a popular figure upon whom President Obama relied to help build support for his own initiatives. One off-message speech, and suddenly he’s senile?

    Likely not. Instead, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air speculates that Clinton’s team is feeling significant pressure from Obama’s camp. The current POTUS doesn’t want to run on his record, as POTUS-emeritus suggested; thus, they’re trying to write off Clinton’s remarks as the innocuous ramblings of a man who’s reached that certain age.

    Team Obama must be exerting a whole lot of pressure to get a full recantation from Clinton and his camp, mainly for speaking the truth. Most people in the US do feel that we are in a recession, or at least a recessionary environment, and Mitt Romney did have a sterling business career at Bain Capital. The problem for Obama is that his campaign can’t handle those truths, literally, as they have to pretend that the economy is rosy and that Romney is an eeeeeeevil vampire capitalist in order to win, rather than defend their own record and agenda as Clinton suggested last week.

    Like Ed, I believe Clinton’s support for Obama is genuine; any perceived criticism on Clinton’s part is recognition of what makes a good campaign. And a good campaign is one that doesn’t always, always, always go negative, a move that leads the public to beleive you’re desperate and plan-less. But if Team Obama is even will to throw Bill Clinton under the bus — the most popular living former president — then it’s clear OFA has moved beyond desperate territory, and into reckless.

    • I don’t qualify. I think Clinton was another Republican. I love that his screwing around though … whatever screws up the process is good (I think). I could care less who wins in November because both parties are useless to the American worker. Obama did more damage to labor in his tenure than Bush did in 8 years. He doesn’t deserve to be rewarded. Besides, I suspect Romney will be more progressive than Obama … he’ll worry about his “legacy” the same way and he won’t want to be deemed a tea party lunatic until he needs them in 4 years. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Both useless to workers.

  67. Just A Citizen says:

    Just found this while cruising the net and wanted to share:

    From 2010

    How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End
    The U.S. government’s response to the financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession included some of the most aggressive fiscal and monetary policies in history. The response was multifaceted and bipartisan, involving the Federal Reserve, Congress, and two administrations. Yet almost every one of these policy initiatives remain controversial to this day, with critics calling them misguided, ineffective or both. The debate over these policies is crucial because, with the economy still weak, more government support may be needed, as seen recently in both the extension of unemployment benefits and the Fed’s consideration of further easing.
    In this paper, we use the Moody’s Analytics model of the U.S. economy—adjusted to accommodate some recent financial-market policies—to simulate the macroeconomic effects of the government’s total policy response. We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government’s response, GDP in 2010 would be about 11.5% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation.
    When we divide these effects into two components—one attributable to the fiscal stimulus and the other attributable to financial-market policies such as the TARP, the bank stress tests and the Fed’s quantitative easing—we estimate that the latter was substantially more powerful than the former. Nonetheless, the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls. These estimates of the fiscal impact are broadly consistent with those made by the CBO and the Obama administration.2 To our knowledge, however, our comprehensive estimates of the effects of the financial-market policies are the first of their kind.3 We welcome other efforts to estimate these effects.

    NOW, why would I bring this up you ask? Well you see, a Govt Economist told me in December 2008 that the Govt’s Own Economic Indicators showed that the decline had slowed and that the “recession” would probably end by late spring or summer of 2009.

    And that was WITHOUT any Stimulus or Quantitative Easing. He made the statement to me at the time that it was a shame these things would probably be passed because we would lose the best chance in decades to prove or disprove the economic theory of Keynes. His prediction was a SLOW RECOVERY IF WE DO NOTHING.

    Some of you may recall that I mentioned this discussion here at SUFA way back then.

  68. @Jac:

    They will pay to fly you home on your days off. They will pay you while you are on your days off and pay to fly you back to work.

    Now………………WHY are they still looking for HELP?

    Obviously, because 42,000,000 lazy statist SOB’s don’t want to work. How could it possibly be any other reason?

    The fact they don’t have 100% employment suggests some of the lazy poor live in ND.

    We could always shoot them and decrease the world’s surplus population.

    But, JAC, are they really willing to relocate somebody to flip burgers? They’ll fly them out there for an interview? Or maybe the interview job has something to do with some kind of knowledge (oil, engineering, etc.) and maybe some of those 42,000,000 don’t have the right degrees. I’m just suggesting that … you and BF are probably right … they’re all just lazy statists looking to steal from everybody else.

    Do you two ever stop and think in terms of reality? That’s my question. BF’s economic theory suggesting welfare is what keeps the poor from moving across the country is a pretty simple answer from such a big brain. It is also an absurd answer.

    I lived in ND … whoever moves there for that burger flipping job better have some good winter clothes …

    • Just A Citizen says:


      The jobs I am talking about have been labor jobs. Truck drivers have been in big demand.

      Carpenters to build facilities, electricians, plumbers, etc. As I said, the companies have been willing to train people to work in the fields on the rigs. They are looking for people who are willing and know how to work.

      As for burger flippers I have no idea. But if I were some poor sucker I would probably look to start a burger business. Or perhaps a chicken ranch.

    • Charlie

      That’s my question. BF’s economic theory suggesting welfare is what keeps the poor from moving across the country is a pretty simple answer from such a big brain.

      Theory of incentives, Charlie, a well-known, well-documented, well-studied fact.

      It is also an absurd answer. I lived in ND … whoever moves there for that burger flipping job better have some good winter clothes …

      See that is what makes me mad about you, Charlie.

      You are an observant guy.
      But you have no reasoning.

      You see things – but can’t put two+two together to make any sense.

      EXACTLYwhy they pay so much. No one wants to work there in the winter.

      So they have to pay more to attract people to move there to work.

      But if they are competing with free money paid to people not to work, then you have $25/hr burger flippers in ND and 35% unemployment in Atlanta.

      Why would you leave warm Atlanta – earning a few grand a month doing nothing, to move to the fridge of ND for just a few more grand a month?

      • A) I doubt unemployment/welfare comes to a few grand a month in Atlanta or anywhere else.
        B) You discount completely any other reason for people not pulling up and moving (which is absurd).
        C) Theory of incentives … is theory, not a fact.

        • Some facts, Charlie

          Welfare Pays Better Than Work, Study Finds
          $36,000 a Year in Hawaii

          Welfare benefits are far more generous than commonly thought and substantially exceed the amount a recipient could earn in an entry-level job. As a result, recipients are likely to choose welfare over work, increasing long-term dependence.

          Those are the principal findings in “The Work vs. Welfare Trade-Off” (Policy Analysis no. 240) by Michael Tanner, director of health and welfare studies; Stephen Moore, director of fiscal policy studies; and David Hartman, CEO of Hartland Bank in Austin, Texas. The paper was released at the height of the welfare debate in Congress.

          The study examines the combined value of benefits–including Aid to Families with Dependent Children, food stamps, Medicaid, and others–for a typical welfare recipient in each of the 50 states. The value of those tax-free benefits is then compared with the amount of take-home income a worker would have left after paying taxes on an equivalent pretax income. The following are among the study’s findings.

          * To match the value of welfare benefits, a mother with two children would have to earn as much as $36,400 in Hawaii or as little as $11,500 in Mississippi.

          * In New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Alaska, and Rhode Island, welfare pays more than a $12.00-an-hour job–or more than two and a half times the minimum wage.

          * In 40 states welfare pays more than an $8.00-an-hour job. In 17 states the welfare package is more generous than a $10.00-an-hour job.

        • B) You discount completely any other reason for people not pulling up and moving

          No, I do not.

          But the are inferior (ie: not dominate) – and we are talking public policy – not whether Sammy misses his mommy too much to move away.

        • C) You do not have a clue to what it means to say something is a “fact” and what it means to say something is a “theory”

          I am sure you go around saying “theory of gravity is not a fact” … thinking you are saying something meaningful.

    • I mean, christ, Charlie.

      You -of all people- given your history should understand “incentives” and “motives”.

      Did you not offer negative reinforcement of not meeting a payment? Why do you think that worked?

      Why did you do that work? Because it paid well and suited your temperament and “skill”?

      For a guy whose old job completely depended on the reward/punishment mechanism you are sure damn ignorant of … when you know it ruins your pet crackpot theories.

      • So maybe what you need to do is what I suggested to JAC last night. Threaten to do some kind of harm to those who don’t want to move to ND to flip burgers. What a great idea, BF!

        According to you, we’ll have zero unemployment if we just threaten 42,000,000 people with my “skill” …

        Seriously, do you ever look out the windows of your 2,400 world? Is there ever a time you deal with reality and abandon your assumptions and theories?

        • Charlie,
          I really question your comprehension sometimes. I am not trying to be mean, its just that you get so hung up on specific statements and cannot seem to grasp theory. You remind me sometimes of this old folk tale:
          BF, as he often does, is talking in theory, in general, macro level terms. Micro and macro are related, much of it scales, but in sociological theory, mico levels always have increasing deviation from the norm since individuals vary. This does not, however, rule out the validity of macro level trends and norms. In terms of socio-economic theory and policy, it is far more important to pay attention to the macro level analysis, since it is impossible and very detrimental to attempt to account for all individual variance when dealing with public policy. Individual variance must be allowed for by expanding freedom, it cannot be accounted for within law itself. Thus, since we are talking about national or societal level policy and philosophy, macro level analysis is what matters.

          • Jon:

            I really question your comprehension sometimes. I am not trying to be mean, its just that you get so hung up on specific statements and cannot seem to grasp theory.

            I wasn’t around today to blow back at the bag of wind and his cherry-picked stats, but I assure you my comprehension is fine. I don’t agree with your theories … and seeing them applied in the real world, I’m less impressed. What determines whether people go on welfare or “unemployment” (perhaps you didn’t see his shift in argument from unemployment to welfare, but I comprehended it soon as I saw it) is more the issue than the stats can show (i.e., why is someone on unemployment and/or welfare?) … BF makes blanket statements and when no one is here to shoot them down (opposing viewpoints because lets’ face it, he’s preaching to his choir here), you guys seem to quickly fall in line.

            I’m off to New Hampshire next week to return to school for 2 weeks … I’ll stop in when I can before I leave but I don’t have the time to play with the bag of wind or his sycophants.

            Here that Matt, Buck, Todd (where are you, brother) … kick his ass while I’m away … it isn’t hard … not half as hard as his head, that’s for sure.

            Peace, my brothers … and sisters …

            • Before offering any retort or argument let me say that I wish you safety and success on your trip. I hope you return having accomplished what you set out to do.

              I know you do not agree with my theories, nor do I agree with yours. The difference is that I have not really heard any logic or reason or even definition of your theories, not even when I have asked and offered mine. I also have not seen any acknowledgement when I have said anything that disagrees with you, only a repeat of your previous statement as if you did not read anything I said. This is why I question your comprehension.

              I have seen Flag change an argument to fit what he is saying, rather than work within the statements as intended. I have seen him make blanket statements. I have also seen you make blanket statements and change arguments to fit what you want the argument to be. In fact, I have yet to see you accuse him of anything or any argumentative technique that you are not engaging in yourself to the same, or greater, extent. Even the hard-headedness fits you both.

              As for falling in line, that is merely your perception as well. BF gets fought by almost everyone here on things, on a regular basis. When his arguments are respected it is because he backs them with reason. Even if there are errors or missing factors in his thinking or his proofs, there is at least an attempt to use logic and enough evidence (whether conclusive or not) to make his line of thinking at least understandable, even if I (and others) still disagree with it. I have asked for similar logical progression of thought from you and been disappointed.

              Anyway, enjoy your trip, learn well.

  69. The Bush-era tax cuts will end on Jan. 1, 2013, unless Congress intervenes.

    Also set to expire that day will be a temporary payroll-tax holiday on social security.

    The tax changes won’t just slam a few income brackets; they’ll reach all taxpayers.

    Every one of the existing income tax brackets will be ratcheted up, starting with the lowest 10% bracket, which will be hiked to 15%. The 25% bracket will jump to 28%; the 28% bracket will go to 31%; the 33% bracket will be replaced by a 36% bracket and the 35% bracket will soar to 39.6%.

    Stock market investors will also be punished.

    Right now, the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains and dividends is only 15%. Starting next year, the maximum rate on long-term gains is scheduled to increase to 20%.
    But get this — the maximum rate on dividends will skyrocket to a whopping 39.6%.

    That’s not all.

    Investors in the two lowest income brackets who currently pay 0% will have to shell out 10% on long-term gains and 15% and 28% on dividends.

  70. The death of the Bush tax cuts also kills temporary federal estate and gift tax breaks and a measure to ease the marriage penalty for low and middle income couples.

    On top of that, workers will lose a 2% cut on social security taxes. That means an average $1,000 tax increase come Jan. 1 for virtually all workers.

    Not only are taxes scheduled to go up, but the entire economy could be crippled by a slate of automatic spending cuts set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2013.

    Roughly $1.2 trillion in government spending cuts will kick in, stemming from the failure of last summer’s “super committee” to produce a deficit-cutting agreement.

    A Congressional Budget Office report issued last month said the economy would shrink by 1.3% in the first half of next year.

    Executives from Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE: LMT) and other aerospace companies even passed out digital countdown clocks ticking off the seconds until “over 1 million American jobs” will be lost to Defense Department budget cuts, The Washington Post reported.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      “…but the entire economy could be crippled by a slate of automatic spending cuts set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2013.”

      Morning Colonel!

      Question: I thought this — spending cuts; austerity; etc. — is exactly what the times required. It seems your post is indicating that this should not happen. So which is it: should we substantially cut spending? Or shouldn’t we?

      • Buck, maybe I can clear this up for you.

        Conservatives firmly believe we should cut spending dramatically as long as those cuts are centered around liberal priorities and not conservative ones.

        Cut food stamps – good!
        Cut education – good!
        Cut FDA – good!
        Cut EPA – great!
        Cut NEA – GREAT!

        Cut military – BOO HISS EVIL!

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Nope, not following you…perhaps a nice big hot coffee will help…

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Didn’t help.

        • I offer this comment from another blog regarding military. It is dramatic but it’s on the right track:

          He is not incompetent. Bozo the puppet on a string is doing exactly what puppetmaster Soros wants him to do: destroy the economy of this country. The only thing standing in the way of a communist takeover of the entire world is the United States military. The only reason there is still anything called ‘freedom’ on this earth is because, between our bases all over the world and our aircraft carriers, we can project our military power to pretty much any part of the populated parts of the earth within a matter of hours. And it is our incredible economy that allows us to support and fund that military. Destroy thr economy and the military can’t be funded, and freedom will disappear from this earth for centuries – or longer. The elitists want to turn the world back to feudalism, with them as the lords and everyone else as slaves to them.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            “…but its on the right track.” Please don’t tell me you really believe this.

            • I don’t believe it to the extent the commenter takes it. But I do believe that our military is a defender of freedom and that we are a thorn in some country’s sides. That doesn’t mean I agree with occupation of countries strictly for our benefit but if a country welcomes our presence then how can you argue their desire for freedom? And if our presence deters the evil other countries wish to spread then I’m good with keeping our military well funded.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Do me one favor — take a look at how much we spend on ‘defense’ and compare it to every other country in the world. Once you do that, let me know if you still find the defense budget sacrosanct.

              • It’s about freedom not cash.

              • We have a lot of defending to do..

                I mean, there are a lot of people out there who hate us for our freedoms..

                Obama is trying to help us by taking away those freedoms.. then they won’t hate us so much and we won’t need so much defense. See? Brilliant!

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Anita, did you know that the budget of the US Army, US Navy, or US Air Force alone each is greater than any other nation’s entire defense budget? That’s just amazing!

              • Matt..WHAT?..put that in English please.

                I realize that Buck..fine..wanna do some trimming on some hi-tech super bomb and other fancy equipment, be my guest. But to strip it clean..I don’t agree

              • Anita,
                I must disagree. We have not been a defender of freedom in a long time. We are not even free anymore, and our “brand” of freedom is becoming less and less desirable. We are spreading progressivism through military action. Defender of freedom has long been a mantra to justify ridiculous budgets and wars that have nothing to do with defense of ourselves or anyone else. Even the Cold War and some of the wars designed to reign in forceful expansion of communism (which was being used to prop up communism, since more lands and people could be exploited through conquest) were questionable, if not in motivation certainly in the way they were fought.

                We need to return to a Monroe doctrine attitude militarily. I still think the military is one of the few roles of government that is justifiable, thus a strong, hi-tech, highly trained and equipped military is a good thing. To achieve that, however, we need about 1/4 of our current budget, and thats without even looking at the level of waste in military spending. As bloated and corrupt as it is, if it is not on the chopping block, then there is no credibility to demand anything else be put on there either.

              • Strip it clean?

                The military budget is $680,000,000,000 PER YEAR.
                The proposed cuts are $600,000,000,000 OVER TEN YEARS.

                So that’s 60 billion per year into a 680 billion dollar budget.

                That’s about 8.8%.

                Deep cuts, yes.

                “Strip it clean”? I think not.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                As an aside, with a budget 1/4 of our current defense budget, we would still be spending more than any other country in the world.

              • You’re right about our brand of freedom, you’re probably right about the amount of cash it would take to still be superior. But I still prefer our ‘freedom’ to the freedom of China, Cuba, etc. Obviously so do the ‘undocumented’ people coming from Mexico. I’d sure rather keep the military funded than to keep the unemployment fund funded.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                So you would rather keep throwing money towards ‘defense’ when it is completely unnecessary to maintain at current levels, then fund unemployment insurance to provide a level of guarantee for those that lose their job to support themselves and their family?

              • Anita, even considering the cuts, the US still spends more than the next ELEVEN countries combined including Russia, China, and anyone else we might conceivably go to war with.

                The cuts would push the current budget back to ’07 levels. *GASP*
                And let’s not forget that in ’01, it was 390b, verse ’11 at 680b. That’s up 74%! Including the cuts, it’s still up 54%! In ten years. How can anyone call that stripping it clean?

                Deep even breaths, Anita, everything’s going to be O-kay…

              • Yup.

              • MATT! CHILL! Just leave us enough to keep the military with enough to keep us safe and keep other willing countries safe.. If we can run smoothly with the cuts you want..COOL..

              • Can I just add something in here?

                Wasn’t the point of this that there would be massive automatic triggers to liberal programs as well?

                Isn’t there going to be 600b (over ten years) cut to social programs? Why isn’t anyone screaming about that?

              • Buck the Wala says:

                That’s besides the point. The important thing here is oh my god, there will be relatively minor cuts to the military budget and the USA is going to end as the Chinese and Cuban communists launch an invasion and we have no way to defend ourselves!

              • WOLVERINES!!!!!

            • Right On! I’m Erica…right behind Jed and Matt

      • Not my thoughts Buck…but cut and pasted…..however, I do have opinions….but am waiting for this speech to be over.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          I had a feeling this was a cut and paste job…will wait to see your thoughts.

  71. Watch – when unemployment payments end, unemployment figures will go down and jobs filled will go up. Everytime – EVERY TIME – this is what happens. Why?

    Oh, so that’s why the unemployment figure (the real one) is hovering around 17-19% … because all those who fell off unemployment are moving to North Dakota! Well, that makes sense! 8.2% vs. 18% … I guess that other 10% no longer collecting benefits and considered not looking for work … but … wait, that would mean THEY MOVED TO ND and took that burger flipping job.

    So … that would mean the real unemployment rate goes down, not up, right?

    Except it isn’t … which suggests many things, but not a single one that proves your incentive theory at all. People off unemployment aren’t flocking to North Dakota … and some in ND aren’t flocking to those burger flipping jobs, you say. Wow, your theory seems to have hit a wall.

    It is never as simple as you like to assume, BF. All your theories are based on assumptions that YOU claim are valid and proven fact. Yet reality flies in the face of just about everything you claim. So, you can think you’re right almost all the time, but it’s only the space between your ears where that has any validity. I think you’re just another big bag of wind.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      That’s a really good point actually. If the theory of incentives was true, wouldn’t it necessitate a drop in the real unemployment rate? Perhaps this is why it is only a theory…

    • It is theory because sociology is not an exact science. The theory of incentives is generally true, but the specifics are difficult to nail down. Charlie, as you openly and accurately stated, not all people are motivated (incentivised) by money. So, the incentive is insufficient for some. Some will not flip burgers at any price because of their pride or because they are staunch vegetarians, etc. Some will not because they like where they live and they will not move, especially not to a colder place. Some would require incentives that are unaffordable for the employer, or would be difficult for the employer to provide/control (such as available housing in the area or the quality of nearby schools, etc.). People are ultimately individual.

      However, in general application, everyone does something because they are motivated to do so. If an employer can provide an incentive that matches your motivation and can afford to do so in sufficient levels to overcome your objections, then you will take the job. Money is a primary motivator, it will attract many workers. It will not create 100% employment, because not all people will be motivated that way or the numbers just do not work, the employer still has to make a profit. Also, competition comes into play. If you can make even half what a job is offerring by doing nothing, then many people will choose to do nothing. It creates artificial competition. If that was removed, more people would be choosing to work. As with all sociological things, there is anecdotal evidence on both sides, but as a general rule, removal or expiration of unemployment and other safety nets increases urgency to find work and work is generally found much more quickly. Maybe there is not enough work for everyone, but there sure is a lot more than workers are taking advantage of. Maybe the safety net is not the only reason for this, but it certainly is a big one.

      • Jon. It’s so nice to discuss in a civil tone. So, grazie.

        I agree with most of what you said (maybe all of it) but to suggest people will trudge from Atlanta to ND is kind of stretching it. If the job in Atlanta pays minimum wage and the person getting unemployment earns relatively the same, yes, why would he take the job (I agree) … but to suggest as BF does, they are lazy or being held in check because they don’t wan to uproot their existence and trek across the country for not even a “guaranteed’ job … well, that’s just stupid.

        • Perhaps it is a stretch, there are a lot of barriers, especially to go that far. However, it is far easier to do that now than it was in, say, the 30’s, when people would take off across the country for even the hope of a job. If work was available, it was filled. Regardless of what you may think or have been told, the willingness to work, to do ANY work, ANYWHERE, was a major part of the recovery from the Great Depression. Productivity was as high as possible because labor demands were immediately filled, and people had the will to work and to take risks. Also, people were more charitable because they knew that their neighbor was their responsibility, not the government’s. Also, its a lot easier and more gratifying to help someone who is trying their best and is grateful for help, than to help some whiner with a sense of entitlement. It’s another part of incentive. Things you call just stupid are the things people used to do, and its what made them successful. People say you cannot work your way up like you used to be able to, and that is partially true, there are a lot more barriers to that now, but if modern people worked as hard and as fearlessly as a few generations ago, it would not be so difficult.

          So yea, BF may be taking the extreme position on one side of the argument, but you are doing as much ignoring of his point as he is of yours. His statements might not fix the problem for all 42 million unemployed, but it would help a lot of them. Do not ignore the truth in people’s arguments. That is part of civility, your reaction to BF makes you appear as arrogant and close-minded as you accuse him of being. You want civility, be civil. And stop with the foghorn joke, it was funny, but its burnt out.

        • It’s single file out of Michigan right now Charlie. People move all the time for work. Check out Texas’ new residents. Some will move for work, others won’t. But who’s in the money?

        • Charlie

          What is stupid is you – you do not and refuse to – understand the problem.

          As you point out they do not move

          As you point out they do not move because they do not want to go to ND

          As you point out they are paid to stay where they are

          Yet, you then contradict yourself denying all of the above.

          If there was no welfare, they WOULD go to ND for the job.

          It is the payment of welfare that glues them to Atlanta.

      • JS,

        Again, a study of the past answers the question. Who, in the 1930’s hit the rails? Despite horrific unemployment and a lack of any benefits except the most basic. If you had roots, a family, kids, a home, you could not afford to leave to seek greener pastures. If you were young and single you could.

        The “Oakies” left Oklahoma and the other dust bowl states because there was NOTHING left for them or their families except eating dirt or suicide. The chance of something was better than the surety of nothing.

        “Grapes of Wrath” was not only a good book and excellent movie but I think it speaks to all sides, left and right, when it shows what hopelessness can do. Just talking to older folks when I grew up puts everything we complain about into perspective. Unfortunately today, few people younger than their mid fifties have any real exposure to the survivors of that depression and though it is key to who we as Americans are it is not studied other than in elective college level courses.

        Before I am accused of being a closet Communist or Socialist, watch “Grapes of Wrath”, and ask yourself what you would do if you were Tom Joad? Like, I said, instructive. I could go off for hours on how the Tom Joad’s of the world changed things in a way that would guarantee the horrid stuff would never happen again and then backed off. No mad rush for the International, it took us 80 years to forget all those lessons and merrily proceed in a backwards direction towards unbridled financial idiocy on one side and stultifying, stagnant Socialism on the other. Where is the balance our Grandparents found?. .

        • Quite true, risks are far easier for the young and unattatched. Even my own brashness is somewhat tied to my unmarried and non-parent status. On the other hand, parents will work incredibly hard for their children. I have seen people run on less sleep than I do and set aside all sorts of luxuries or entertainment and put up with hell on earth to make sure their children have, not just their needs met, but extra money for education and even luxuries.

          As for the national attitude concerning financial policy, I find it amazing that people can be as foolish as they are. A mere couple of generations and some of the most important lessons are lost or twisted into something else. It is mind-blowing.

  72. The Pres is about to speak on the economy…this ought to be good.

  73. Was reading your defense budget comments…..boy are you guys waaaay off….more later on that.

  74. Ok, it is over…….I made notes…..have to dissect…..but the overall thing I got out of it was more debt and stimulus. One other thing that I noted…he only allowed specific people to ask questions and the questions were undoubtedly designed for his talking points. No hardball questions….but….my response after I look at my notes.

  75. Just A Citizen says:

    Well if this isn’t an interesting graph.

  76. Just A Citizen says:

    D13, Buck and Mathius

    Here is the COMPLETE list of changes that were to occur if the Bush cuts expired in 2010 as planned. I assume most of these still apply.

    We are Sooooooooooo Screwed.

    • ::puts on helmet, dives into bunker::

      • Just A Citizen says:


        As I have said before, the BUSH tax laws were pretty well constructed. They solved many problems. Not perfect nor what I would desire but better than what existed before.

        So the answer is to make the Bush Tax Rates permanent.

        Then address all the deductions, subsidies, exemptions, etc. But do it the SAME for EVERYBODY.

        The AMT MUST BE ELIMINATED and any notion of a Buffet Tax CRUSHED. It is just another sneaky form of AMT.

        • For years I have listened to the democrats scream that the Bush tax cuts were nothing but a tax cut for the rich. Now I have to listen to the dems. say this:

          “It’s the Republicans who are on defense on this issue. When they hold middle-class tax cuts hostage for the sake of millionaires, it shows whose side they are really on.”

  77. @ Buck, I had alot of energy problems over the years, and tried everything available. Didn’t like the energy drinks, 5 hour energy was short lived and expensive for the short period of time. I finally decided that the crap for sale in stores is worthless. I now take Activated B Complex and OPC-3 from Isotonix. A capful of the powder of each in 4 oz’s of water, and within 10 minutes I am energized. I stay energized all day long, and to my surprise, I even sleep much better now. These products are not cheap either, but they work.

  78. Pres says: Is Europe to blame for the financial instability…..according to Obama, the instability in the Euro Zone is causing a great deal of the problem in the US and Europe needs to “inject capital” to keep it afloat. POTUS thinks that Greece should stay in the Euro-zone.

    D13’s opinion: “Injecting capital” is a new definition of taking on debt. “Investing” is another definition of taking on debt. Short term gain for long term pain. In other words, kick the can down the road. Economics 101 says you cannot spend your way out of a recession….do not create more debt. Let Greece do its thing. Take your income as it exists and live within it. Prioritize if you must, but live within it.

    The Pres says: Congress is to blame for the recovery. What Congress needs to do is pass what he sent over.

    D13’s observation: He used the term Congress, finally, because that means the House of Representatives and the Senate. What was NOT said was that the House has sent to the Senate over 15 bills and a budget to which Harry Reid and the Senate will not pass. So, the term Congress was used but he did not say it is the Senate that has blocked his reforms and any and all amendments. Some of his, POTUS, recommendations have met 60-0 defeats. But this was not mentioned either. The implication is that it is the Republicans in the House. Another example is the POTUS wanting tax breaks for small companies that hire new employees. This was sent untouched to the Senate by the House… is still there.

    The Pres says: He says that the unemployment problem is in the State and Local governments and has called for Congress to “help the States and Public Sectors” out.

    D13’s observation: Can anyone say bailout? Totally…TOTALLY against this. States need to live within their budgets. No bailout. It is not deserved. Bailout means debt. Add NO MORE debt.

    The Pres says: Construction needs more stimulus. Our infrastructure needs to be maintained.

    D13’s observation: Interesting because we tried “shovel ready” stimulus that did not have any significant impact at all. More debt will not help. The last stimulus miraculously disappeared mainly into union pensions and green projects that went nowhere. Very little was spent on infrastructure as originally promise. He did, however, avoid the term “shovel ready”.

    The Pres says: One of the things that he has done to help our economy is more capital requirements of banks and lenders to be able to withstand economic downturns.

    D13’s observation: Oh boy,,,,,he did that perfectly. Starting with the Carter Administration, the government forced lending practices that all but guaranteed failure and defaults. Then that sector bundled bad loans and sold them and resold them and the bubble burst. Along comes Master Obama and “infuses capital” into the banks and then is “surprised” that the banks and financial institutions actually took the cash and pumped their reserves, tightened up their lending to stop the bleeding, and then wonders what happened. So, if I owned a bank and was given new rules to increase capital and tighten lending practices, and then was given millions in cash………DUH…..I keep the cash and increase my capital as forced to….then I tighten my lending practices to keep my capital at the government mandated levels and then I am considered a parasite.

    The Pres says: I do not understand why business is pulling back and not hiring. Business, especially in Europe, needs not to pull back but expand and hire.

    D13 had a mild infarction on this one: Mr. Pres…..what is not to understand? Holy Shit, Batman…….debt is rampant, spending is out of control, your policies are sending jobs over seas and limiting jobs here…and you do not understand why everyone is pulling back? I thought you went to a fancy school. Perhaps you slept through economics.

    And then finally, the whole speech was centered around economics and he had a list of respondents to ask questions….and the last question was over the leaks out of the White House?

    The Pres says: For people to think that the White House would leak sensitive information for political purposes, he finds offensive.

    D13’s Statement: Mr, Pres…….if you would not leak the information out for political purposes and movies, then you would not be offended. The real offense is how you expect the American people to believe you, personally, are not culpable.

    Those are my quick observations.

  79. Just A Citizen says:


    Some relation of yours?

    President Obama and the Dems care about America and care for Americans. The country will do great under their care.

  80. @D13, Colonel Sir, Yes the missus is very happy 🙂 Let me just say that things improved by a factor of 1000. I’m even putting some miles on the mountain bike! All my hunting trails are managed and very clean, now we are building a 12 foot platform to place an 8 X 8 build on for hunting and scouting the back field. Well worth the cost in my eyes 🙂

  81. Just A Citizen says:

    Everyone hearing the lefties crying about how the “AUSTERITY” in Europe is a failure and this is PROOF that it does not work? You know, from folks like Krugman.

    Well let them explain this graph and then tell you why Canada seems to be doing a little better than the USA. Despite being tied to us in trade and finance.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Its amazing how that chart shows absolutely nothing. Ok…so the US is spending more as a percentage of GDP than Canadia. That fact is meaningless on its own. Care to try again, or at least provide additional information.

  82. Let’s see about the military budget now, in terms of spending.

    Hmmmmm from 2010……

    1. Medicare/Medicaid – $793 Billion or 23% of expenditure.
    2. Social Security – $701 Billion or 20% of expenditure.
    3. Military – $689 Billion or 20% of expenditure. (OCO included)
    4. Discretionary Spending – $660 Billion or 19%.
    5. Other Mandatory – $416 Billion or 12%.
    6. Net Interest – $197 Billion or 6%.

    Hmmmm from 2012 (Requested and enacted)

    1. Department of Defense including Overseas Contingency Operations – $683.0 billion in Discretionary Spending and $5.3 billion in Mandatory spending.
    2. Social Security Administration – $11.7 billion in Discretionary Spending and $817.5 billion in mandatory spending.
    3. Department of Health and Human Services including Medicare and Medicaid $88.6 billion in discretionary spending and $787.8 billion in mandatory spending.

    My My…it seems as if the social security and medicaid/medicare are out pacing the military spending.

    As a matter of percentage to GDP……THAT matters not one single whit as compared to other countries. No one, including me, gives a pimple on a gnats ass what the GDP comparisons are because that would be like comparing Buck, the Walla, to George W. Bush.

    We are a far richer country per capita but let us check that.

    According to the International Monetary Fund, the United States ranks 6th ppc. Canada 12th, United Kingdom 16th, Russia 53rd, and China 92nd. Hardly a comparison.

    According to the World Bank, the United States ranks 8th, Canada 14th, United Kingdom 20th, Russia 46th, and China 96th. Hardly a comparison.

    When spending is considered by percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the United States is not even in the top ten. At 4.7% of GDP the U.S. falls to eleventh place.

    Now, take the OCO (Overseas Contingency Operations) and eliminate them and the United States falls to just over 3.3 %. ( OCO operations include fighting the wars PLUS intelligence operations and equipment, prestation and maintenance. ) Eliminate the Korean military ground presence and the percentage drops to 2.8 Percent of GDP.

    To slash a military budget while fighting two wars is the most asinine and absurd suggestion of all times. You do not stop research and normal defense operations to fund a stupid set of wars and defense of a country in Korea when the Navy can do it just fine. You can keep a 1.2 million personnel defense with all of the latest gadgets and technology and research available for 2.5 percent of GDP and that is totally acceptable, and still be the biggest baddest kid on the block…..AS WE SHOULD BE! That is the best deterrent there is and it is cheap.

    So, all you liberal military and economic experts (sarcasm intended) tell your precious Obama the Maniac and most galactically stupid economic disaster of all times, to STOP THE DAMNED WARS and you do not have to touch defense spending and it falls to within what our enemies spend….(and we have enemies and all the KumBaYa bullshit will not make them go away.)

    So……while military spending, including OCO….was $688 billion this year, it seems as if the SSN and the Medicaid and Medicare went up over $200 Billion.

    To Buck, the Walla, Re; your question to someone above….

    Stopping the wars, getting out of Korea, and maintaining the defense of the United States and spending 3% of GDP on defense (eliminating those items I mentioned) is far more important to me than funding unemployment for 99 weeks where I firmly believe the majority are riding the sugar teat. To have over 50% of GDP going to entitlement programs is the second most absurd thing of all times. Anyone with an ounce of sense and economic knowledge should know that spending more than 30% on entitlements is a balance sheet NO NO. Greece and Europe are no fluke… CANNOT spend your way out of frigging debt and it is precisely the entitlement programs that are the majority of the problem. To follow Europe into the economic abyss is the most unpatriotic thing imaginable next to treason. We do not owe Europe nor the world a damned thing and it is time AMERICA comes first.

    (caveat: I feel much better now. Perhaps a Dr Pepper…….)

    • Thank you, note the lack of comments or replies. You have spoken truth which flies in the face of wishful thinking. So, if ignored it will go away……..

      I can never quote my dad enough, “What I know trumps what you think or feel”.

  83. Charlie,

    You do not understand -even a little bit – what is a fact and what is theory.

    “A rock hit the ground” is a statement of fact.

    “The reason the rock fell was due to gravity” is a the theory – a statement explaining the cause/effect of an event

    Because you do not understand very much, you think that a theory is just an emotional “guess”.

    No it is an explanation

    So when I say the “Theory of Incentives” explains why Atlanta people remain on welfare and do not move to ND for a job, I am explaining the phenomena

    Now, you can remain an ignoramus, and blubber away incoherently and make up stories and fantasies – but that does not dispute one part of the theory and its consequences.

    • BF, you really are a dick. And your sycophants … well, they’re here for a “reason” …

      The world is not black and white … the rock never hit the ground (you putz) … only in your mind did it hit the ground. There are too many reasons you ignore as to why people are unemployed and/or on welfare … and your theory is shot to hell when those who have no government income do not move to ND (asshole).

      So, you (and your sycophants) …

      Now, I have a little bit more in my unreasonable life to do than dick around with a bag of wind … so you write 400 responses, your sycophants can cheer about the “knockout” (in your fuckng dreams) …

      But I still love ya’, BF … because there’s even a mentally challeneged megolomaniac needs love …

  84. Dang Black Flag, Captain Canolli must have pissed you off! If this were a MMA fight it would be over, Flag by knockout! 🙂

    • He sorta pissed me off too, actually. I get frustrated with his constant not listening, but him going off on how BF is imprisoning and brainwashing his daughter crossed the line, I had to refrain from responding for a day to stay civil. The fact that BF stuck to the issues I find honorable, even tho he does come across a bit high and mighty and arrogant in his manner. Brilliant tho, and I agree, Flag by knockout.

  85. Here’s one for ya GMan:

    BREAKING NEWS – Attack on US Naval Forces in the Straits of Hormuz

    • Anita, Iran will never provoke the U.S. If it is claimed as such, it is a false flag event that we should all be against. Our corrupt government needs replaced, very soon!

      • My first thought was false flag and since you’re the conspiracy guy I figured you may have heard about it.

  86. @Jon, I’ve tried often to snag the Flagster and prove him wrong, I haven’t had any luck, LOL. I see Flag as a great person who just types it the way it is, no flowers, no bullshit. I like that in him, but I also know he is a respectful person, who doesn’t shit on people. Now, Captain Canolli, is normally nice too, but must be constipated or something lately 🙂 CC spews his Communist shit all the time, usually ignored by smart folks, and when that don’t work he go’s off sometimes. Anyone who wants Communism needs their head examined you know 🙂

  87. @ Anita, Thanks for annointing me the “conspiracy guy” 🙂 That is funny and it gave me a good laugh. I just see things for what they are, not that hard really, considering the known history. Now if the Chinese invade, it’s no conspiracy, it’s war! But first we must deal with the economy, which should be good, price wise, all summer 🙂 Then comes September, the third week could be interesting!

  88. Gman,

    Charlie has been damaged somehow.

    He is a very smart guy, with keen powers of observation.

    But somewhere in his past – I’d guess in his childhood – an event shattered his ability to create a link between “cause” and “effect”. Probably some arbitrary, very violent event came upon him or his loved ones that made no sense – and anyone who tried to explain that event by reason failed, since it probably was wholly irrational and without reason.

    He came to distrust anyone who attempted reason and coherency as a way to “manipulate” him.

    He is now -as an adult- perpetually stuck at “effects” and he cannot fathom causation. To understand cause and effect you need reason. He has abandoned reason. So cause and effect have no links – for him.

    Thus, all he can is make appeals to emotion – and since he cannot justify his reason – he also appeals to the use of the government guns to enforce his appeals.

    He does not like economic arguments that are clear….because regards clear arguments as tricks.

    He thinks that any argument which progresses step by step to a conclusion is inherently untrustworthy.

    His only argument, the Corleone’s argument:
    “”I made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.” – that is the only argument he understands and the only one he himself offers to others.

    But do not make the mistake of ignoring him or his spew or his puerile tactics.

    He represents a seriously large group of the People – People who have limited or no ability to reason and connect dots between cause and effect.

    These People have been manufactured by the public school system, whose goal is to create a workforce able to follow instructions, but not able to question why they do a particular task. They cannot follow cause and effect either.

    • Actually, the fact that it can be so easily manufactured indicates that it is the repetive training of superstition and irrationality that is more to blame than singular traumatic experiences. The history of superstition, religion, nationalism, etc. shows that most people can be manipulated into such a mindset rather easily. Reason is a part of all people, but it is not naturally predominant in most, it is a learned skill,

      • Reason is a part of all people, but it is not naturally predominant in most, it is a learned skill,

        Keep it up, Jon. You too can become an arrogant asshole in just a few easy to learn BF steps. First, assume you’re right about everything. Second, assume the majority of the rest of the world (including libraries filled with economic and other theories disputing your claims) are wrong. Third, make declarative statements and insult your openent. Fourth (and perhaps most important), find a website where you’ll have others of the same mindset who will come to your rescue even after your declarations are challenged … and stay there because nobody else will pay any attention to you.

        Sorry, but I’ll take Noan Chomsky over you and that other genius (Gman) and the big bag of wind (BF) any day of the year, pal. Try as hard as you want to lose your soul but you’ve already shown you have one. BF, he can’t begin to show that … it’d make him human and we all know what a God he is here.

        Yeah, right.

        • Charlie,

          What theories are you suggesting, Charlie?
          Can you defend them with reason?

          Or are you merely a parrot of other idiots, like Chomsky?

          • Chomsky an idiot … that says it all, BF.

            Picture the fog horn here. I don’t have anymore time to waste. This is your life, brother.

            • Another post, empty of substance, from Charlie.

              You are the example I point to that should strike fear into any man’s heart when he hears “Socialism”.

              • That’s the difference between us, BF. You get nervous at people like me. And we laugh our asses off at blowhards like you.

                You want substance, go read one of his 20 or so books on the subject of capitalism and how it CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT GOVERNMENT. He’s an accepted scholar on the matter. You’re an accepted scholar here … where all 10(?) [if that many] of your disciples can cheer you on.

                What a putz.

              • Charlie

                That’s the difference between us, BF. You get nervous at people like me.

                Nervous? For an author, you have a really hard time grasping the right words.

                No, alarmed

                People like you end up killing millions of innocent people without a blinking of an eye.

                You want substance, go read one of his 20 or so books on the subject of capitalism
                and how it CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT GOVERNMENT.

                I have, and more, and none of his arguments stand up any better than yours.

                He suffers the same disease you do – called “strawman fallacy”.

                He labels what is NOT “x” to BE “x”, then argues the faults of NOT “x” claiming that makes “x” impractical.

                But you like that style of argument – it fits your irrational nature.

            • Bama Dad says:

              “capitalism and how it CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT GOVERNMENT.”
              As the tuna man says, “Sorry Charlie” but that statement is absolutely incorrect. I can’t believe that BF let that one slide. Capitalism is the PRIVATE ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. Once government becomes involved it no longer is Capitalism but becomes Mercantilism.

    • Buck and Mathius are very similar to Charlie –

      They has adopted the idea that by making the federal government stronger, voters can overcome the effects of a much too strong federal government.

      Now you will reel at the contradiction in that statement, but they will not. They will see it making complete sense.

      When asked for their reasoning or economic theories, you are met with the deafening silence.

      They have no coherent theory – their attempts are always incomprehensible and incoherent.

      Like Buck – they brush aside those complaints of a lack of coherency with offish statements “Well, I have my theory and you have yours” yet, when pressed for the root premise that grounds this theory you are met with — silence.

      There is none, therefore, they have no theory.

      This is not just a disease of the Left, but it infects the Right as well. The arena is different but the irrational, incoherent argument style pops up nonetheless.

      There are reasons for this – both sides what “X” as an outcome, but both sides do not believe free men will agree to such an “X”. Both sides do not trust freedom to accomplish their goals – because free men tend to only accomplish moral goals and refrain from immoral ones.

      Both sides do see that “X” is ultimately immoral because for it to succeed, innocent people will suffer. Thus, they know free people will not rally behind such a goal.

      So both sides argue for the guns of government to force such a goal.

      The irony – it absolutely makes such a goal absolutely evil, and thus, even less likely to be achieved, while increasing the scope of the suffering on even more innocent people.

      The lack in trust in freedom plus an ego-centric drive to achieve certain goals by any means – including evil means – defines their arguments.

      • because free men tend to only accomplish moral goals and refrain from immoral ones.

        Idiot speak, pure and simple. Was it free men who wiped out the indigenous populations of North and South America? Weren’t they free not to kill people and rape their lands? The financial gain of all that violence somehow comes to shape the industrialized world, Europe and America, etc. Jerkoffs like you get to line your pockets with centuries of capital born of that rape and murder … and now that you have it, you abhor violence and call those in need evil. Maybe you’re afraid someone comes along and rips it from your hands and then they get to declare themselves moral and call you evil for wanting it back?


    • Wow-I just do not know what to say. The arrogance and just pure rudeness is just unbelievable. You are quite capable of making your opinions known without calling people names and without passing judgements on their character.

      Which is exactly what Charlie has been being criticized for doing. Yet here you sit doing the same thing. Being smart does not excuse or make acting like an ass attractive.

      • Being smart does not excuse or make acting like an ass attractive.

        I seriously challenge those first two words, V.H.


        • Charlie -you have no excuse for acting like an ass either! As far as I’m concerned you both crossed the line. So if y’all can’t talk with at least some semblance of civility-stop talking to each other.

  89. @Jon, Gman and anyone else who thinks I’m out of line criticizing BF for homeschooling his daughter. First, grow a spine and think for yourselves instead being sycophants. Second, speaking of bad comprehension … duh, the man suffers from megalomania and you all know it. He makes declarative statements as if they are law. They are HIS law, not universal law (no matter how godlike he thinks himself). The world is not black and white. Anyone who thinks so is kidding themselves … worse, when they try to impose their will on others, they are guilty of the worst kind of slavery (that of the mind). When I say I’m rooting for his daughter, you better believe I mean it. I can’t imagine growing up with a megalomaniac like BF overseeing my every step. Hopefully she will be able to think for herself (and should she come to the same misguided conclusions about life as her father, so be it) … but if they are HIS misguided conclusions … well, then it’s a dame shame. I hope you can comprehend what I just wrote … it really isn’t that hard.

    • Charlie,

      As I pointed out, you do not like arguments that are clear…because you regards clear arguments as tricks.

      You think that any argument which progresses step by step to a conclusion is inherently untrustworthy.

      Since you see clear and logic arguments as tricks and untrustworthy, you avoid such arguments yourself, and merely appeal to base emotions, with no reasoning at all.

    • Charlie, I simply do not agree with your rantings. Calling me names will not change that. BF can do whatever he wants in his life, it is not my business. The problem with yous on the left, is you think everything is your business, fortunately it isn’t. As a side note, I agree with Anita too!

  90. Good Morning, BF……I think where you and I are always going to differ is in philosophy. We are pretty much on agreement on economic terms…but I am having a problem with your statement “both sides what “X” as an outcome, but both sides do not believe free men will agree to such an “X”. Both sides do not trust freedom to accomplish their goals – because free men tend to only accomplish moral goals and refrain from immoral ones.” (Sorry, don’t know how to use the italics).

    I do not think that this is even possible for I think that culture prevents this type of behavior. I do not believe that if you eliminated all governments today…to where no government, as we know it exists, that free men will ever agree to live and act in concert at all, moral or otherwise. Some will and some will not. The minute that some will not…creates the definition of evil as you see it. I understand, completely, your definition of evil and where its root comes from and why you believe that way. But there is always going to be disagreement among free men and no one conclusion will be the same. For it to be the same, there must be one common goal and that is possible but that common goal may have several different pathways and not everyone will take the same path.

    So, how do you reconcile that free men will have the same thoughts and if not, then how do you reconcile that there is no government…….for men of free will naturally form alliances and alliances are a form of government and that is where the trouble starts, does it not?

    • D13

      .for men of free will naturally form alliances and alliances are a form of government and that is where the trouble starts, does it not?

      To the former, Yes, they do.
      To the mid, no, alliances are not a government.
      To the latter, yes, that is when the trouble starts.

      “The survival of the law for almost three millennia is testament to the sense of honor held by the people it governed. The laws were laws of users. That is, they attained their authority from public opinion. They were the expression of the moral power of the people it governed. The moral power was the code of honor reflected throughout ancient law and wisdom texts. An individual’s word was his bond.”

      Government – monopoly on violence within a geographical area.

      One of the features of such is that government excludes itself from its own laws.
      You cannot kill the innocent – period.
      Government kills the innocent with impunity.

      In the Irish example, no such circumstance existed. The “king” could not kill with impunity. He was held to the same law as was a nave. The ‘king’ did not have the monopoly on violence – it was distributed among the people – the people enforced the law, not the king via his minions.

      “It was the historical role of the tuath — the Irish polity — that consisted of all “freemen” who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen to enforce the law. There was an annual assembly of all tuath members that decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their “kings.” It is also worth noting that no one was stuck or bound to an individual tuath, and was free to (and often did) secede from one tuath and join a competing one. Thus tuatha were voluntary associations that were comprised of the landed properties of their voluntary members. The tuatha were able to guarantee law and order through a complex system of sureties.

      Since law enforcement was not a function of the state or king in the Irish tuath, it was entirely dependent on each party in an action or suit to provide themselves with sureties who would guarantee that the judgment of the brehon’s court would be honored.”

      • But, this does not exist any longer…….and I understand it. Ok..thanks for your reconciliation.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          There was a key word used in BF’s original proposition that has been lost following C’s response.

          Free men “TEND” towards.

          Freedom is the ability to live according to one’s OWN will.

          Free men who stray from the path of peace threaten the very freedom they think they have. This is where REASON comes to the rescue.

          It is by the application of rational thought that we realize these acts actually undermine freedom, because the only way to be truly free is for ALL MEN to be equally free. Violence against others to gain property results in retaliation by the others. Freedom is lost.

          And thus the battle continues for mankind. The ebb and flow of the never ending journey to find our TRUE nature and the Righteous Path.

          Hope all is well in Texas this fine morning.

          We have finally seen the Sun after a week of cold, cloudy and rain.

          Best to you and yours.

          • d13 There was a key word used in BF’s original proposition that has been lost following C’s response. Free men “TEND” towards.

            Exaclty, JAC

            Few actually read. They pick out only the words that they want to read, then add their own words, and then claim that is what the author said in that sentence.

        • D13,

          It has, and lasted longer then this current iteration of government-centric society.

          Government comes to be when men seek violence as a means to solve non-violent problems.

          When men decide that government no longer solves non-violent problems, then government will fade away.

    • Well, that is really childish -You do know that BF intentionally pushes people’s buttons-he uses ridicule as a tool -So you are either allowing BF to play you or you just like the game-I know you like to push buttons yourself. Either way, I suspect we all ignore BF’s name calling because we know it’s just part of his debating strategy. So keep on, as Anita says-looking like a bigger dick each day, if that’s what you want to do.

      • BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA! VH? OMG….ROFL………..(you’re the one I was afraid of offending)

        • You ladies seemed intrigued with big dicks … I guess that explains your 20% involvement here …

          Have a nice BIG day

          • See the difference Anita-Charlie decided to give us an example of things which should offend us. 🙂

            • The difference between me and Charlie is I know when to back off when I’m in over my head…he drowns himself 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Charlie Stella

            That Sir, was uncalled for. You have crossed the line.

            I suggest you take a break and gather yourself.

            Excuse me ladies for intervening, I know your both capable of defending yourselves.

            But such talk to a lady is unacceptable and should be addressed.

            Now……Big Hugs to both of you.

            • Thank you JAC-I’m old fashioned by today’s standards I suppose, but I rather like a man taking up for me-whether I need it or not 🙂

            • But such talk to a lady is unacceptable and should be addressed.

              Just saw this. It’s funny. And you have to be kidding.

            • Thanks JAC. I still wouldn’t mind meeting Charlie in real life…care to join us? I’ll supply the bourbon 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:


                No my dear, but thanks for asking.

                It would not end well, I assure you.

        • 🙂 I’m not that easily offended and you have never offended me.

  91. @ Charlie……….Good morning Canoli Meister….hope that you and yours are doing well. I sure hate being off Dr. Pepper… I am having withdrawals…and withdrawals cause me to rant at times (re: Military budgets)………sign……but…..I will always have to take issue with you on things when they strike me…..and you struck me with “The world is not black and white.”……I submit that it is…….at least in my travels and 64 years of footprints. To me, shades of grey make life very difficult. It either is or it is not…..there is no maybe. Not in my world at least. SO….stand back, spread your arms wide…..and I shall paint you black and white, remove your rose colored glasses, sit you down to a big plate of frijoles and cabrito, and/or Canoli…..and sip some suds with ya…..BUT…beware…it is not without peril for you may be talking in a strong Texas accent, have a desire to wear a Stetson, carry a gun, and vote conservative. 🙂

    • Colonel, you rock.

      Here is Chomsky’s latest (although there are 12 amazon pages with his books) … for BF to mull over … if he has the cajones to do so (I doubt it).

      Colonel, the world is NOT black and white … it never has been or ever will be, no matter how many years you travel through it … the grey is there unless you choose to ignore it. Sorry, sir, but that is fact and not theory.

      I bought my drums in Texas and actually like the food there so I won’t dis it … but I wouldn’t live there either. Too many guns …

      • Ahhh but there ya go, Charlie… is grey if you see it….I do not.

        • And that is called respectfully disagreeing with one another. I see it, you don’t. Neither of us is calling the other a numbskull, imbecile, etc., for not seeing/seeing. That is called discourse; a give and take, back and forth discussion. When someone declares their position is right and yours is wrong, that is not discourse, it is being lectured. If you respect the lecturer, you can nod your head in agreement. If you don’t respect the lecturer, you provide challenges to his/her declarations. If the lecturer’s head is to friggin’ thick to penetrate, you stop hammering and smile. Then when they call you a name, you fire one or two back, but that is pointless, I agree. It’s so much easier to use Youtube.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        “The world is not black and white” is a catch phrased used to rationalize immorality and to deny the existence of truth.

        Gray is the result of men who have not taken the time to THINK hard and long about the world around them and the results of their actions.

        Gray is a color, not a state of mind and not a state of morality or ethics.

        If you find gray at the end of your search, you took a wrong fork in the road on your journey.

        If you claim that the complicated nature of human behavior is somehow proof of “gray” then you are confusing concepts.

        • “The world is not black and white” is a catch phrased used to rationalize immorality and to deny the existence of truth

          JAC, you just stepped into a gray area, my learned friend. Your definition of morality and mine are probably very different. There is no single black or white morality. Men determine that on their own and for different reasons accept some things as moral (abortion, say) and others not (murder). And there are those who understand both concepts, may even feel both are correct, but that abortion remains a woman’s choice. The latter exist in a gray area and you can bang your head against the wall all you want to insist otherwise, but all you’ll get is a headache. There are people on welfare for any number of reasons. Some because they are lazy, some for other reasons. To hypothesize that it is the state’s fault for providing welfare that so many are out of work today is moronic.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Your morality is an absolute to you…….no gray.

            Mine is an absolute to me……….no gray.

            Morality, by definition, is the identification of that which is right vs. wrong. Not some right and some wrong.

            You are trying to mix up the concept of the black and white nature of morality with the comparison of two different sets of moral principles.

            The latter can be explored, argued and I submit the truth discovered by rational thinking. One of the following must be true in this case, but none include gray.

            Both are right.
            Both are wrong.
            One is right.

            • Your morality is an absolute to you…….no gray.

              Wrong, JAC. It is not an absolute to me. I believe abortion to be murder, yet believe a woman has the right to make this decision. I also believe murder is wrong. You can call that muddle thinking, but it is how I feel about both abortion and murder.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Yes, that is how you FEEL.

                It is the result of muddled thinking……….OR………it could be the result of INCOMPLETE thinking.

      • Charlie,

        You are a parrot.
        You do not understand anything about Chomsky – you jump on his bandwagon because in your irrational thinking, he appears to share your irrational conclusions.

        But anyone asking you how you came to such a conclusion, you are a toad on a log, burbling.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Time to dial it back a bit my old friend.

          A simple request for him to “explain” Chomsky might have sufficed.

          I certainly hope your weather has been better than ours. The moss is starting to grow between my toes I fear.

          • Nope, sorry, JAC

            I have no qualms in calling evil by its name, nor calling the unreasoned ridiculous, nor exposing incoherent men as stupid, nor calling the unlearned ignornant.

            When men give evil an ear, evil grows.
            When men give liars fair hearing, lies replace truth.
            When men listen to the ignorant as if universal truths are being spoken, knowledge is replaced with myth.

            As evil, ignorant liars become acceptable -even honored- within any society, that society is doomed.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              I would not ask you stop doing so, only find a less obnoxious way to do it.

              Especially when it has obviously escalated to the point where there is nothing useful coming from the argument.

              I suggest you explain the concepts and reason rather than the makeup of your opponent.

              When others understand these, they will know evil when they see it. You won’t have to call it out by name.

  92. JAC, not only do I provide my real name on here, I’ll be glad to send you my address. Anita is always welcome … actually, any of you are … but I kind of doubt some of the tough talk in here (especially the name calling) wouldn’t show up with some of the people behind the fugazy names. I understand the reason to hide behind them (work, etc.), but really, doesn’t that kind of put your great belief in liberty in an awkward position.

    I mean, seriously, dudes (and dudettes), you have nothing to fear but fear itself … 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      The reason for being anonymous is because LIBERTY is already jeopardized.

      The use of a false name does not cause this, it is the effect of it.

      As for the rest, I appreciate the offer but respectfully decline.

  93. The reason for being anonymous is because LIBERTY is already jeopardized.

    The use of a false name does not cause this, it is the effect of it.

    Sounds like an excuse to me, but I’ll respect you fear of being exposed.

    The offer always stands …

    • That is a very nice offer Charlie-and I too would be happy to have a drink with you and talk. Just remember, at some point, I might still declare you a “clear and present danger” to my freedom and try to get you thrown out of the country. 🙂

      Everybody have a nice day. It is Saturday and I am out of here to have a different kind of fun.

      • I, too, would love a chance to have a drink and a debate over coffee and canolies. 🙂 I would not be any danger to you either, I keep things civil when I can, but I keep them non-violent always.

        For the record, I use my real name also, tho many do not believe me because of what my real name is. 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:


      And where to you is the difference between A REASON and An EXCUSE?

      For the record, once again, it is not ME but OTHERS I wish to protect.

  94. V.H. You wouldn’t be the first one trying to get rid of me … man or woman!

  95. This should make some of yous happy, even if it is for the wrong reasons (uinon busting) …
    jump to Quick Hitters for Obama’s tweet.

  96. @JAC:

    Yes, that is how you FEEL.

    It is the result of muddled thinking……….OR………it could be the result of INCOMPLETE thinking.

    How I feel counts. How anyone feels counts (and that’s the point, JAC). Your absolute sense of morality vs. mine creates a gray area; how we view economics, freedom, murder, etc. It is an undeniable FACT of life, which is why absolutes CANNOT APPLY. There are, in FACT, gray areas … they exist between any two perspectives. It has NOTHING to do with rational thinking (unless you’re insisting, as you appear to be above) that YOUR perspective is right; but then it’s your problem (not dealing with FACT).

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Where does the gray exist between Right and Wrong?

      Or Good and Evil?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      A difference of opinion is NOT a gray area.

      It is a difference of opinion. The correct answer may not be known to either party but there is an answer.

      Your supposed Gray is only because you can’t defend your position or are unwilling to accept the other’s position. So you claim there is gray. There is not gray.


      Both could be true.

      Both could be false.

      One could be true.

      But here is the TRUTH the one undeniable REALITY. If you do not know which is true then you simply don’t know. It doesn’t make them GRAY. Only UNKNOWN.

      Again you try to use gray in the context of your view vs. my view. Gray is a mixing of concepts. Differing views is not a mixing. It is a distinct difference, as in black vs. white.

      • This is another one that I have wrestled with since taking Freshman Philosophy some 48 years ago. Shades of gray. As much as I would like to come down hard and fast on one side or the other, all aspects of the question must be studied including peculiar circumstances.

        As often as the Catholic Church has been put down over the years as being doctrinaire and immovable, some of the best debates I have had on this subject were during my religion and theology classes during those 16 years of Catholic education. I must admit that most, if not all my teachers came down on the peculiar circumstances side. When the book and movie “the Cardinal” came out there were scenes that implied that the Church would sacrifice the mother if the choice were between the infant and mother and it was a complex delivery. All of my religion teachers, all of them professed religious, pointed out that this was nonsense. To many of my classmates, this came as a shock, they too having bought into the stubbornness of the Church.

        While opposed to artificial contraception back in the ’60’s when the pill first surfaced, the Church welcomed the drug for its ability to regulate a woman’s cycle if she were having difficulty conceiving. So much for the “Gods will” argument.

        There were even those who argued that lying was a sin, even to save a life from the Nazi’s or Communists, yet it was not. It was encouraged and practiced within the Church.

        I have over the years, come to a good solid point for myself on the “Grays”. I study an issue, always from both sides, weigh the benefits and costs and come down on the side that does the least damage. Not everyone out there would agree as in my opposition to “gay marriage”. While there “may” and I stress the may, be some small psychological benefit to individuals who are gay, the long term damage to the society and its institutions far outweighs this immediate benefit. Using my own peculiar logic, this is why I can still be for capital punishment and yet have not decided, after 40 years, my position on drug legalization not having found any clear superiority on either side of the argument.

        For a child of the ’50’s its that damned Davy Crockett thing, “Be sure you are right and then go ahead”.

    • The issue I have with those who talk about shades of gray is the same issue they have with the black and white crowd. I believe there are shades of gray, but there is also black and white. Too many who see the world in shades of gray only ever see the gray. There are things that are always good, and things that are always bad. There does exist black and white. Those who refuse to admit the existence of gray are in error, but those who speak of shades of gray are in error if they refuse to admit the existence of black and white. All the shades exist, INCLUDING black and white.

  97. Whoa, just catching up on here – I missed some good stuff!! V.H.! You da…..woman!!!

    Black vs. white? I’ve come to learn there are about about 50 Shades of Grey….

%d bloggers like this: