Controlling the Message

Obama and his supporters want to have a conversation.  One where they control the topic first, the message and questions second, to the extent they are able. But the first is the big one, lets talk about Mitt’s taxes, Gay marriage, reproductive rights, green energy, Mrs. Romney’s horse, etc…  Anything but Obama’s record on jobs or the economy.  I get some emails from Glenn Beck.  Most I delete without reading, but a recent one caught my eye.

As much as one Billion dollars was given as tax credits to children, prisoners or others who do not own homes for energy efficiency improvements.

70 Facts About Our Economy Obama Probably Doesn’t Want You To See

70 Facts About The Economy That Obama Doesnt Want You To See

A stunning collection of 70 facts about the U.S. economy just posted on the web is probably not going to make it into the next campaign ad from the folks at Obama for America. However, you might want to read it.  http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-u-s-economy-by-the-numbers-70-facts-that-barack-obama-does-not-want-you-to-see

TheBlaze has culled 10 from the list of 70 here:

  • Speaking of “no faith in the US Dollar” – The price of gold when Obama was inaugurated, $850 an ounce. Today, gold is over $1500.
  • A stunning amount spent on stupid studies like Why do chimps throw their poop? – Almost $600,000 of your tax dollars was sent to the folks who studied chimpanzee poop tossing, plus $198,195 paid to find out if “tweeting” makes people happy… It’s all HERE.

The full list, complete with links to the supporting stories, can be found here.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/70-facts-about-our-economy-obama-probably-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

 

Report: Cronyism, political donations likely behind Obama, Holder failure to charge any bankers after 2008 financial meltdown

FILE – In a March 15, 2012 file photo a trader works in the Goldman Sachs booth on the floor of the

A new report from the conservative Government Accountability Institute (GAI) finds that President Barack Obama’s and Attorney General Eric Holder’s failure to criminally charge any top Wall Street bankers is likely a result of cronyism inside the Department of Justice and political donations made to Obama’s campaign.

Despite Obama’s and Holder’s “heated rhetoric” against Wall Street (in 2009, Obama blamed the 2008 financial collapse on “reckless speculation of bankers” while Holder charged that “unscrupulous executives, Ponzi scheme operators and common criminals alike have targeted the pocketbooks and retirement accounts of middle class Americans”), they haven’t “filed a single criminal charge against any top executive of an elite financial institution,” GAI wrote in its report, exclusively obtained by The Daily Caller.

GAI argues that the Obama administration’s decision to not go after Big Finance is due to senior DOJ leadership — Holder, Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, Associate Attorney General Tony West, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, Deputy Attorney General James Cole and Deputy Associate Attorney General Karol Mason — who “all came to the DOJ from prestigious white-collar defense firms where they represented the very financial institutions the DOJ is supposed to investigate.”

The report details how Holder and Breuer both came to the DOJ from Covington & Burling, a “top-tier Washington law firm” with a client list that includes financial firms like Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, CitiBank, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, ING, Morgan Stanley, UBS and Wilmington Trust.

GAI said that President Obama’s decision to choose Holder, “a white-collar defense attorney from Covington,” as his attorney general, over a “more fiery prosecutor,” appears to have sent “a subtle signal to the financial community” that this administration isn’t going to actually do anything, despite the harsh words.

Cole, the report outlines, was with Bryan Cave LLP — “a white-shoe firm with A-list clients” — before becoming Holder’s right-hand man at the DOJ. One of Cole’s clients while at Bryan Cave LLP, the GAI report shows, was insurance and financial giant AIG.

Cole had done $20 million worth of work for AIG between 2004 and 2008, but his close ties with the company — which was “at the heart of the financial crisis largely because of its noncompliance in regulatory and compliance issues” — didn’t stop Obama or Holder from welcoming him aboard their administration.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/07/report-cronyism-political-donations-likely-behind-obama-holder-failure-to-charge-any-bankers-after-2008-financial-meltdown/#ixzz22thqE5pw 

Analysis: Real stimulus spending is at least $2.5 trillion since 2008

 

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Yea, a new thread! It helps to hear more rediculous bullshit from Captain Canolli and his Merry band of locksteppers!

    • Just curious Todd, when will you actually type anything worth reading 😆

      • Almost $600,000 of your tax dollars was sent to the folks who studied chimpanzee poop tossing, plus $198,195 paid to find out if “tweeting” makes people happy…

        Yes, Liberal stupidity at it’s finest!

        • Gman,
          I know reading stupid right-wing comments makes me happy! *

          I’ll give ya that little tidbit for FREE!

          * See my previous posts! 🙂

      • Gman,
        Right after you learn proper grammar…
        …or…
        If you mean something that you’ll understand, don’t hold your breath…
        …or…
        Any moment now, but you’ll never know it…
        …or…
        Maybe later tonight, but it will probably go right over your head…

    • Forward, March – Hut! Two-Three-Four
      Hut! Two-Three-Four
      Hut! Two-Three-Four

      Come-on Mathuis, Buck, and Charlie – get in line and step it up!!

  2. Captain Cannoli checking in. I’m wondering which particular post upset the Gman (or maybe it was a collection), but it’s good to know the G-ster is has such a good pulse on racial relations in America these days. What a guy he is!

    Good for the Eagle scouts who refuse to be part of an organization that defends discrimination. I was a boy scout … scary thought, huh? I offer their organization NO cannoli for being nazi’s hiding behind the “private organization” sheet.

    Screw the boy scouts of America.

    • Captain, Not upset at all! What you call racist and homophobiic, I just remind myself that I either like everyone or hate everyone. Sometimes I’m not sure which way to go, but somehow I always end up in the middle.

      The Boy Scouts asked me to tell you to fu#k off! Lose the viagra too! They are some spunky young dude’s, 😆

      • I just remind myself that I either like everyone or hate everyone

        See how that black and white stuff doesn’t work? All you need is love, brother. There is a middle ground. You can hate what someone proposes (me, for instance), yet not hate the guy himself (or, in my case, that might be difficult, but you shouldn’t spread it (that hate) around to all lefties.

        There is no agenda (even for a socialist-commi like me). I’m too busy trying to get by day to day with projects much more important to me than changing your political mind, G. Not that they are more important than you (they aren’t); they’re just important to me (more so than politics).

        Anyway, peace out.

        • I certainly don’t hate you Charlie, not my thing. Your politics is alien to me, but your still the French loving, canolli eating, capitalism hating person I still have respect for. Peace! 🙂

    • What a guy he is!

      I’ll second that Captain!!

  3. As the Captain noted Gman, you left a lot of unanswered questions on the last thread. Any replies?

  4. 😐

  5. THe mob was on the verge of being taken down by the law, only to be replaced by gangs who are much more violent (and mostly minorities).

    I missed this one last night. The mob was at the height of its power during the 70’s, but you’re right it was about to go down the toilet (and it had little to do with the law–it was deals with devils that brought it down–letting admitted serial killers go free for their testimony). What they traditionally ran in NY minorities haven’t been able to get close to, but I’m confused. Are you saying you prefer the traditional mob (and/or the Russian WHITE mob) to minority mobs? Is that some sort of measure of civilization? Or maybe a little underlying insane racism?

    • Just a sign of the times back then. Youngstown Ohio was known as Little Chicago for a long time, not sure why, as we didn’t have alot of crime in those days. Since then, crime has gone crazy, making Youngstown one of the FBI’s most dangerous cities. The cause isn’t hard to figure out, just look at who is committing the crimes.

      • charlieopera says:

        I see those crimes as horrible and usually against each other. The crimes that bother me more (call me silly), are those committed by the 1% and their lackies (both political parties) … the only major area where I and libertarians disagree (and it is a major area), is the economy. I don’t believe in capitalism, but this government (again, both parties), is an instrument of those who created it for their own purpose 200+ years ago) … and all they’ve done since is strengthen their stranglehold … Dem vs. GOP … a sad, bad joke.

        Go Bills!

        • There is much we agree on. I don’t see capitalism being the problem, but the corruption that perverts capitalism. Regardless of the type of economy we have, it’s in big trouble. There are many different views to consider, some are very morbid. I won’t put anything past this government, so I tend to prepare for the worst case scenario’s.

          Go Dolphins! 🙂

          • charlieopera says:

            Dolphins? Well, that explains a lot … cheesh, Gman …

            Squish the Fish!

          • Mathius™ says:

            Dolphins are another one of those species that engages in homosexuality.

            The more you know!™

        • Charlie, libertarians are as pissed about the criminal and corrupt acts by the powers that be just as much as you are. Only difference is that we dont presume guilt if you are rich, and we don’t presume lack of guilt if you are in government.

          • charlieopera says:

            Only difference is that we dont presume guilt if you are rich, and we don’t presume lack of guilt if you are in government.

            No, you presume I do … 🙂

            • Actually, more accurately we presume guilt if you are in government. I do not presume that you ascribe guilt to all the rich, but you talk a lot like you do, and seem to have the opinion that no one “deserves” to be rich, regardless of their means. Also, you may not automatically presume innocence in government, but you certainly seem to think government can be a solution to something that it is part of the problem of now. I just never understood the logic….

              • charlieopera says:

                You can’t understand the logic because you’re locked into your own world view, my man. My world view sees the following: the 1% (good or bad intent irrelevant), own the government and do with it as they please. How they became the 1% has little to do with the sweat of their brow and/or risk and much more to do with advantages either built into the system or capitized on because of an absurd system (that rewards an original risk taker forever on the backs on those who do the actual work–I find that absurd; I know you do not). Government as we know it is useless, but it’s also in place for the beck and call of the 1%, so maybe a more inclusive government (local governments are fine with me, but I suspect other predatory nations would gobble us up should we disband our military), which is why I don’t see how we avoid a socialist-like government eventually. Hopefully it won’t be comprised of shills from the 1% and would act for the benefit of the greater good, rather than the very few … but not to worry, I’ll be long dead (I suspect) before it happens.

  6. @ JAC…..good morning JAC……I read your article and I knew that this was going on. You do not want to know my comments. I have AO and the government, under Obama….defunded the studies and health care of the herbicide for veterans. The reason is that since less than 200,000 that are left have the affliction and since there is nothing that can be done about it….the money is being spent elsewhere and those veterans that were on disability as a result of AO poisoning…….have lost their disability. So, to spend hundreds of millions in Vietnam now,,,,,,well, that does not deserve any more attention. I just hope that when this administration is over that our government can return to its sense.,,,but I doubt it.

  7. @ USW….I see you around every now and then. You will appreciate this: As of yesterday, Nidal Hasan, who is still in the military and who is still receiving major’s pay, has been allowed through a government decree, to be able to bypass the army’s grooming standards and allowed to keep his beard for religious reasons, where he has shaved for years,,,,,,,is going to be forcefully shaved for his court appearance. I would suggest dry shaved.

    • I think women use wax for hair removal sometimes? That it’s more effective and over the long run, costs less? Seems to me Hasan’s beard issue would be best served with that method, less risk of anyone’s injury. Why have guards restrain him while someone has to use a razor or something?

      • Of course, the dry shave is my recommendation…I do not know how they will do it or even if they will but that is the talk right now. He has absolutely no right whatsoever to keep that beard and to allow it under Presidential decree is an abomination. But what do you expect from a government of cowards.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Rub PIG fat in his beard, hand him a straight razor and leave him in a locked room.

          When he has finished, Feed his remains to the hogs.

  8. @ JAC…..Wait until you see the new regulations, being revised as we speak, about disarming Federal ICE agents and Federal Border Patrol agents on the border. Eric Holder and Napolitano are also trying to use the Federal Courts to pull our patrol boats from the Rio and the lakes on the border. It is not going to work but they are trying…and also trying to tie Federal highway funds to this as well. That is not going to work either. Texas will not pay attention to any court order, if it happens. Just as we have said that the SCOTUS ruling makes no difference in our approach to Obama care…we ain’t doing it. This is what it is going to take. Open defiance.

    This is the most corrupt administration in my life time.

    • I might add that since the ICE agents and Immigration are not picking up anybody…we still are and transporting them to Presidio and the border town of Ojinaga…much to the dismay of the Mexican Government.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Good morning Sir. Hope your day goes well.

      I saw a fella last night being interviewed about his new book “Fooled me Once”. He has outlined what he sees as Mr. Obama’s goals for the next four years if elected.

      He mentioned this disarming and control of ICE and Border Patrols. He went farther to claim that the plan is to create a situation via Ex. Order and perhaps some laws, if Dems win some more seats, that will create a “protected class” of citizens. This will include all the illegal immigrants in the country. At the same time they hope to increase the illegal migration by increasing welfare payments, which apparently Mr. O has agreed to do in a deal with the Pres. of Mexico. The next step is to convert the “protected class” to US Citizens, thus adding over 10 million people to the supposedly Dem Party loyalists.

      This was but one of many such goals. How much you want to bet this fella’s personal reputation will be DESTROYED in the next two months?

  9. @ LOI…….to your article that is posted. I have seen the costs associated with all of these things. My pencil works as good as the governments…people…the general population…….and even those on here in support of all of this……have no idea what is coming down the pike unless they have read everything more than once and put a pencil to it. It is unsustainable and will be the demise of small business and the middle class.

  10. Mathius™ says:

    The price of gas – When Obama took office, a gallon of gas cost you $1.85. Today, it’s up to $3.59 per gallon (July’s rise was 17 cents a gallon).
    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
    2002 1.139 1.130 1.241 1.407 1.421 1.404 1.412 1.423 1.422 1.449 1.448 1.394
    2003 1.473 1.641 1.748 1.659 1.542 1.514 1.524 1.628 1.728 1.603 1.535 1.494
    2004 1.592 1.672 1.766 1.833 2.009 2.041 1.939 1.898 1.891 2.029 2.010 1.882
    2005 1.823 1.918 2.065 2.283 2.216 2.176 2.316 2.506 2.927 2.785 2.343 2.186
    2006 2.315 2.310 2.401 2.757 2.947 2.917 2.999 2.985 2.589 2.272 2.241 2.334
    2007 2.274 2.285 2.592 2.860 3.130 3.052 2.961 2.782 2.789 2.793 3.069 3.020
    2008 3.047 3.033 3.258 3.441 3.764 4.065 4.090 3.786 3.698 3.173 2.151 1.689
    2009 1.787 1.928 1.949 2.056 2.265 2.631 2.543 2.627 2.574 2.561 2.660 2.621
    2010 2.731 2.659 2.780 2.858 2.869 2.736 2.736 2.745 2.704 2.795 2.852 2.985
    2011 3.091 3.167 3.546 3.816 3.933 3.702 3.654 3.630 3.612 3.468 3.423 3.278
    2012 3.399 3.572 3.868 3.927 3.792 3.552
    (I’m guessing that won’t post correctly). But here’s the upshot. When Obama took office, the national average for regular unleaded was 1.787 (close enough to your figure of 1.85). Yes, this is true. And today, it’s 3.552 (close enough to your 3.59 figure). Again, true.

    What this ignores is that one year before Obama took office, the price was 3.047. In the summer of that year, it was 4.09. Let that sink in. You’ve (the royal you, not you personally) picked a date which happens to have been coincidentally both the inauguration date and the massive dip in gas prices. Then you draw the graph from there. So it LOOKS like it went from $1.80 to 3.50. But what it actually did was go from $1.10 (in 2002) to 4.09 (in 2008), then it DIPPED to $1.80 (2009) for a little while before coming back up.

    This is such a BS line of attack because it COMPLETELY IGNORES CONTEXT. Over the 8 years of the BUSH presidency, gas prices roughly tripled. Over the 3 years of the Obama Presidency, they’ve stayed roughly flat if you consider the temporary price he came in with as an anomaly. And it is, of course, an anomaly. Prices don’t suddenly fall from 4 to 2 without a reason – that reason, of course, being the recession. Which brings us to…

    71% of small business owners believe we’re still in a recession — Despite government claims that the recession actually ended years ago, a majority of small business owners feel very differently. Conveniently, the term recession has a meaning. This is a specific set of economic indicators. It doesn’t really matter what 71% of small business owners believe, the facts are the facts, and the FACTS are that we have experienced several consecutive quarters of growth, ergo, the recession is over.

    Now, that doesn’t mean the economy is ‘strong’ or that we’re growing fast enough. But that’s not the definition of recession. If you wanted to allege that 71% of small business owners think the economy sucks.. well then you’ve got a case. But just because something is believed doesn’t make it true. Recall that people used to think the world was flat and that sun revolved around the Earth.

    You have to work 107 days each year just to pay Federal, State, & Local taxes – That means you don’t earn a penny until April 18th. Yea yea yea yea yea yea yea… what was it a decade ago, I wonder. Is this for the top marginal rate (which nobody pays)? What does this look like for the lower and/or middle class? CONTEXT! Would it kill you to present your spooky numbers in CONTEXT?

    More than 30% of unemployed Americans have been out of work for more than a year – In 2007, that number was 10%. In 2007, we hadn’t recently experienced a massive recession. In fact, in 2007, we were in the height of a bubble economy. In 2008, the economy fell off a cliff – for those following along at home, that would be BEFORE Obama took office. And even though things have gotten better since then, that doesn’t mean it’s all fixed. So you’re comparing PRE-collapse numbers verse POST-collapse numbers when the collapse happened on someone else’s watch, and assigning blame for the disparity on the guy who inherited the mess. Did I get that right?

    If I run my once-successful company into the ground and then give it to you, is it fair if I complain that profits are now lower than they used to be at the peak of it’s history.. and then blame you for that?

    ————-

    I’m not going to bother continuing. Why waste my energy?

    • Matt,

      I can agree this is partisan and many things are done to show Obama in the worst light.
      ” 71% of small business owners believe we’re still in a recession ” Not much of a story. What are they doing because of the economy? Not hiring or cutting back? Raising prices like Poppa John’s? Of those 70, are there any you think are relevant for discussion? Have you gotten a home improvement loan for your kid yet? Maybe one for your third cousin doing hard time up state? Is there anything you think we should be talking about that’s more important than Mitt Romney will take us back to the 50’s? Is that what the media needs to be telling us 24/7? What should be the #1 story today?

      • Mathius™ says:

        Of those 70, are there any you think are relevant for discussion? I didn’t read them all… I had to go throw up halfway through. Is there one in particular you’d like me to address?

        And, while we’re on the topic, are they any that you find to be particularly egregious distortions?

        What are they doing because of the economy? Not hiring or cutting back?
        I agree that it’s a very valid question what the 71% are doing (or not doing) in response to this perception. But that’s a very different thing than was written.

        1. 71% of small business owners believe we’re still in a recession — Despite government claims that the recession actually ended years ago, a majority of small business owners feel very differently.

        verse

        2. 71% of small business owners believe we’re still in a recession — Despite the fact that the recession technically is over, Obama has failed to convince small business owners of this and to get them back to hiring/investing.

        verrrrry different.

        Have you gotten a home improvement loan for your kid yet? What? No. Why? Huh?

        Is there anything you think we should be talking about that’s more important than Mitt Romney will take us back to the 50′s? Absolutely! But good luck getting the media to cover more serious topics or to be less biased.

        Is that what the media needs to be telling us 24/7? What should be the #1 story today? I’m sure there are less biased and more relevant lead stories available. But then again, let me turn the tables and ask you this: should the lead story on SUFA be some hit piece from The Blaze which you freely admit is “partisan and […] done to show Obama in the worst light”?

        • My bad Matt. I had some issues lately like staying employed and married (OK, occasional sex is in there somewhere). I followed the Blaze link to a PDF that I do not know how to copy & post which on around pg 10? covered the children/prisoners getting a billion dollars in tax credits. I thought that was a much better story than the ten Blaze picked. I am honestly asking you, what do you think the story should be? Any one of the seventy or what do you think is the issue for America today? I think the economy.

          Sorry to ignore you for hours, had a thing in Memphis(work). Scary moment driving home, black Dodge Station Wagon closed on me from behind, then slowly faded from view. And I don’t have any Raptors…

    • Feel better?

      Your “context” will never change the fact that Obama campaigned on HOPE and CHANGE. He was the guy who was going to come in and CHANGE things. “Oh, but we didn’t realize how bad it was!” SO! What has changed? What has gotten better? Gas price? No. Unemployment? No. Price of food? No. Payroll Tax? No. Job Creation? No. Health Care? No. Welfare? No. Food Stamps? No. Where’s the CHANGE? All that’s happened is PASS THE BLAME. Every job in the country has it’s challenges. Folks go to work every day and FIX PROBLEMS. He can cry all day about how bad it was when he came in but he has done nothing to FIX it.

      At least there’s one person in the country who defends him.

      • The economy has lost 316,000 jobs under President Barack Obama, though most of the job losses happened at the beginning of Obama’s presidency during the height of the Great Recession, according to research analyzing Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

        “In theory, we are exactly at three years into the recovery,” Veronique de Rugy, senior fellow at the Mercatus Center and author of the new research, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

        “It is the slowest recovery ever,” she added. “I would claim that there’s really no recovery at all.”

        “The last twelve months have seen the slowest wage growth ever. We also have the slowest economic growth compared to any other recovery.”

        Compared with that of each president since 1945, Obama ranks dead last in job creation, losing 316,000 jobs. Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan hold the top two slots for jobs created during their tenure. During Clinton’s tenure 22.7 million jobs were created and 16.1 million were created under Reagan.

        De Rugy cautioned that her analysis isn’t meant to compare Obama, who is still serving out his first term, to Clinton, a two-term president.

        “It would be unfair to compare Obama to Clinton, or Reagan for that matter,” she said. “It’s not unfair to look at Obama’s numbers compared to Kennedy, Carter, or Ford.”

        According to de Rugy, Obama’s job numbers are still considerably worse than Kennedy, Ford and Carter who saw 3.6 million, 2.1 million, and 10.3 million respectively. These three presidents served in office as long or shorter than Obama.

        The private sector has added more than 4.5 million jobs over the last 30 months, including 532,000 manufacturing jobs since January 2010 and more than one million jobs saved due to the auto bailout, according to the Obama campaign, but the job growth has not been enough to offset the first 13 months of losses.

        The unemployment rate in July rose to 8.3 percent from 8.2 percent the the previous month even though the economy added 163,000 jobs.

        “While there is more work that remains to be done, today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression,” writes Alan Krueger, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the president.

        The economy would have to add about 280,000 jobs per month from now until January 2013 for Obama to no longer be ranked last for job creation.

        “I was very surprised to hear that overall job creation was negative 300,000,” said de Rugy. “That was quite stunning.”

        “I was really surprised because of everything you hear during this campaign. The president talks about how he has created between three and four million jobs,” she continued.

        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/08/report-negative-job-growth-under-obama/#ixzz233pK4FDh

        • Mathius™ says:

          Obama ranks dead last in job creation, losing 316,000 jobs. Only if you insist on attributing to him the losses from the beginning of his tenure. You can’t blame him for what happened in the first few months. I would really love to see all these numbers shifted over by, say, a year. That is, Bush runs from 2001 to 2009, Obama from 2010-. Clinton would pick up a piece of the early 2k recession, Bush would pick up the whole of the 2009 losses. It’s really only fair. But it doesn’t help your narrative, does it? Huh? Huh? HUH?!

          The private sector has added more than 4.5 million jobs over the last 30 months, including 532,000 manufacturing jobs since January 2010 and more than one million jobs saved due to the auto bailout, according to the Obama campaign, but the job growth has not been enough to offset the first 13 months of losses. RIGHT. The first 13 months.. Which really belong to Bush. We could quibble over whether 13 months or 6 months of 24 months is the ‘right’ number to use, but it seems to me impossible to assert that Obama should own ALL of the job losses from the second he was sworn in. Just look at this graph. How can it possibly be fair to net the total number as if he were somehow responsible for the those months?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius, LOI

            “Jobs Created” is a Bull Shit metric. Whether over a term, year, month or week. Doesn’t matter, it says nothing but makes great political theater.

            Following are the two data sets, in graph form, that are relevant to Employment.

            http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/employed-persons-1999-2001-2003-2011/

            The other would be “Unemployment RATE”

            Next point: The numbers mean nothing unless placed in context of POLICY actions by the Administration. And this Mathius, is where Mr. O LOSES the debate. But thanks to the thinking capacity of the American People, we will not see this debate. Instead we will continue to get sound bites and irrelevant issues thrown at us.

            Yesterdays Dem. attack: Romney used money linked to death squads to start his business.

            Yesterdays Rep. attack: Obama is trying to disenfranchise voting for the military.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Re Gas prices. Have you not posted here about Bush’s loss of jobs during his tenure? Have you and Buck not both posted the usual left wing question “If tax cuts create jobs why did jobs go down during Bush’s term”? You see the entire attack on jobs vs Bush is based on taking the numbers on day one and comparing to his last day. Everything in between is ignored.

      So if you want to be fair you have to criticize the DNC propaganda with the same vigor as this gas price issue.

      Re Tax Freedom day: This has been around for a long time. It was longer in 2000 due to high income growth. It is an AVG of ALL Americans but has been calculated the same way from the start. So it does make a good comparison of overall TAX BURDEN to the US Population. However, it is a silly metric to use in political rhetoric, just as the Dow Avg is a silly metric to use in politics. Following is a discussion on the Tax Freedom day calculations from the article:

      “This year’s Tax Freedom Day is still about a couple of weeks earlier than the latest one on record, which occurred on May 1, 2000. During that time, the economy was booming and Americans paid 33% of their total income in taxes.

      The Tax Foundation, a research group that favors lower taxes, calculates Tax Freedom Day each year based on income, Social Security, sales, property and other taxes.

      But not everyone agrees with the organization’s methodology. The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, for example, argues every year that the report overstates the share of income that average households spend on taxes.

      Chuck Marr, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ director of Federal Tax Policy, said in a statement that this year’s Tax Freedom Day report “leaves a strikingly misleading impression of tax burdens.”

      He said the 29% share of income that the Tax Foundation cites as the ‘average’ tax burden is higher than what 80% of American families actually pay. ”

      I love the “not everyone agrees with the methodology”. What they want is a different metric, not method. And each has its own purpose so I don’t see how you can argue against a national avg and then support a Global Avg Temperature. 😉

      2007: We were NOT in the middle of the bubble. It had in fact burst in the Spring of 2007. What had not happened was the Financial lock up that followed. But no matter. As the graphs I posted the other day show, the employment record during the past Four years is WAY below where they were on Day One of Mr. O’s term.

      My complaint here is that if we are going to attack various “measures” used in political rhetoric we should apply the same complaint to ALL measures. Because they all twist the facts as much as possible and they all hunt and peck the information to fit a narrative.

  11. Another point to ponder. I am more a free market supporter, but it seems we are heading towards a cliff. The dollar is fiat currency, as is nearly every world currency. That means it’s “value” is made up, bases on what those who want to trade for it, what they think it’s worth. Now they have created “derivatives”, another fiat “currency”. Banks and investors are trading derivatives, buying and selling. All the time showing
    the exchange of this financial fiat has real world value. If it does have such value and is based on the real world, how can there already be 20 times more derivatives being owned or traded than all the money in the world?

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/top-derivatives-expert-finally-gives-a-credible-estimate-of-the-size-of-the-global-derivatives-market.html

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    So lets start at the beginning. With the myth that Mr. O was trying to work with the Republicans but they said from “day one” it was their goal to destroy his chances for re-election.

    Jan 24, 2009 Politico

    President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning – but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

    The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.

    The Republicans stressed that they want to include more middle class tax cuts in the package, citing their proposal to cut the two lowest tax rates — 15 percent and 10 percent — to ten percent and five percent, rather than issue the refundable credit Obama wants.

    At another point in the meeting, sources said Obama told the group: “This is a grave situation facing the country.” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama would hold another economic meeting in the White House Saturday for a “broader group.”

    After Friday’s meeting, Democratic and Republican leaders publicly wrangled over the developing stimulus plan.

    But perhaps taking a cue from Obama’s “I won” line when Democrats were asked if they were concerned about Republicans blocking the package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a swift one-word answer: “No.”

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the bill was on track for passage by February 16, while Republicans continued to voice their opposition.

    “We expressed our concerns about some of the spending that’s being proposed in the House bill,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said after meeting with Obama.

    “How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?” Boehner asked. “How does that stimulate the economy?”

    Boehner said congressional Republicans are also concerned about the size of the package.

    “Government can’t solve this problem,” he said.

    Reid said a Congressional Budget Office report that says the stimulus funds won’t be pumped into the economy until 2010 doesn’t provide an accurate picture.

    Republicans have used the report to back up their argument against a near $1 trillion package. But Reid said Obama Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag told them CBO only analyzed 40 percent of the bill.

    He also said Orszag guaranteed “that at least 75 percent of the bill would go directly into the economy within the first 18 months.”

    Pelosi suggested that the package, currently at $825 billion, could become even larger.

    “It has grown,” Pelosi said, “and we’re still in the process.”

    At the meeting, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, passed out copies of the Republicans’ five-point stimulus plan. At first blush, Obama said, “Nothing on here looks outlandish or crazy to me,” Obama said, according to a source familiar with the conversation. He seemed particularly receptive to some Republican ideas about increasing benefits to small businesses.

    But when the conversation got down to other specifics, it was clear that some of the Republican ideas were clearly non-starters with the new president – including calls to put off tax hikes during the recession. “He rejected that out of hand and said we couldn’t have any hard and fast rules like that,” Cantor said.”

    Now, notice Mr. O’s unwillingness to declare he would hold off on tax hikes. YET that is exactly what he eventually did. How would that have affected the economy if he made that declaration from the start.

    Notice how the R’s offered MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS but Mr. O and the King and Queen of Congress said hell no. Instead they gave a tax credit to those who did not pay taxes. That is not a tax credit. That was BUYING VOTES from their targeted base.

    Notice the promises of how much Stimulus would get into the economy and how quickly. This was FALSE when claimed and it did not happen. The R’s pointed this out but were again rebuffed. Nice effort at “compromise” don’t ya think?

    Oh, and why did the Stimulus SHRINK?? Oh how we forget that the Blue Dog Dems wouldn’t go along with the bloated version. But it was just the R’s out to destroy Mr. O and the American economy.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Did you see the CEO of Carbonite report the LOSS of earnings to his shareholders that was tied to dropping Limbaugh?

      He said, BUT IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I am guessing that was NOT really an independent and free decision on his part as he claimed. 😉

      • Searching around I came up with this tidbit:

        The truth was that Carbonite and a few other foolish advertisers were convinced to drop Limbaugh by Media Matters, a George Soros operation dedicated to destroying conservative talk radio in general and Rush Limbaugh in particular. Carbonite was played just as the rest of them were played. Now that a full calendar quarter has past, the extent to which Carbonite was played can be more accurately assessed.
        http://www.westernjournalism.com/author/coach/

        • Mathius™ says:

          George Soros operation dedicated to destroying conservative talk radio in general and Rush Limbaugh in particular Yes, with that most insidious weapon of all: the truth!

          • Using George Soros in the same sentence as “truth” is just as ridiculous as using Limbaughs name in such a sentence.

            • Mathius™ says:

              … but .. but..but……

              You totally just used Limbaugh and truth in the same sentence! And I just did it too!

              Oh no.. the apocalypse must be upon us…

              • “Oh no.. the apocalypse must be upon us…”

                Once again I think we have found something to agree one…
                🙂

              • Mathius™ says:

                I heard that if you say Limbaugh three times while staring at a mirror, you’ll gain 150 pounds and become addicted to oxycontin.

          • @ Mathius…….George Soros and truth in the same sentence? Much worse than Limbaugh and truth in the same sentence…..and I do not like Limbaugh.

            • Much worse?? Come on now….have you ever actually listened to Limbaugh. I don’t think a single thing he says is based even remotely on reality.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                While his rhetoric and style is often over the top, I have found over the years that his incite on the politics of what is going on pretty accurate.

                I think he has many people feeding him stuff. Like all talking heads, he is not 100% but he seems pretty good.

                The other one you guys like to beat up is Beck. Yet his predictions about what was going to happen with bailouts and the stimulus relative to pension plans was dead on. Along with other things, including the Brotherhood taking control in Egypt.

                Now you can differ with him on what that means, but he predicted in advance it would happen and others chastised him. Yet he was correct.

                That is why I try to listen to all the crazy people on both sides. You never know when you will get some good INTEL.

              • Yes, I listened to him for quite a while until I saw through him and, yes, I think what Soros sponsors and what he stands for is still worse…..and I know the radio shows and tv shows he sponsors. It is really easy to follow the money.

  13. Mathius™ says:

    For example, when there’s a sexual predator out there, who has impregnated a young girl, say a 13-year-old girl — and it happens in America more times than you or I would like to think — that sexual predator can take that girl off the playground of a middle school, and haul her across a state line, and force her to get an abortion to eradicate the evidence of his crime, and bring her back and drop her off at the swing set. And that’s not against the law in the United States…

    -Steve King (R-Iowa)

    Man.. I must have missed a memo or something…

    Reminds me of something…

    Reminds me of something else, too…

    • So what would you make of the latest attacks on Obama on welfare.

      http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/the-welfare-gambit/?hp

      • Mathius™ says:

        COOPER: I want to just try to clarify this. You do think that the actual wording under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work, you wouldn’t have to train for a job, they just send you your welfare check, that is not factually correct?

        GINGRICH: We have no proof today, but I would say to you under Obama’s ideology it is absolutely true that he would be comfortable sending a lot of people checks for doing nothing. I believe that totally.

        Source.

        Got that? We put out an add attacking the President. I mean, we have no “proof”.. you know, today… but we believe it, so it must be true!

        ::sigh::

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        Actually I saw the “technical” discussion of the HHS memo last night and Romney’s claims are technically correct with only a minor stretch. Not as bad a stretch as indicated by the leftwing press.

        The issue is the definitions of “work” and other things in one section of the law, which also includes a statement that they can not be changed by the Exec branch. Only Congress may make those changes.

        The memo cites another section where “waivers” may be granted for other things but also cites the section where the definitions are included. This represents a view of the Admin that it can give waivers to the States to modify the definitions under the original section.

        A change in any of the definitions will create “lower work requirements” than the law allowed.

        So there in lies the truth portion of the accusation. The stretch occurs because the Admin did not propose any actual changes. Only claimed it could, when in fact it can not.

        The press guy yesterday tried to use the fact that Governors had asked for waivers as “justification”. But one of those, the Govt of Utah, explained that they wanted waivers to the paper work filing requirements and DID NOT AGREE with HHS memo that the definitions were subject to waiver. So the Presidents Press Secretary LIED to the Press yesterday when trying to make it appear this and other Governors were on board.

        And before you over react, part of this discussion was supported by a Democrat who worked for Clinton. He stated that the MEMO by HHS was BS and he was “saddened” by this use of Exec. Authority to undermine the law. I can’t remember his name but I think he was on the Lou Dobb’s show on Fox Business.

        Bottom line gentlemen, this is not a complete fabrication as you would like to make it out.

  14. Obama’s new war (and it is election year)……………..New intelligence reports (not US or Mossad) just out on the news. Iran a lot closer to nuclear weaponry than previous thought.

    Wait for it……………………………..

  15. @ Buck……assuming that all the surtaxes in the AHCA go forward and are not defeated piecemeal…..are your estate planning clients still happy campers?

    • Remember I’m in liberal NY and NJ — most of my clients (like myself) are not huge supporters of the ACA. While a step in the right direction, it just doesn’t go nearly far enough.

      • Understand where you are…..but they do not care about the surtaxes? We have found them all and have taken the necessary steps to avoid them, which is very easy…..was wondering.

        • I thought you meant more along the lines of the ACA overall, my mistake. I personally don’t do much work in terms of income tax planning so these specifics haven’t come up with the majority of my clients.

          • Ahh…ok…..set the ACA aside and look at all the attachments….and the costs associated with those attachments. I understand your zeal for a single payer system….but the trash that comes associated with it is what I was wondering. But, (tch tch) it looks as if you have not read it as probably is the case with most on here in support of it.

            There are surtaxes added into ACA that have NOTHING to do with it. Was wondering……thas’ all.

            Adding……. it looks like ICE and Border Patrol agents are deserting the government teat down here in droves. Employment applications with the DPS is up over 50% since the see a gun and run rule has been put in and now…..with the proposed disarming of the border Federal agents…..which actually is ok with us Texans…

            • No, I have read through it and looked at the surtaxes. But income tax planning around these surtaxes, while not too difficult to accomplish (or at least severely limit), is just not something I typically deal with in my practice. Or at least not yet…I can envision that changing once the surtaxes go into effect….we shall see.

        • Oh and not to mention, as I’ve said before — while my clients aren’t necessarily happy to be paying some more in certain taxes, most do agree that tax rates do need to be raised.

          That help answer the question?

          • Nope…..not talking the progressive income tax rates.

            • Understood, but the surtax, while it does not raise income tax rates, does impose an additional tax. As such, the few clients I have spoken to about this are generally supportive. But again, hasn’t come up with most clients yet.

          • What we have found, notwithstanding any cherry picking off…..the effective tax increase in both income and gains and alternative incomes rises above the 50% range…almost 54% of incomes…counting indexed rates, cap rates, and the new term….alternative income.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius, Buck, Todd

    During my travels a friend and I were discussing the need for increased taxes and the Obama/Dem plan to hike tax rates on the upper X%. While they ridiculed the upper 1% and “millionaires” please note the actual proposal goes down to $250 K per year for “married joint”.

    Anyway, he is a conservative but like most realizes some increase in revenue is needed in the long run but the cuts have to be deeper than are politically acceptable. So he made a good point I wanted to share.

    He said he would accept a tax hike on what ever X% the Dems want under ONE condition.

    1. They have to PRE IDENTIFY which Income Bracket is next and the tax rate needed WHEN their plan doesn’t solve the problem.

    Of course this is the guy who proposed legalizing dueling in D.C. to help solve the petty bickering.

    Maybe OLD Cons aren’t so stupid?

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    Mr. Obama’s efforts at stretching the truth. Please note that even this misses a key point on Mr. O’s claim that Govt jobs declined. This is true for ALL Govt, but NOT for FEDERAL GOVT jobs. Those have increased during his first 4 years. Because of the micro management from the White House it is now taking month to fill vacancies created by increasing retirements. So you may see the Admin try to claim some Fed employment reductions before the election, but it is a ruse.

    http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    I wonder if their knowledge of this shift explains the increased nasty tone towards the “rich”? Or was their rhetoric partly to blame?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-09/goldman-sachs-leads-split-with-obama-as-ge-jilts-him-too.html

    In any case, with this information we can expect the Class Warfare to increase for the remainder of the campaign. We are headed back to the populist rhetoric at the beginning of the last century. Those damn Rich Bankers against the workers.

    And you folks thought Charlie’s rants could be written off as just his rants. Nope, it is a harbinger of things to come.

    • JAC…….it is going to be entertaining at the least but very scary at the most. I do not want a European modeled country……and we are headed that way……not many sees or even understands the economics of what is about to happen and when it crashes…..I guess they will still blame somebody….

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        Colonel, I was wondering if your family has gamed out various scenarios to see what if anything can be done to protect your treasure.

        Or are you the only crazy one in the group? 🙂

        • Well, there is even money out there that says I am an original Looney Tune……BUT………………yes, we have mapped out several strategies. We have made contingency plans on investments as well as expenditures for the next five years. Our crystal ball has served us well as we use (gasp) common sense, do NOT listen to economists at all (they are more inaccurate than a black powder 42/40 on a windy day), we watch the Fed very closely, and we combine our history of politics into reality when it comes to investments. As a rule of thumb, as history has proven, when Democrats are in power, incomes fall and costs rise and taxes increase. To reduce our tax burdens, we take our investment money out of circulation and job creation and put it into longer term hard assets that are depreciable over longer periods of time. This reduces our tax burden during a period when higher taxes are inevitable. We watch the Fed during high tax times, because it is a perfect blueprint. When Democrats are in power, the Fed goes stupid to try to stimulate more investments because available cash is no longer available. When the Fed starts jacking with interest rates and printing money and you combine that with the Democrat mantra of higher taxes and more spending, then we sit on our money and ride out the storm. Inflation sets in and assets actually rise in value, although it is a false dichotomy. Any first grader knows that borrowing to stimulate an economy is always a false dichotomy and artificially drives up prices. When the values are pushed up through inflation…the greater the depreciation write off. This is where cash flow becomes important and not profit or loss. We are privately held and choose not to go public because we do not want to deal with the SEC or Federal Government regulations. Cash is King…..period. Even inflated cash but even more, much like the housing debacle where land and homes were over valued in order to qualify lower income people for loans with no equity, there was going to be no payback and everyone knew that. As you know the ARM loans were designed to fail just like the stimulus was designed to fail…it was inevitable. So we protected our money during these times and pulled out of those types of markets and sold our stocks in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ahead of the declines.

          When the Republicans are in control, more fiscal conservatism has a tendency to set in for a period of time. True values have a tendency to regain some ground and cap gains taxes tend to fall or remain stable so longer term decisions can be made. We can then take inflated dollars off the sale of assets and re-invest in markets that tend to rise during conservative times. This is, sometime, fraught with dangers and you have to watch very closely. During the Bush years, he never met a spending bill he did not like. He was a Democrat in drag on economic things and we saw that. Bush tried to warn of the housing bubble that built over the years but in 2006 the dems had control and disregarded the warnings. We made a strategic move at that time and bailed out of all real estate markets and companies we were invested in and it proved to be the right decision. But, to us, this was nothing more than common sense. But, to go on….when Republicans are in control, cash just loosens up….it is a fact. When cash loosens up, as during the Reagan years, it floods the short term markets and things prosper and employment rises. Even Clinton figured that out in his second term. So we make our decisions accordingly. As the dollar gets stronger and we have sold inflated assets for inflated dollars, then we have more dollars available when it gets stronger. Simple economics, really. Remember, sometime back, I mentioned that my dad raised us on the issue of cash flow. Profit and loss really mean nothing as does cash in the bank. So, we concentrate on cash flow and those items that support cash flow. We parlay the tax code, as it is written, into cash.

          Now we see a trend towards acting like Europe. More social programs and deficit spending. The flaw is in printing money. It has never worked and will not work now. We see this trend continuing for the foreseeable future. So we made another strategic decision and decided to opt out of the expense categories that are going to go unchecked. (1) Employees and (2) Healthcare. We decided to change our strategies and rid ourselves of medicare and medicaid and social security expenses. We looked at the laws and decided that employees and their related social issues were going to be cost prohibitive so we closed all employee related ownerships we had and went to contractors. We even set up key employees into independent contractors, took the IRS laws and wrote contracts that conform and they have ended up thinking for themselves and making more money than when they were employees. We have eliminated social security payments, medicaid and medicare payments, unemployment taxes (both State and Federal), and the variety of other employee related costs. We take the money saved and bank it to pay for upcoming taxes and expenses that the Democrats are going to put it. We have elected not to invest or grow for now until a more reasonable approach to business is adopted.

          The other trend that we are seeing is that more and more, acquaintances that we have in the business world are moving their money off shore. It is safer there. The policies of this government now and the foreseeable future are nothing but increased costs and more deficit spending. We have protected ourselves as much as possible and we are reducing our profit status to near zero with higher depreciation on assets. The ACA is laced with surcharges tied to profits and income. We see this on the horizon…we have read it and understand it and it is terribly dangerous. So, as long as the tax code is written as is, and we show little or no profit, then we will have little or no tax. The people that are going to get clobbered….the poor will see their taxes rise and the rich class has now been redefined to $250,000 and not the 1% that the media and this administration tries to claim. Again, it is common sense. so, reduce your overheads to less than 50 employees or eliminate them, which is unfortunate because we did not want to do that but it was the best business decision. Sit on cash to offset the inevitable increase in taxes and costs…..lower your profits so surcharges and increased indexed tax rates to not hammer you, and wait out the storm. The pendulum will swing back. Cash flow is the name of the game and you can get there without profits………………for awhile.

          Obamacare will not affect us any more than it already has. Our personal premiums have already risen by 22%. We can handle that because we lowered our expenses elsewhere to compensate.

          Sorry for the long answer. Common sense is the best thing and cash flow is where we hang our hat. It has worked for us all along and is still working for now. Do not listen to economists on the TV or from the government. Do not believe in the government and do not believe in campaign promises. Watch who is in control ( behind the throne ) and watch the Fed. The Fed responds to foreign markets as well. Watch the valuation of cash in the rest of the world. The rest of the world is much worse off than the US. We are betting on the USD.

  19. 4:00 PM 2012 Democratic National Convention Schedule — Charlotte, N.C.

    – Opening Flag Burning Ceremony – sponsored by CNN

    4:05 PM – Singing of “God Damn America ” led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright

    4:10 PM – Pledge of Allegiance to Obama

    4:15 PM – Ceremonial ‘I hate America’ led by Michelle Obama

    4:30 PM – Tips on “How to keep your man trustworthy & true to you while you

    travel the world” – Hillary Clinton

    4:45 PM -Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson seminar “How to have a successful

    career without having a job.”

    5:00 PM – “Great Vacations I’ve Taken on the Taxpayer’s Dime Travel Log” –

    Michelle Obama

    5:30 PM – Eliot Spitzer Speaks on “Family Values” via Satellite

    5:45 PM – Tribute to All 57 States – Nancy Pelosi

    6:00 PM – Sen. Harry Reid – 90-minute speech expressing the Democrat’s

    appreciation of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and George Soros for

    sparing no expense, for all that they have accomplished to unify the

    country, improve employment and to boost the economy.

    8:30 PM – Airing of Grievances by the Clintons

    9:00 PM – “Bias in Media – How we can make it work for you” Tutorial –

    sponsored by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times

    9:15 PM – Tribute Film to Brave Freedom Fighters incarcerated at GITMO –

    Michael Moore

    9:30 PM – Anthony Weiner entertains audience with his personal slide presentation

    9:45 PM – Personal Finance Seminar – Charlie Rangel

    10:00 PM – Denunciation of Bitter Gun Owners and Bible readers

    ,

    10:30 PM – Ceremonial Waving of White Flag of surrender for IRAQ , & Afghanistan, and the future waving for Iran.

    11:00 PM – Obama Energy Plan Symposium / Tire Gauge Demonstration / You too

    can get rich with Green Investment bankruptcies

    11:15 PM – Free Gov. Blagojevich rally

    11:30 PM – Obama Accepts Oscar, Tony and Latin Grammy Awards

    11:45 PM – Feeding of the Delegates with 5 Loaves and 2 Fish – Obama presiding

    12:00 AM – Official Nomination of Obama by Bill Maher and Chris “He sends a

    thrill up my leg” Matthews

    12:01 AM – Obama Accepts Nomination as Lord and Savior by waving his fake birth certificate

    12:05 AM – Celestial Choirs Sing

    3:00 AM – Joe Biden wakes up and delivers acceptance speech to an empty room –

    (The convention was over at 12:30 AM).

  20. Announced today: U.S. Justice Department announces it won’t prosecute Goldman Sachs or its employees, including CEO Lloyd Blankfein
    in a fraud probe stemming from the 2008 financial crisis

    D13: Of course…you do not prosecute your largest donor.

  21. I’m certainly not a cop, but at what point in time can citizens defend themselves against stuff like this? http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2012/08/cops_strip_search_mom_pull_tam.php

  22. Things that make me wonder. Man goes to jail in Oregon for collecting rainwater and snow runoff on his property. Security cameras claimed to be turned off during shooting at Sikh temple, numerous witnesses claim as many a 4 shooters being ignored. Liberal Super Pac runs ad claiming Romney responsible for cancer death of woman proven to be a complete fabrication (or a LIE). Does anyone wonder why I refuse to believe the MSM or the government anymore? This is just a short list of stuff I have read this morning. Peace to All! 🙂 (you too Charlie)

    • Rules for Radicals

      * RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

      • charlieopera says:

        “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”

        Like Birth Certificates?

        Oy vey … 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Yes, like the birth certificate. But WHO really kept that going?

          • charlieopera says:

            You lunatics on the right. Ask Mr. Romney when he’s going to submit his tax returns …:)

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Nope.

              And who cares about his tax returns except you envious Marxists.

              • charlieopera says:

                Yeah, I’m envious of a cardboard cutout. keep trying JAC. Seriously, dude, try and come up with something better than a BF slogan.

            • Why? I would not. If there were a problem, the IRS would be all over him……they are not. And, don’t think for a minute that this administration has not seen his tax returns….they have. Makes for great news.

              • Hey Colonel — I thought we agreed the other day that Romney should release this information. Are you now saying he shouldn’t?

              • I say he shouldn’t, anything he says (or documents he provides) will be used against him. Nothing will be used for him. If he proves that for ten or forty years he’s paid all his taxes, it’s not a story. Obama can’t run on his record, so he & the media want to talk about anything else.

              • LOI — he shouldn’t release them because they may be used against him? Is this really the standard we should apply to a presidential candidate?

              • Against this particular incumbent president..Yes!

            • Charlie, I called the Romney campaign and asked your question. I was told that the tax documents are ready to be released, and will be released when Obama releases his college records. They would like to know how a poor black kid can get into very expensive colleges (Harvard).

              • I think they want to know what name he registered under for college.
                If he applied as a US citizen or foreign born.

              • charlieopera says:

                Just so long as you have an excuse, Gman.

                I’m still waiting for his patriotism to show in the form of sending one of his 5 brats off to war (since he’s so anxious to start another one with Iran). What a guy he is!

              • Romney has one good thing going for him, he’s not Obama. Beyond that he’s just another worthless politician. Nothing will change if he wins the election (which won’t occur this year). I don’t recall you mentioning your patriotism and serving your country. Correct me if I’m wrong!

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel

    Good morning sir. Question.

    This has been bothering me for some time and wondered if you might have some insight.

    Why is Mr. Obama’s Illegal Alien policies so contradictory? When so much evidence points towards a plan to increase the flow and then “legalize” those here, WHY would he INCREASE the deportations?

    Any ideas?

    • Sure…..boots on the ground………………………………He isn’t. It is creative accounting…..want to know how?

      • Right-Wing math cypher’en?

        • No Todd……no right wing anything……actual experience and seeing the paperwork on a bi weekly basis. And, if you have been paying attention, I am a fiscal conservative…..but far from right wing……unless everything that disagrees with you is right wing, of course. That is a distinct possibility. I would label myself a social moderate, but you already know that. BUT, I am definitely anti government even though I was with it in the active military for 10 years and the reserve military for 32 years.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        Yes I would. But whether the numbers favor in-migration is not my question.

        Why is he even making such an effort at exportation in the first place? It can’t just be for show. If it is then he is truly an evil man.

        • There is no exportation..except hardened criminals and he has just adjusted that…..for example….DUI convictions are now allowed up to three..even DUI that resulted in death…..driving without a driver’s license is now a, what is the term, selective enforcement……misdemeanor arrests are no longer deportable….and misdemeanor has been revised for illegals….for example, there is no arrestable offense any longer for carrying forged social security documents and it is now a misdemeanor…for illegals….however, for US citizens it is an arrest. The list goes on.

          It is strictly for show and nothing more. It is so the Homeland Defense can pump the numbers and he can appease the independent voters.

          Here is now it works. Jose Wetback enters the country illegally. Gets picked up in Dallas, Texas….calls ICE…ICE picks them up and takes them to the border…this goes down on paper as a deportation even though, they are let loose on the border on the US side. The Rangers pick the same man up, calls ICE…same procedure and a repeat that never was deported to begin with. Deportation is a legal term. Just taking them to the border is no deportation.

          Procedure number two……in reporting deportations, Homeland defense does not break them down for purposes of reporting. If Andre’ Frenchbread is picked up and has an expired visa…he does not get the same treatment as Jose Wetback…..Andre actually gets deported…..When Homeland defense says “deportations are up”….take it with a grain of salt. And Andre’s is included in the numbers,,,,and HOmeland can say I am so good.

          Here is another common procedure. Bob Burrito crosses the border illegally, steals a car (felony offense this time but again, you know, the selective enforcement), gets drunk, stopped for DUI……gets arrested. ICE is called…they come out and interview the illegal….errr…the suspect…take custody and ship him to the border on the US side and let’s him go…this is counted as a deportation. No paper work, no convictions….taken custody.

          Border patrol stops a pick up truck full of illegal immigrants brought over by a coyote……this gets recorded as a stop (rightly so) turned back to the border…..this gets recorded as a deportation….so the numbers show, say 10 prevented from crossing, and 10 deported. A double dip. So the Border patrol, different from ICE…gets to say look what we did…and ICE gets to say look what we did…..and the immigrants….still in the US.

          Would you describe this as evil?

  24. @ Buck….I said I would not release them. However, I did agree with you when you said if he has nothing to hide why not release them….and I agreed and still agree….but I also respect his right to not release them and I stand by my initial thought……he has nothing to hide because if he did, you know the IRS would be on him like stink on a skunk. The fact that they are not…..tells me he is perfectly ok. (And you and I both know how the system works…you and I both know that the Obama camp has already clandestinely seen them). I also agreed with you that anybody who is in public office should have all tax returns released as a condition of running for public office….all of them and everybody. If I were Romney, I would release them and then ask to see the last ten years of Obama;s and pound that into dust.

    • I would compare effective tax rates and charitable contributions and to whom and pound the living crap outta that.

    • Ah, good, so we do still agree on this.

    • D13,
      No one is suggesting there will be anything illegal on the tax returns…I mean, do you think he filled out “Schedule K – Illegal Sources of Income”?

      He doesn’t want to release them because they will give the middle and working-class a view into what life is like for the wealthy…all of their tax breaks and how they use the tax code to reduce their taxes.

      It will give the middle and working-class examples of which tax breaks and loop holes to close, something that none of the wealthy want aired in public.

      If I were Romney, I would release them and then ask to see the last ten years of Obama;s and pound that into dust.

      Obama has released his tax returns from 2000 to present. Pound away!

  25. @ JAC…did I sufficiently answer your question as to planning?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Yes, although I was wondering if you had done any “apocalypse” type adjustments. Although I think you did address this with the “moving assets” to safe harbors.

      Your discussion did shed some “new light” on what you mean by Cash Flow is king, however. I too have long been a Cash Flow guy, but do not adjust just to deal with tax burdens or swings in the short term. In other words, I don’t want to get into doing things to save Cash via taxes that could cost me more in the long run.

      There are some economists I follow, but those are not the majority on TV or Internet Blogs. I keep one of them very close. 😉

      I fear the day they take the “depreciation” deduction away from us. And I think that day is coming, and the rates will not be reduced to break even.

      Now for a new one. Last time I was in the cattle business in a major way was when a drought devastated the mid west/southwest and eastern corn crops. I see all this TALK about prices going higher, including cattle.

      But the experience I had was a significant DROP in cattle prices, not an increase. Prices at the market did not change substantially. The cost of feed corn was passed mostly to the producers via price cuts. This was magnified by the dumping of cattle into the market as feed dried up.

      So……..being as you are in the middle of it…….. What are your thoughts on where the cattle market is headed?

      • No……no apocalypse moves…..yet. Other than, we have a nice ranch that is 90% self sufficient…….to retreat to when all hell breaks loose. 🙂

        There is no way depreciation is going away……to do so….would be catastrophic and even the hardened economist knows that. But, if you play the depreciation game in big boy style……you better know what you are doing….it can eat your lunch before god gets the news.

        Cattle…..we do not feed cattle on the grain basis. It is too volatile. We breed Brangus. They feed on grass and alfalfa. However, we did go through a drought situation several years back that rendered our alfalfa crops to one cutting for the whole year..and we had to go to Kansas to buy hay. The commodities market plays havoc on cattle sales when you feed grain…as you found out. Really expensive.

        Since Obama has taken office, he has stopped cattle sales by independents to overseas markets. Whenever there is a drought situation, ranchers will dump their cattle or lose really big. He has allowed cattle sales to China though his cronies and donors. Cattle are being sent to China in huge droves….( no one knows this or cares )….and the independent cattleman is left to auction. What this means is that cattle are bid upon and sold to speculators…who then jack up the price. We do not do that…we are large enough in our operation to be selective in whom we sell to….But……I see a rise in cattle prices not from the rancher standpoint but from the middleman standpoint. Obama’s EPA has now instituted new emission rules for diesel engines and has issued new rules on transportation trailers. For example, an 18 wheeler that used to cost $105,000 per unit (cab and trailer) is now going to cost upwards of $114,000 per cab/trailer. There is a move afoot to require #1 diesel fuel in all units…..eliminating number 2 diesel fuels. PPG is estimated to rise 87 cents per gallon on that alone.

        I am predicting some highs around $1.35 per hoof pound…for a 700 pound calf. That is up from .85 in 2008. There have been several countries that have had hoof/mouth and mad cow disease wipe out their herds…and the tsunami in Japan has wiped out their industry for awhile. The large meat packers have frozen out the independent cow/calf operation overseas through Obama..and record numbers of beef is being sent overseas…China, Japan, Europe…in that order. The meat packers have been exempted from duties and export charges by the Feds….while the independent has not. Thereby, leaving the independents to the US market. We cannot even sell to Mexico or Canada direct and our sales are being manipulated by the Commerce Department and the Agriculture Department in how many we can sell. This has never been done before. So, with all the political maneuvering and the transportation costs, and the cost of feed lots (we do not ship to feed lots) but most do…..I am predicting all time highs……This has been a created market by this administration. Designed solely to drive prices up and it is working. We are fortunate…we are a 7,000 head operation and we can sit on our cattle for awhile but we are selling at auction…..yesterday we got $1.20 per hoof pound.

        Help any?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          Yes it does and you included some info I was not aware of regarding exports and truck regulation.

          So I would expect to see the “hoof pound” price to drop IF the consumer cannot continue to pay the high price at the market. So then independents will be forced to sell into the big processors who have the export market locked up.

          All costs cannot simply be passed to the consumers. Something both Dems and Repubs don’t seem to understand when you listen to their rhetoric.

          Now new related question. WHY would the Admin be manipulating cattle markets? Is this tied to China’s financing of our debt, I wonder.

          P.S. Texas trucks hauling oil equip to N. Dakota have been hauling Montana hay back. But now the eastern MT hay crop has been hammered by the drought. Those with irrigated hay are making out like bandits. I know a couple cattlemen who dumped cows to sell more of their hay out of state.

          Very interesting, and FRUSTRATING, times.

          • Solyndra, GM, Goldman Sachs……..need more? Follow the money……one of Obama’s largest donors….Tysons Foods….Interestingly enough, thelargest meat packer of beef and………………………..wouldn’t you know it…..has sole propriety over cattle sakes to………………………….China. Go figure.

            In 2010. there was supposed to be a large and extensive investigation into price fixing of the four large meat packers, intended to drive the market price of cattle down and control the feedlot business…..what is more interesting, Holder dropped the investigation with no results.

            Yeah, to the hay for Texas….massive drought in west and SW Texas.

  26. charlieopera says:

    Looks like Obama paid back his best friends in 2008 (Goldman Sachs) … they’re off the legal hook.

    The party of the people looks an awful lot like the party of the wealthy … maybe it’s time for some socialism? What say you lunatics on the right?

    • Thanks for the invite Charlie, but I’ll pass. Socialism will be no less corrupt than this mess in DC now. Watch France, they are heading for a huge problem.

      • charlieopera says:

        You watch France. I’ll envy them.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I met a guy in the gym a couple years back who was ripping on the US health care system and was moving to FRANCE in his retirement.

        WHY? Because of all the FREE COOKIES.

        I wonder how he is doing now? Bwhahahahahahaha.

      • Barry Soetoro, the Invisible Man
        Author
        – Doug Hagmann Friday, August 10, 2012

        Wayne Allyn Root, 2008 Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee, successful Vegas odds maker, author and speaker, recently made headlines in the style of Donald Trump by publicly stating that he believes he knows why Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama II continues to refuse to unseal and release his college transcripts.

        Root attended Columbia University and graduated in 1983, the same year as Mr. Soetoro. Root also was a political science, pre-law major in a graduating class of about 700 students, of which it is estimated that 250 or so students shared the same major.

        In sum and substance, Mr. Root speculates that Barry Soetoro was accepted and attended Columbia University as a foreign exchange student, most likely as an Indonesian citizen.

        http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48691

    • Certifiable looney here……..ya know Charlie…….it does make one want to scream out, doesn’t it. What gets me…….and this is a dig on both sides. ….where is the outcry from Buck or Mathius…..cronyism is wrong no matter which side. Sheeesh.

      Brings up the old axiom….When you are up to your ass in alligators, it is hard to remind oneself that the initial objective was to drain the swamp.

      • charlieopera says:

        It makes me pretty sick what Obama has gotten away with (and I am a socialist). I don’t want to see Romney win, but I sure want to see Obama lose.

      • Buck: OUTCRY!

        Happy?

        • Hmmmmm…can you try again and put some emotion and sincerity in it? THEN I will be happy…and do a happy dance.

          • I was doing a happy dance…..and here I thought you had spy-raptors trained on us crazy liberals….

          • Oh wait…YOU”RE going to do a happy dance!? Got it….please be sure to wear your bowler hat…and post a video.

            • Two things….I do not have a bowler hat…….yet. You have failed to provide me with one and………….you have not said outcry with emotion amd sincerity yet.

    • Charlie, this is a perfect article for your French loving reading enjoyment. http://www.prisonplanet.com/rich-french-citizens-are-leaving-france.html

      And it’s also why the elected Socialist will fail France miserably.

      • charlieopera says:

        And we’re doing so much better here in Ameri-cha … the good old US&A …. we’re third world, brother …

  27. charlieopera says:

    @GMan. I have no ties to blind faith, my man. If I’m attacked, I’ll show my patriotism, count on it. I’m not into nationalism at all … I root for the USA in the olympics, but no exclusively (I love it that an Iranian is now the strongest man in the world). Then again, I’m not running for president and advocating sending others off to die for the sake of corporate America. Frankly, unless there is a war going on, outside of the benefits the military provides, I don’t see the point in joining the military at all.

  28. Obama’s path to victory: Change the subject, change history

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/06/obamas-path-to-victory-change-the-subject-change-history/#ixzz23AI5Zrm3
    long but very good!

    • Buck says:
      August 10, 2012 at 1:09 pm • Edit

      “LOI — he shouldn’t release them because they may be used against him? Is this really the standard we should apply to a presidential candidate?”

      Buck, we all know he’s rich. Supposed to be worth about $250 million. He’s a quarter of a billionaire. Somehow, that hasn’t been enough fuel for the class war Obama & the media want to wage. So why would Romney give them anything else to use? We would hear endless “stories” about what Mitt earned every year, what he deducted(as if he needed any deductions)…..

      Mitt wants to talk about cutting capitol gains(like Clinton did) to stimulate the economy. Obama proposes we increase capitol gains taxes. The math shows it will have only a slight impact on the deficit. So how/why is it a good plan? His answer is the rich aren’t paying enough, their “fair share”. But at the end of the discussion, what will work best? If you think the economy under Clinton was good, that is the plan you should support. If you think the economy under Obama is good, go with his plan. (but don’t ask why the Senate with a Democratic majority for three years has voted down Obama’s budget 97-0).

      • In the interest of transparency and allowing the American electorate to know all the facts. That is why Romney (and all politicians) should release their tax returns. It should be a mandatory requirement.

        If you are running for President, or any elected office really, you shouldn’t be able to hide behind “oh, the opposition will use it against me…”

      • Obama’s economy! Lets repeat the auto bailout success! Of course, he’ll have to drive you into bankruptcy first, then have the government take over your business.

        http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/obama-lets-repeat-auto-rescue-with-every-manufacturing-131566.html

        • “In the interest of transparency and allowing the American electorate to know all the facts. ”
          And what’s Obama’s record on “transparency”?

          “That is why Romney (and all politicians) should release their tax returns. It should be a mandatory requirement.”
          Tell that to Pelosi and (Romney hasn’t paid taxes for ten years) Reid. He has followed the law and met all legal requirements. Don’t you believe in the law? Why isn’t obeying the law not good enough for you? You don’t like the law, do you? You’re a lawyerphobe, aren’t cha?

          • Ah, LOI, I see what’s happened here….you’ve confused me for an Obama-fanatic. Gotcha.

            On the issue of tax returns – I believe this is pertinent information and there should be a more robust disclosure requirement that encompasses a number of years of past returns. This should apply to anyone seeking federal office. Absent such a requirement, I still believe Romney (and Pelosi, Reid, and any number of other Dems and Repubs) should go beyond the legal requirement and release this information.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              WHY????

            • “.you’ve confused me for an Obama-fanatic. Gotcha”

              NO SIR! I am confused why you consider Romney’s tax returns to be so important and such a large topic of our discussion. I do agree anyone running for public office should disclose their tax info. If you can’t stand the scrutiny, don’t jump in the ring. But is that really such a big story today? If Romney made public all his tax returns and school records and they were spotless, beyond reproach. Would you vote for him? Would it change your position the slightest bit?

              So I’m back with the thread I started this page with, controlling the message. Are you part of that Buck, or just a victim? What do you think the story should be today?

              • LOI,

                But is that really such a big story today?

                You answered your own question: If you can’t stand the scrutiny, don’t jump in the ring.

                It’s been standard practice by presidential candidates to release their tax returns, starting with Romney’s father.

                If Romney made public all his tax returns and school records and they were spotless, beyond reproach. Would you vote for him? Would it change your position the slightest bit?

                If Obama made public all his tax returns and school records and they were spotless, beyond reproach. Would you vote for him? Would it change your position the slightest bit? That false argument works both ways…

                So I’m back with the thread I started this page with, controlling the message. Are you part of that Buck, or just a victim?

                It seems Romney is the poor little victim here – and the one trying to control the message by not releasing his tax returns.

                What do you think the story should be today?

                If Romney doesn’t want his tax returns to be the story, and if he has nothing to hide, then release them and end that story. Not releasing them just stokes the fire…

        • USDA announces plans to cut down on food stamp fraud
          Published: 11:08 AM 08/10/2012 By Caroline May

          Amid mounting pressure to pass a House farm bill, the United States Department of Agriculture announced new plans Thursday to crack down on food stamps fraud.

          Nutrition assistance accounts for about 80 percent of spending in the nearly trillion dollar farm bill recently passed in the Senate and pending in the House.

          With one in seven people currently receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, or food stamps, program spending has doubled since 2008 and quadrupled since 2001.

          Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/10/usda-announces-new/#ixzz23Ay6N2HD

          Hasn’t Obama been promising this for over four years?

          • There is a simple easy solution to end hunger in the US. The USDA should go into into every major grocery store and stock a 10 ft wide shelf with staples such as rice, beans, flour, powdered milk and eggs, cheese and other surplus items along with dried fruit and some basic canned vegtables and other goods. Most items would require preparation of some sort. All items would be wrapped in USDA labeled brown packaging. All items on the self would be free to anyone within quantity limits. No need for EBT cards or bureacrats to qualifying individuals. Most able bodied people would shy away from free brown-bag government food. The stigma of publically putting government food into you shopping cart would work towards self limiting consumption. Unfortunately such simple direct solutions have a snowballs chance in hell of happening.

        • LOI,
          If that’s what you got out of the article, your English comprehension needs some work…

          • Todd
            I did not get that from the article, but from memory. Do you remember all the hopey changey promises? What if he had acted to cut government waste in his first year? Say he started with defense? Then went to SS, Medi care and caid…..I could see 100 billion in gov waste being cut without changing except the waste and fraud. But you.are OK withYes we can being a lame promise he will get around to in his second term….

  29. charlieopera says:
  30. charlieopera says:

    From Captain Cannoli and his fellow Plutonians to all a’yous … Temporary Knucksline’s 2012 NFL Preview …

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2012/08/mortgage-house-and-bet-all-your-in.html

  31. Paul Ryan? Ha, now unemployment can rise to 11% and Obama will still win.

    The hacks on the right just don’t get it … Sarah Palin taught them nothing … now comes the one guy who will chase independents to the Democratic Party … way to go Mitt! Consistency in screwing up never fails!

    And how about that poor kid who had the sense to address those questions about Romney the wife killer … if they’d lived in Massachusettes, she would’ve been covered! The collective right had a stroke … threatened to boycott the convention and Romney fell right in step with Ryan. Kiss that election goodbye, suckers …

    The sad thing? Universal healthcare would protect millions … the one thing Romney did close right in his political life, he has to run from because of the lunatics on the right. You gotta love it.

    • Charlie,
      I’m an independent and sorry, but you don’t speak for me or represent my viewpoint very well. Ryan barely squeaks by as a fiscal conservative. He has presented a moderate plan that no one like but all realists agree is close to where we have to start. Romney needed a boost from the conservative base that see him as a RINO. Independents, TeaParty, all were looking for something outside the standard Repug offerings. I think he helped himself.

      • LOI, you’re as independent as I am skinny. Please …

        He needed a boost, that’s for sure, and he’ll get it … from other “independents” like yourself … and the rest of the true independents will run for cover. Consider this one done and done. Christy was his ONLY shot … that’s over now.

        As to tax reform … how about starting with releasing his tax returns? 🙂

  32. Paul Ryan’s Budget Proposal: Analysis Of The Numbers [UPDATE]

    WASHINGTON — The big numbers from Paul Ryan’s budget: It will reduce spending by $6.2 trillion over the next decade and reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion.

    It also cuts the top income tax rate by nearly a third, from 35 percent to 25 percent.

    A big part of the House Budget Chairman’s plan rests on the assumption that President Barack Obama’s health care law will be repealed. Over the next decade, that would cut $1.4 trillion in spending alone, according to Ryan’s budget. Those savings, however, wouldn’t go directly to deficit reduction, because Ryan would also repeal the elements of health care reform that are aimed at raising revenue or reducing costs.

    The Wisconsin Republican’s budget spends less on nearly every major category of the budget. Over the next decade, Ryan (R-Wis.) wants to cut $389 billion from Medicare, the public health insurance program for seniors. Over the same period, Ryan’s budget puts $735 billion less toward Medicaid, which benefits Americans too poor to afford private insurance. Discretionary spending on domestic programs is also reduced by $923 billion.

    Two exceptions are security and defense spending and spending on Social Security, the public pension program for the elderly. Both are kept steady and relatively unchanged from Obama’s proposed budget.

    A draft proposal from Ryan’s House Budget Committee says that under his plan, the national debt would be $1.1 trillion less than it would be over the next five years under Obama’s budget, and would add $3 trillion less to the debt than Obama’s budget proposal over the next decade. Ryan’s budget proposal would bring the debt held by the public to $13.9 trillion by 2016 and $16 trillion by 2021, compared to $15 trillion in 2016 and $19 trillion in 2021 under the president’s proposal. (The full national debt of just over $14 trillion also includes money owed to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but the public figure is the one normally used for budget forecasts.)

    Though Ryan’s plan would reduce the size of the national debt as a portion of the economy – which is the key factor when considering the country’s obligations to creditors – the addition of new debt in the short term shows the gap between talk of not raising the debt ceiling by many Republicans and fiscal reality.

    Ryan’s plan has $40 trillion in spending over the next 10 years compared to $34.9 trillion in revenues. Obama would spend $46 trillion in the coming decade while bringing in $38.8 trillion in revenues. So Ryan’s plan would still result in the government spending $5.1 trillion more over the next decade than it brings in, but that’s less than the $7.2 trillion in deficit spending that Obama has proposed.

    The most fundamental difference between the competing budget proposals is seen in the way they envision the size of government’s imprint in the economy, as measured by spending and revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product.

    Obama’s budget plan would take spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), the total economic output of the American economy, from 25.3 percent this year to the 22 percent range for much of the next decade. But by the end of the 10 year horizon, his plan has spending back at 23 percent. Revenues, meanwhile, which are currently at an anemic 14.4 percent, would creep up to 19 percent by 2015 and then hit 20 percent in 2021.

    It would be the highest amount of government spending since World War II. During the 12-year presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, spending went from 8 percent of GDP to 41 percent, driven by FDR’s New Deal but even more so by war spending.

    During Harry Truman’s administration, spending was cut in half, from 41 percent of GDP down to 20 percent, and went down further to 18 percent under Dwight Eisenhower. It stayed at 18 percent of GDP through the John F. Kennedy presidency, crept up to 19 percent under Lyndon Johnson, and then went up to 20 percent while Richard Nixon was in the White House. Gerald Ford brought spending back down to 19 percent of GDP, it then went up to 22 percent during Jimmy Carter’s term, down to 21 percent under Ronald Reagan’s two terms and George H.W. Bush’s four years as commander in chief. Bill Clinton brought spending back down to 18 percent of the U.S. economy.

    No president since FDR has increased spending as a percentage of GDP by more than George W. Bush, taking it from 18.4 percent of GDP to 22.8 percent.

    Obama’s budget does not show what happens beyond the 10-year window. So, compared to George W. Bush’s spending, he seems to be about on par. However, projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show spending growing at its current pace will grow to more than 26 percent of GDP in 2022, over 32 percent of GDP in 2030, 38 percent of GDP in 2040, and 45 percent of GDP by 2050, with the bulk of that spending driven by ever-rising health care costs.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/paul-ryan-budget-analysis-numbers_n_844946.html

  33. Was that the dopiest intro you ever heard or what? Music suggesting the Gods were coming down to crown a new King (and Romney called Ryan the new king–ooops).

    This is a joke. These morons just gave the election to the other morons.

    USA! USA! oy vey …

  34. Tell me you’re all not sitting in front of your televisions and getting excited over this nonsense … Ryan is proving no Palin (as regards “umph”), but I suspect Romney and the GOP has just alienated the bulk of the voting population (minus their choir) and this election just went from potentially being close to a wipeout.

    Turn out the lights, the party’s over …

    • What is your beef with Ryan? Who would you have chosen?

      Couple things I liked that Ryan said: We get our rights from nature and God not government. We promise equal opportunity not equal outcomes. We won’t replace our founding principles…we will reapply them.

      That sounds a lot more like what I want to hear, as opposed to fundamentally transform America.

      • Picking Ryan is an attempt to appease the ultra conservatives. It is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do. Christy was his only shot. ONLY shot.

        What he says is irrelevant (what any of them say is irrelevant–they RARELY stick to it), but this pick is a disaster for the GOP.

        Yes, you like the choice. Most here will. Most here are already in the GOP camp (whether they admit it or not). And even if they have issues with the GOP, they’re not about to vote for a Democrat. So who did this sway from the middle ground they need? Answer: Nobody.

        I wanted to see Obama lose for what he did to labor. That plus I believe the tiny tick to the right the GOP provides, is a tiny tick toward eventual socialism (when we become a 2 class society–third world). I wouldn’t want either Obama or Romney for dog catcher, but Mr. Romney just blew it big time. Get used to Mr. Obama. He’ll be there for another four years. No doubt about it. Not anymore.

        • You answered who you would have picked, and you jabbed at Romney for the pick but you didn’t say what the problem with Ryan is. What do you see wrong with Ryan?

          • The debates will be Romney/Obama and Ryan/Biden. I’m not seeing much problem with who will win each debate. That’s if Obama and Biden can spare the time for debate!

            • I suspect Biden will wipe the floor with Ryan, but not to worry. The election will be a far gone conclusion no matter what happens at the debates. This baby is over.

            • Anita, the operative word is “IF”. If I were Obama, I would find some excuse to avoid debates. Biden is no match for Ryan. The only way debates would be successful is if Obama insists on his MSM biased moderators with their gotchya questions. I would hope that if there are debates that we have moderators that know how to ask pertinent questions that address the big issues before the country. Otherwise it is a complete waste of time.

              As to the pick, I was hoping Ryan would stay in the house to push through the reforms that are needed. As VP, his influence will be somewhat reduced. Christy would have been a poor choice. He is flamboyant and would be good on the stump but is prone to gaffs that the press would jump on. He would become the GOP’s Biden. Better that he stay in NJ and finish the job and then move up to the Senate or maybe a cabinet post.

              I was kind of hoping Romney would pick one of the governors, Jindal, Barber, etc. One choice I would like to see announced is that Ron Paul will be appointed to audit the FED and Ginny & Fanny. That would stir things up and make Romney look serious about monetary reform.

              • biased moderators with their gotchya questions.

                You mean like this one?

                Turn out the lights …

              • Charlie, I get her meaning. Of course you want to hear want you want to hear. This was a spur of the moment question unlike Obama’s “You didn’t build it” which was part of a speach and harkens directly back to his philosphy that no one succeeds without govenment. In my experience most businesses succeed despite government. As Reagan said, ” the most fightening nine words to a business man are ‘I am from the government, I’m here to help.'”

          • Aside from the fact he wants to gut what little the greater good gets from this dopey government, nothing. He’s a champion of the rich. I’m sure they’d be very happy if he won (and then Romney died). Why anyone less than a rich person would want him anywhere near power is beyond me, but … that’s what SUFA is all about.

  35. The inimitable Gore Vidal summed it (Ayn Rand) up all too well:

    “This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in purest Orwellian newspeak of the “freedom is slavery” sort. What interests me most about her is not the absurdity of her “philosophy,” but the size of her audience (in my campaign for the House she was the one writer people knew and talked about). She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb or incompetent that’s your lookout.”

    And then she took social security … is Mr. Ryan aware of that?

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Meaningless words and phrases. An article along the lines of my other commentary on obfuscation of our language.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/meaningless_words_and_phrases.html

    • “Racism” in modern politics means “anything minorities don’t like.” The term is applied even to non-racial controversies. The people who are opposed to the Ground Zero mosque? They are “racist.”

      Simple answers for simple minds. Is that the best this genius could do?

      I suspect the term racist is applied when the “reason” someone express opposition to a mosque near ground zero (or anywhere else in America) has to do with actual racist beliefs. Like when someone refers to a black president as a guerilla. It’s a racist statement and someone might correctly come to judge the statement as one that a racist would proclaim.

      The cool thing? He’ll be your president another four years now that Romney knuckled under to the whackos.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        You prove the point. Opposing a mosque is NOT Racism. Islam is NOT a race, nor even an ethnicity.

        By the way, your constant denigrating of European ancestors who occupied this country displays a huge RACIST view of Caucasians.

        • Imbecile.

          • Obsfucation of our own language as a starting premise, and you write books for a living, Sorry Charlie, he made some very good points. You of all people ought to be able to dazzle us with some clever words without the petty insults.

            • Actually I word process for a living. I come here to learn, because you wingnuts are all so brilliant. Especially JAC. I love how he handled the Guerilla argument (what I pointed to as racism). Very clever.

              Then again, on second thought, putz works as well as imbecile.

      • I disagree totally, Charlie, and to be honest I am surprised that you would take the angle that racist claims are applied when the reason is racism. I think it is clear that in today’s society, racism is thrown around for a great many different purposes. There is a percentage of time when the claim is accurate. However, it seems that the majority of the time the claim is made these days, it is made when there is not any indication that racism is the real mindset behind the position. Racist as a claim is too often used in place of a reasoned argument when the person claiming it wants to shut up the other side due to a lack of ability to defend their own positions.

        • I totally agree with some of what you say, USW … but when someone consistently uses the term “guerilla in the room” when it’s a discussion about a black man (usually Obama), it isn’t a big stretch to tie such comments to racism (at least not in my opinion). Isthe race card uses and abused? Absolutely, and from both blacks and whites (where I agree with you), but one can’t help but look for the reasons someone might use offensive language sometimes. Sometimes when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …

          • I would say it depends on the person saying what he says and how he uses the term. For example, Dennis Miller uses the term all the time, even having a comedy special 10-12 years ago with the name 500 lb. Gorilla (or something along those lines). If he says Gorilla in the room, I don’t think he is being racist at all. There are others who I would agree are doing so. The problem today exists that too often many people in political discussions seem to jump to that conclusion without looking at context or past positions or anything else.

            A prime example of this would be the Zimmerman case. While we can debate all day whether he was right or wrong, what we cannot debate is that many pundits, including yourself, immediately jumped to the conclusion that he shot Martin because he was black and that he is a racist. After more background came out, we learned that Zimmerman has performed many charitable acts in SUPPORT of black people. Forget the crime he committed here, as that isn’t the issue. The false assumption that he is a racist and that was the cause of the action was jumped to without any supporting evidence that race was the driving force behind anything.

            Similar situation with the Tea Party. A few racist assholes show up at some Tea Party rallies, and the left is quick to claim that all Tea Party folks are racists. That is ridiculous and a prime example of how racism is used as a claim to silence the opposition instead of engaging the opposition based on the positions that they are presenting.

            That being said, I do believe that there are racists out there. When your actions and words back up other’s claims that you are, then you very well may be. My point is just that the vast majority of Americans are not racists. Yet those on the other side of the political aisle are often quick to say they are.

            • Come on all you constitutional defenders … where’s your John Hancock(s)? Write it big so King George doesn’t need his spectacles … so they can see it on Captain Cannoli’s planet, Pluto!

              immediately jumped to the conclusion that he shot Martin because he was black and that he is a racist.

              No, actually I said he followed Martin because he profiled (which suggests racism).

              After more background came out, we learned that Zimmerman has performed many charitable acts in SUPPORT of black people.

              Yes, like reporting BLACK PEOPLE every single time he acted in his role as security in his development. You don’t find that suspicious, you’ll get to heaven before me. Call me cynical.

              The false assumption that he is a racist and that was the cause of the action was jumped to without any supporting evidence that race was the driving force behind anything.

              And then there are a few witnesses who claim he’s made racist statements in the past (since we’re still learning the facts of the case) … I’ll go out on a limb and assume he profiled Treyvon Martin because he was black. I have no problem making that assumption.

              Yet those on the other side of the political aisle are often quick to say they are.

              I agree … and point to those on the right who call Obama a socialist. He’s way closer to Republican than socialist in my eyes.

              • Yes, like reporting BLACK PEOPLE every single time he acted in his role as security in his development. You don’t find that suspicious, you’ll get to heaven before me. Call me cynical.

                You should check your facts. Despite the media reporting this to be the case, after some research was done, it was NOT the case. This is what I am talking about. You believe what you want to believe when you read it. You just ignore what refutes your beliefs.

                And then there are a few witnesses who claim he’s made racist statements in the past (since we’re still learning the facts of the case) … I’ll go out on a limb and assume he profiled Treyvon Martin because he was black. I have no problem making that assumption.

                I am sure you don’t, for the very reason I just pointed out. But as can always be the case, you know what assuming can do…
                The key to my point with you is that you are accepting what agrees with you in this case and ignoring what doesn’t. You would have already convicted him if you had the power, despite the fact that you don’t really know all the facts.

                But I am not going to get into another debate with you about this particular case. You are not interested in having an informed discussion. You are interested in proving that your judgement of Zimmerman is right.

                I agree … and point to those on the right who call Obama a socialist. He’s way closer to Republican than socialist in my eyes.

                Republican, Socialist, Marxist, Democrat, Government Official…. all equally bad adjectives in my opinion. But you claim he isn’t a socialist because he isn’t socialist enough for your tastes. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some policies that are socialist in nature.

            • Let me explain how I see the fugazy monikers. If you fear your job (or anything else) because of something you post (that you believe in), I see that fear as nothing more than slavery. Slavery to your job (or whatever fear keeps you from posting your names). If that is illogical to you, I’m not sure what to tell you.

              • Well… you choose to see it as slavery. I see it as wise decision making. I don’t see the point of doing things that may negatively impact my chance at a promotion, or chance to keep myself employed. It is the same as choosing not to walk up and tell the local biker gang they are wimps. Why would I do something to provoke them. So anyone who makes any decision meant to better their prospects in the working world, is now classified as a slave to wages, in your eyes? If I choose not to tell my boss off, I am a slave. If I choose not to ignore my responsibilities by skipping work, I am a slave. If I choose to keep my politics separate from my workplace, I am a slave. By your definitions here Charlie, there are very few wise decisions I can make that will not make me a slave.

                But I stand by what I said, this still has absolutely nothing to do with whether one believes in or supports the concept of liberty.

                You are really, really reaching here to save your argument, in my humble opinion.

          • Sometimes when it quacks and walks, it is. I agree. The problem is that the constant assumption is that EVERY time it remotely walks in the vicinity of a duck, it is a duck.

            • Good point.

              Answer to one above this one:

              It is the same as choosing not to walk up and tell the local biker gang they are wimps.

              Then we agree it is fear.

              Why would I do something to provoke them. So anyone who makes any decision meant to better their prospects in the working world, is now classified as a slave to wages, in your eyes?

              Anyone working in a capitalist system is a slave to wages in my eyes, but you already know that (how I feel). What I don’t understand is how can one express a desire for liberty and all the principles America is “supposed” to stand for, then hide behind a fugazy moniker? And I do agree (I’ve told you this before) that blogs, etc., can in fact cause people their positions, etc. (I’ve known it to happen), but that doesn’t change the fact people are hiding from fear (fear, to my mind, equates to a form of slavery). You have nothing to fear but fear itself was a great bumper sticker (so I agree with you, being open with a name in this setting is potentially dangerous), but … your fear of losing your position, etc., doesn’t speak very well of your never ending fear of losing your liberty.

              If I choose not to tell my boss off, I am a slave. If I choose not to ignore my responsibilities by skipping work, I am a slave. If I choose to keep my politics separate from my workplace, I am a slave. By your definitions here Charlie, there are very few wise decisions I can make that will not make me a slave.

              Actually, I was thinking more in terms of your boss giving you shit he deserves a smack for and you telling him off (and this is really interesting to me, the way we both see this situation). Now, that may well get you fired, but where does one draw the line when it comes to fear of losing a position (why capitalism required unions to offset the power of the owners is one good example).

              But I stand by what I said, this still has absolutely nothing to do with whether one believes in or supports the concept of liberty.

              I agree someone can support liberty, but I also think hiding takes something away from that support on many levels (i.e., why not be free in the land of the free)?

              You are really, really reaching here to save your argument, in my humble opinion.

              I can understand how you feel, especially based on how we read the potential boss-worker relationship. No harm, no foul.

          • I will only use the term “500 lb gorilla in the room” if there is actually a 500 lb gorilla in the room as shown here. But only if the term “elephant in the room” is considered racist obviously because it compares republicans to elephants.

            That being said, I don’t know if Obama has a pet 500 lb gorilla in the white house, must be a government cover up.

            disclaimer: I will also use the term as a metaphor for something that would be impossible to overlook.

            • I will also use the term as a metaphor for something that would be impossible to overlook.

              And that seems fair enough to me, but when it is used as a direct reference to a black person (usually Obama), it isn’t unreasonable to assume the person uttering the remark has a bit of a racist streak somewhere in his holier than thou, all-American patriotic, soul. 🙂

              • So do you seriously think that the NBC comercial showing a monkey doing gymnastics promoting their new show that aired after an olympics segment that featured gymnastics was racist because a black girl won? Would it be racist if a black girl was not even competing?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                It is UNREASONABLE to make any such assumption about a person.

                In fact you are very likely to hear it from someone who has NO RACIAL prejudice what so ever.

  37. <i?Obama’s “You didn’t build it”

    Obama was 100% right and it’s too bad he doesn’t have the balls to stick with it (common sense). He backed off the truth the way Romney has been backing off of just about every stance he’s ever taken (including healthcare) …

    You understood Sarah Palin? I feel for you, brother …

    • You didn’t write your books, somebody else did it. So please change the author’s name to Somebody Else.

  38. I have no problem with that, my man. I absolutely agree … every single teacher I had, author I read and experience in life contributes to anything I write (worthless or not) and I have less of a problem having to share that income with the rest of society so long as it goes to benefit everyone rather than those who “own” us.

    • Charlie, the teacher’s job is to present material to you in an organized and interesting fashion, to point out your mistakes, and praise you when you get it right. You do the learning. You open your mind. You read the material. You analyzer it in your mind and draw conclusions. All of the real work of education is done by you and you alone. So I am glad that you are willing to share all your profits with those that were too lazy to open their minds and learn, to spend countless nights and days writing and rewriting prose to get it just right, to find a publisher and then proof read the galleys. I am happy that you are happy with millions of slave masters who feel it is better to receive than to give.

      • Where to begin, T-Ray?

        If your theory is right, why bother with teachers? BF would probably love that; a world of BF’s. Every aspect of our lives (yours too, my man) has been affected by others; there has been a sharing across the board from birth to death. Those who have privileged upbringings do so at the expense of others; why not everyone get the same breaks?

        As to all those lazy bones who weren’t published, have you any idea how many great authors were never formally educated, or educated up to high school, some less than that? Still, all the experiences they gathered through life were dependent on others (family, friends acquaintances, etc.). As to slaves … interesting how all of your righties refuse to use your own names on a conservative sight andyou call us lefties “slaves.” You’re all so afraid of your jobs, you can’t handle someone knowing how you feel and/or you can’t share your thoughts openly (and we’re the slaves)? Funny, funny stuff.

        • Here is where I think you fall apart Charlie. This constant attack on people who don’t use their names on here is both comical and sad. It has nothing to do with us being more of a slave than you. That sounds a lot like someone who is really reaching for some way to attack someone personally rather than sticking to the debate you were having.

          • I guess you have to feel that way, but I don’t see how people hiding their names shows their firm belief in liberty. Talk about comical … and reaching … and what debate? I’m unaware of one.

            • I don’t have to feel that way. It is my choice to use a real name or a fake name. I have clearly outlined in the past the reasons for doing so. And none of those reasons had anything to do with the strength of my belief in liberty. This is what I mean. Why even make that statement about someone’s belief in liberty? There isn’t any logical link between someone believing in liberty and what name they post under. Instead why don’t you discuss why their BELIEFS or ACTIONS go against liberty? To continue to bring up the name they post under is petty, and it appears as nothing more than attempt to distract away from the substance of someone’s position because you don’t have a counter position strong enough to do it.

              • I was too quick on the trigger … this response (top of the other) was meant for this comment: Come on all you constitutional defenders … where’s your John Hancock(s)? Write it big so King George doesn’t need his spectacles … so they can see it on Captain Cannoli’s planet, Pluto!

        • First point, you actually confirmed my point by pointing out that there are many self-made authors who succeeded despite not having a formal education. I will reiterate, learning is done by the individual. The cowboy leads the horse to water. The horse does the drinking. Same goes for teachers and students. If Obama and his fellow socialists want to take credit for the businesses that succeed then they must also take credit for the 75% that fail.

          Second point, you are making an assumption when you say that my screen name is a psuedonym. All of my proper names were already taken on this site, so I use an oft used nickname. I have also stated many times where I live. From that information, a good detective would find me.

          • First point, will reiterate, learning is done by the individual … no, what it proves is formal education is unnecessary.

            Cowboy/horse … or the horse gets lost and dies of thirst. Good point (for me).

            And there’s the Obama is a socialist quote I needed. Thanks T … 🙂

            So the constitution should’ve been signed John (instead of John Hancock)?

            • unnecessary to write …:)

            • “Cowboy/horse … or the horse gets lost and dies of thirst. Good point (for me).”

              No it’s not a good point for you. It just shows how illogical you are and how you divert the discussion so you do not have to concede the point.

              Have you ever taught? Since you are such a big socialist/laborite, have you ever worked in a union shop?

              Also you did not answer. Are you willing to take credit for the 75% of the businesses that fail as well as the 25% that suceed? You certainly want a share of the profits from those that succeed. For the 75%, you must not only take responsibility for the finacial losses (heh, it’s only fair) but also for the infrastructure failures that allowed them to fail. Obviously they had bad roads, teachers, etc. Of course that means that as a country we are a 75% failure.

              • “Cowboy/horse … or the horse gets lost and dies of thirst. Good point (for me).”

                No it’s not a good point for you. It just shows how illogical you are and how you divert the discussion so you do not have to concede the point.

                What is illogical? I used your words against you and it’s illogical? How about your example sucked? A teacher doesn’t teach and a student doesn’t learn. My point about writing is that it sometimes has much more to do with creative ability (usually inherent) than it does with education (but not always). You claim a cowboy leads a horse to water (the teacher doing the teaching), but the horse drinks/the student does the work). So, if the cowboy isn’t there, does the horse find the water/does the student learn? Like I said, your example sucked.

                Have you ever taught? Since you are such a big socialist/laborite, have you ever worked in a union shop?

                Yes, in fact. Several times. I’ve also been a union window cleaner in NY for ten years. And I’m a big anything you want to call me (340 pounds). And I’m in an MFA program now so I can teach at a college level (If I can find a job doing so).

                Also you did not answer. Are you willing to take credit for the 75% of the businesses that fail as well as the 25% that suceed? You certainly want a share of the profits from those that succeed. For the 75%, you must not only take responsibility for the finacial losses (heh, it’s only fair) but also for the infrastructure failures that allowed them to fail. Obviously they had bad roads, teachers, etc. Of course that means that as a country we are a 75% failure.

                No, this is your capitalism system, my friend, not mine. I’m forced to live with it (as you are–a slave), but I have NO PROBLEM sharing the losses (why I’m a socialist–get it?).

      • Charlie never invented any of the words in his books, all he did was be the first to arranage them in a certain pattern that anyone could have done. Should his school bus driver get a cut because without him, how could Charlie get to school to learn those words?

        • Yes! Now you’ve got it, Naten53! See, I knew you had it in you! Yes, my schoobus driver (I didn’t have one but lets make believe I did), should get a cut; as should the poor bastards who paved the roads, built the school, made the pencils I used, etc., etc. Way to go! The greater good!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Since SOCIETY is obviously responsible for creating your book I see no rational reason for you to have a Copyright.

            I will borrow a copy from the library and start selling photocopy versions. That way I will get back some of my contribution to this novel.

  39. JAC, Kellen Moore..did a fine job for us until 28 seconds remained when he got picked off and Cleveland ended up with a field goal to beat us by 2! He’ll be fun to watch this year if they give him enough time. 😉

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Anita

      Thanks for the info. Was wondering if he would get to play in preseason.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Anita

      Went to ESPN to see what if anything was written about he Lions game. This was part of the article. One comment stating that the Lions would be better off with a rubber band or wet noodle than Moore. OUCH! I hope he makes it so he can grow and learn.

      “Those around the country who are rooting for rookie quarterback Kellen Moore to make the team didn’t see a lot to be encouraged by. Moore completed 4-of-14 passes and continues to display an arm that doesn’t appear to have enough zip, at least at the moment, to make it in the NFL. … “

      • The Lions are my pick to upset the Pack this year in the North. If they can stay out of jail/fines/suspensions … no easy if …

      • He didn’t look as bad as the stats show..all the reserves were in at the time. Don’t know how much time he’ll get though. Our backup, Hill, was on his game, and Stafford isn’t going anywhere…

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Love it: Ryan brings Obama’s worst fear to the campaign……….MATH.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/paul_ryan_and_the_triumph_of_math.html

    • And Romney brought the GOP’s worst fear to the race, Ryan … 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        OH Charlie ! After reading your comments on the Ryan choice for VP, I’m starting to think your a paid troll for the Democrats, cuz that’s exactly what their blubbering about. To bad there is no substance to your words, just hot air (maybe your the real windbag on here 🙂 ). Peace, your still my favorite troll 😉

        • Thanks, G. I was worried I’d slipped on your troll meter. Now, care to make a bet on the election? We can use a third party since I can’t know who you are or where you live, etc. Say bet. I’m all in, my brother 🙂

          • Hey Hey Captain Canolli! Sure! I have lots of homemade brandy to offer as a bet. But I want a two part bet. 1. I’ll bet the election doesn’t happen on the scheduled date, Nov 6, 2012. 2. Obamaloni will get crushed, if the election does happen that day. If #1 occurs, I win both buy default. I will post my Facebook link as soon as finish with my tomato canning so you can know me better, if that’s what makes you a happy troll. 🙂

            • Here ya go Charlie https://www.facebook.com/#!/gmiles2666

              You and everybody else can see me in person and if you choose, become friends 🙂 You are such a troll 😆

              • G, I am impressed! You the man, my brother. Good for you (seriously).

                Now, about that bet. I’m confused at what you’re terms are. You’re saying the election won’t take place on the appointed date? I’d have to take that bet, as well as the one about which party wins. I say the Dems walk away with the presidential election. As to brandy … if we’re not going to bet cash (the American way), how about Chivas? If you win, I buy you brandy and when I win, you buy me Chivas. I have a close affinity to Chivas because my old man was once pinched moving a truckload of the stuff and our basement was filled with cases of it afterward.

                Now that you’ve shown the world you have no fear (and I do applaud you for it), what say you convince the others on the site to do the same? Let them show they’re John Hancock(s)! Write BIG so nobody can ever call them slaves to fear again!

                🙂

              • Chivas is fine. I’ll take a bottle of Crown Royal when I win (I have enough brand, over 120 bottles). As far as those who use Screen Names vs their real names, It don’t matter to me one bit. Everone has their own reasons for their actions. I’m friends with many on here who use screen names, if they choose to use their given name, then that is up to them. I have always used my nick name (G-Man), even though it is the blog sign in being used, but it doesn’t matter if people know my real name, I just don’t care. I respect the privacy of others and will not openly use their real names. That’s one of the things that the govt. is doing, getting into our personnal business far too much. I will not promote anything that violates a persons chosen form of privacy. I know that privacy is not something the left respects, but that’s life.

  41. @G:

    I respect the privacy of others and will not openly use their real names. That’s one of the things that the govt. is doing, getting into our personnal business far too much. I will not promote anything that violates a persons chosen form of privacy. I know that privacy is not something the left respects, but that’s life.

    I also respect the privacy of others and will not openly use their real names. Touché?

    What is one of the things the government is doing (making people use their real names on sites that promote the greatness of America)? I don’t think so …

    The left respects privacy also, G. Some of us just don’t buy into the fugazy argument about liberty made by those who live in fear of their own beliefs (I mean, seriously, how ironic is that)?

    Will friend you in a moment. Imagine that, a Plutonian redski, pinko, fag-loving, greater good liberal, friending a SUFA super hero!

  42. I am reading and deciphering Ryan’s medicare proposal…..have a really sharp pencil and plenty of paper….

    First perusal…..Obama’s cut to the medicare program makes Ryan’s look pretty small….lots of dollars but no specific area…..Ryan’s, at first blush, is aimed at specifics. I am particularly interested in the medicare approach for those under 55……..

    Have not digested it yet……and the pencil is still laying here…….saga to continue.

    • Well…yes and no.

      Ryan’s proposal maintains Obama’s cuts. So either you support these cuts or you don’t — doesn’t matter if its Obama or Ryan making them.

      But more importantly, Ryan’s Medicare proposal does not keep in tact Medicare. All of his (and Romney’s) talk about maintaining Medicare and keeping it secure (see his Sunday night interview), is absolute baloney! His proposal seeks to completely change Medicare for those under 55. Now we can debate whether these changes are a good/bad thing, whether they make sense, etc. That’s a great debate to have. But let’s cut the BS about his purported goal of maintaining Medicare. His goal is to completely change Medicare going forward.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        What Ryan’s plan proposed or did not propose is IRRELEVANT.

        HE IS NOT the top of the ticket.

        The ONLY real issue is WHAT DOES ROMNEY propose.

        Here he must stand up quickly and explain how he could support the Ryan budget but now admits he will prepare his own budget.

        • “What Ryan’s plan proposed or did not propose is IRRELEVANT.” JAC, do you really believe this?

          Romney’s choice of Ryan (not to mention his prior support of Ryan’s budget) absolutely raises Ryan’s budget proposal as a legitimate point of criticism and debate. Romney can of course end such debate by putting out his own budget proposal to run on. Let’s see just how much his proposal differs from Ryan’s…

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Buck

            Biden’s policy proposal for Iraq was to divide it into FIVE countries. That did not match up with Obama’s proposed policy.

            Did the left or media get all over Obama on why he picked Biden when his policy was different? NO.

            Reagan v Bush…..voodoo economics………..Bush becomes VP. Media hammers the voodoo economic issue to death. To no avail thank goodness.

            I see a pattern here.

            • Actually I do remember some criticism and some support from the media over Biden’s proposed plan. Remember: Obama chose Biden in part due to his foreign policy expertise. As such, it was proper to criticize and debate Biden’s proposed plans in the absence of an Obama plan to the contrary.

              Same thing here — Romney is choosing Ryan in part due to his economic and budgetary background. As such, it is proper to criticize and debate Ryan’s proposed budget in the absence of a Romney plan to the contrary.

              I see a pattern here too!

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Buck

                The debate over Biden’s plan came during Bush’s term and during the Dem primary.

                I don’t recall the media making a big deal about it once he was selected for the VP slot.

              • I do recall discussion on it, and I remember reading some articles on the pros and cons of Biden’s proposal after he was selected as VP. But you may be right about the timing of much of that discussion happening beforehand.

                But one key distinction as you indicate — Biden’s proposal ‘did not match up with Obama’s proposed policy’. Obama actually had a proposed policy at the time. Romney does not have his own budget proposal and has come out in the past in support of Ryan’s proposal.

              • Buck,, Oh Geez, the idiots Democrats have not had a budget since Obamaloni took office, and Obamaloni’s last budget proposal was destroyed in the Senate, yet you worry about a VP nominee”s budget ideas? 🙄 At least the man has some ideas, and I don’t like them either. I want to hear “we are gutting government” to reduce spending. Nothing else is acceptable to me. Nothing really to see here, just another govt hack to listen too!

            • Biden’s policy proposal for Iraq was to divide it into FIVE countries. That did not match up with Obama’s proposed policy.

              Did the left or media get all over Obama on why he picked Biden when his policy was different? NO.

              Because Biden-Obama didn’t follow Bush (who engaged both wars). No democrat was going to lose after Bush. Ryan is another Palin choice … total desperation … this baby is OVER.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Buck

        FACT: Medicare will NOT last. It is unsustainable.

        Moving from payment for service to a voucher system DOES NOT eliminate or change Medicare. Only the administrative procedures for making the subsidy to each citizen. Which of course reveals the mindset of the left. If it isn’t a “direct” govt payment then it is not a real Govt program.

        So this leaves the question as to whether the vouchers will cover the same costs? But Medicare can not continue to cover the same costs. So in order to SAVE Medicare there must be BOTH cuts in services and increases in funding.

        HOW that occurs, whether by voucher or by direct payment to medical providers is IRRELEVANT to the primary debate.

        • “Moving from payment for service to a voucher system DOES NOT eliminate or change Medicare.”

          I don’t know where to begin….this is not simply changing some aspects of administrative procedures; this would represent a complete overhaul of the Medicare system.

    • PS Colonel: Why do you think Ryan did not join Romney in Florida on the campaign trail?

      • Ryan is speaking in Iowa this morning.

        • The cynic in me says there’s a reason he’s not in Florida…

          Let’s call it the elephant in the room. 🙂

          • 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 …

          • So the elephant is that Ryan’s plan cuts some medicare, right? But didn’t Obama take 1/2 T from medicare for Obamacare? Both guys intend to cut it. So I’m lost on what’s so funny.

            • Take off the blinders, Anita my love. Ryan’s plan is gutting the fish across the board that most Americans are pretty much dependent on. Add student loans (goodbye student vote), limited/reduced unemployment (goodbye middle class independents) & then top it off with Medicare (why he’s not in Florida) … this baby is done and done. Put a nail in the coffin. Turn out the lights, the party’s over …

              • And once the people can vote themselves money from the treasury, the country will soon fail, as we are now (15 trillion+ in debt). Gut the government NOW!

              • Ryan’s plan is gutting the fish across the board that most Americans are pretty much dependent on.

                Have you actually read his current plan, Charlie. If you write what you did above, I suspect that you either haven’t read it or are attempting to glean some hidden meaning out of something that the rest of us who have read the plan didn’t see. If the latter, I would like you to enlighten us as to how exactly Ryan’s plan removes Medicare from those dependent on it or increases costs for seniors.

                Turn out the lights, the party’s over …

                Unless, of course, Americans stop listening to the rhetoric and find out what the facts are. I have a feeling you are going ot be singing a very different tune after Ryan guts Biden in a debate…

              • It doesn’t gut a thing for those dependent on it. 55 and up don’t miss a thing. 55 and under get a voucher, based on income, to help pay for public or private insurance. It’s a good plan unless you think what we have is sustainable.

                Romney had a huge crowd in Florida today..they (crowd) would be there with or without Ryan. I’ve been reading that the seniors actually like Ryan’s plan because 1) it doesn’t affect them personally and 2) they know something has to be done to secure the future of their kids and grandkids.

              • Anita,

                It doesn’t gut a thing for those dependent on it. 55 and up don’t miss a thing.

                So if it doesn’t gut a thing for those dependent on it , does it gut something for those not yet dependent on it?

                55 and under get a voucher, based on income, to help pay for public or private insurance.

                This is my concern. What if it doesn’t provide enough to pay for insurance?

                Using the second-lowest bid to set the amount the government provides for each beneficiary sounds good, but what happens if the companies making the lower bids are providing such basic insurance that it doesn’t provide comprehensive coverage?

                It’s a good plan unless you think what we have is sustainable.

                Ok, but if it’s such a good plan, why doesn’t it apply to everyone right away? Why do those retired and those close to retirement keep the current Medicare – basically the baby boomers who created the problem and are not willing to be part of the solution?

                The real savings (an current savings) would only occur if Ryan’s plan applied to everyone right away.

                I’ve been reading that the seniors actually like Ryan’s plan because 1) it doesn’t affect them personally and 2) they know something has to be done to secure the future of their kids and grandkids.

                See, this is my problem. I’d love the plan too if it didn’t affect me and someone else was paying for the “fix” while I got to keep my benefits…

              • Soooo, the ol bait & switch is Ok by you? Both sides intend to cut Medicare. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Where would you start?

    • On CNN yesterday, Obama strategist David Axelrod claimed that “most of the experts who have looked at this” have said that Paul Ryan’s plan to reform Medicare would put the program “in a death spiral” and “would raise costs on seniors by thousands of dollars.” A day earlier — as Representative Ryan was preparing to accept Mitt Romney’s offer to join his ticket — Obama campaign manager Jim Messina had said the plan involved “shifting thousands of dollars in health-care costs to seniors.”

      None of this is true. Any expert who looks at Ryan’s plan — any intelligent and fair-minded person, really — can tell you the actual worst-case scenario for how much more it could make beneficiaries pay: $0.

      The claim Axelrod and Messina are making is based on a hostile interpretation of an earlier version of Ryan’s proposal. Ryan has changed the proposal over the last year, however, and Romney has endorsed the new version. The Democratic criticism, applied to the new plan, is indisputably false.

      The Romney-Ryan proposal — which has the support of liberal Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon — would let senior citizens choose a coverage plan provided either by the federal government or by a private company. The government would defray the cost of purchasing the plan selected. The providers would submit bids showing the premiums they would charge to cover the benefits Medicare has traditionally offered. The second-lowest bid would set the amount the government would provide for each beneficiary.

      Seniors who picked the second-cheapest provider would have their entire premium paid by the government, and seniors who picked the cheapest would get a check for the difference. Seniors who picked a more expensive plan would have to pay the difference out of pocket.

      We have reason to be confident that this arrangement would restrain the growth of costs. A study has just shown that applying the second-cheapest-bidder approach to even the much less robust form of competition in Medicare Advantage would have resulted in a 9 percent reduction in Medicare costs in one year alone. The savings from years of real competition could be enormous.

      If, however, competition does not restrain costs, the growth of government spending per beneficiary will be capped at a level a bit above the growth rate of the economy plus inflation. That is the exact level that the Obama administration envisions as well. The administration, however, hopes to reach the target by setting low prices for medical providers and otherwise micromanaging medical markets. There have been many past efforts along these lines, and they have always failed.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313785/return-mediscare-editors

  43. @ Naten:

    So do you seriously think that the NBC comercial showing a monkey doing gymnastics promoting their new show that aired after an olympics segment that featured gymnastics was racist because a black girl won? Would it be racist if a black girl was not even competing?

    Totally strawman argument. Absurd. Reaching and falling on one’s face. Get real.

    @JAC … unreasonable? Right, whatever you say … so long as you’re talking to yourself.

    • I was not making an argument, perhaps I should have removed the word ‘seriously’ so it didn’t imply what you may have thought.

      I was asking because of the context of the conversation, linking monkeys to racism, and a current event. If you saw the series of events in real time, would you have thought it was racist?

      I will answer what I thought: In real time it was NOT racist. However, due to the alleged controversy I got to thinking that the timing of the commercial on a 6 hour time delay and the country’s current ‘scream racist’ mentality, it appears NBC could have easily changed the commercial to another of their promotions for this TV show.

      • Not sure if you remember this, but Howard Cossell was fired because of a comment I firmly believe he didn’t mean in any racist way at all (“Look at that little monkey go.”) … It’s what came out of his mouth in a very controversial time. I believe someone would be fired for making the same mistake in chosen words today (which is wrong, I think). The guy who did the headline for Jeremy Lin last year (“A chink in the armor” or something like that) was also wrongly fired. Perhaps a stern warning would’ve been more appropriate (unless they knew he did it on purpose). But those are very different missused words as compared to political arguments where everything liberal is being attacked as some plot to overthrow America and Obama is the focus of the attacks and then referred to as the guerilla in the room. If it wasn’t meant that way, it’s tough to discern. When it’s used repeatedly, it gets a lot tougher to excuse.

  44. Just A Citizen says:

    Mark of the Irrational

    If we are all slaves to our jobs then obviously the only way to be free is to NOT have a job.

    This of course leaves us only one thing to do. Go on Govt Support.

    But alas, once on support we become a Slave to Support.

    And the wheels on the bus go round and round.

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    This looks like at least an attempt at objective evaluation of Ryan vs. Obama on medicare, medicaid and budgets. Not perfect but better than most I’ve seen recently.

    http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/13/13261348-ryans-medicare-plan-and-his-budget-whats-in-them-for-you?lite

  46. Can someone start a new article or open mic? Takes forever to load now. Thanks 🙂

  47. Okay, all yous lunatics on the right (and libtards on the left), a cause I’ll go out on a limb and assume we can all agree on …

    http://the-lost-children.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-protectors.html?spref=fb

    It’s all about kids …

    • How about posting a link to your part of the book?

    • Hey, I recognize one of those names!!

      We have a celebrity in our midst!

      • Not I, said he. Andrew Vacchs is the celebrity in that group. A few others as well, but not I. Vacchs does a ton for kids.

        Anita: I wouldn’t know how to post a link to my contribution. It’s $2.99 all you who claim we don’t need government to do anything becuse charitable donations will cover it all … the writers get nada, niente, nothing … it’s all donated to protect kids. See, socialists really do believe in the greater good.

  48. The lighter side:

    The unions are throwing a hissy fit and will boycott and protest the Democratic Convention for selecting NC a right to work state as their convention site.

    And Bill WHO’S YOUR DADDY NOW Clinton will formally nominate Obama.

    🙂

  49. Some interesting thoughts about Paul Ryan, Ayn Rand, and “individualism.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/paul-ryan-grow-up_b_1774324.html

    • Good one, Todd. Here was my favorite: And she would not tolerate narcissism. Life, she taught, was not about me, it is about us. In the end, she would say, “your life’s value would be measured not by what you earned, but by what you did for others.” When a person understood that, she believed, they moved from adolescence to adulthood.

      I assume she was thinking about BF = narcissism.

      But imagine the concept of “what you did for others” over “earned” (although “earned” here was giving an awful lot away to those who “think” they earn something when others actually do the work for them.

      Good article. Paul Ryan should read it and remind himself just how much of his life was supported by government. Like Ayn Rand (who used social security when push came to shove), I suspect he’ll ignore that aspect of it the way he ignored the questions on 60 Minutes the other night. Another American “hero”, Mr. Ryan is …

      • Then there’s Obama’s mentor..Marx…….

        ..and like JAC said the other day: sometimes it’s best to just post the whole article:

        It was only minutes after news broke that Paul Ryan was Romney’s likely pick for Vice President that leftwingers on Twitter began to needle Ryan as a follower of that mean ol’ Ayn Rand, the famed objectivist philosopher of the middle of the last century most famous for writing Atlas Shrugged and for being a proponent of what the left says is a less than compassionate philosophy on humanity.
        There is a mistaken belief on the left that Paul Ryan was somehow programmed by Ayn Rand and that his entire budget plan, his Roadmap For America’s Future, is somehow one great Randian, or worse Darwinian, exercise in the survival of the strongest. The left also chides him for later turning his back on Rand and pretending his ideas really aren’t driven by what they consider to be Ayn Rand’s mean-spirited philosophy.
        Neither claim is true.
        The whole discussion began in 2005, when Paul Ryan gave a presentation before The Atlas Society, an organization dedicated to the ideas of Ayn Rand. Ryan was quite effusive about Rand’s work, for sure. A full audio of the meeting is posted at the Society’s website, and on it you can hear Ryan really expressing a great enthusiasm for Rand.
        One of the things Ryan said is that he requires his staffers to read Atlas Shrugged.
        I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff. We start with Atlas Shrugged. People tell me I need to start with The Fountainhead then go to Atlas Shrugged [laughter]. There’s a big debate about that. We go to Fountainhead, but then we move on, and we require Mises and Hayek as well.
        From this the left went off like a dog with a bone imagining that Ryan was claiming to be a full-on Randian.
        Then, this year, Paul Ryan gave an interview to National Review, and there he disavowed being a strict devotee of Ayn Rand.
        As Ryan told the National Review:
        “I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them,” Ryan says. “They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman,” a subject he eventually studied as an undergraduate at Miami University in Ohio. “But it’s a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist.
        “I reject her philosophy,” Ryan says firmly. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas,” who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he says.
        This, the left said, proves he is a flip flopper or a liar. But, again, none of it is true.
        First of all, Ryan does not disavow being a fan of Ayn Rand’s work. He fully admits that as a young man he was influenced by her economic theories and her energetic apologia for capitalism. But he has never, ever said he was enamored of her objectivist ideals. There are no quotes from him accepting Rand’s strict philosophy.
        Another area where Ryan parts company with Ayn Rand reveals a key difference between them. Rand was a vehement opponent of religion — all religion — as well as its moral strictures. But Paul Ryan is a committed Catholic. As he stated in the quote above, Ryan has never signed onto her anti-religious ideals. Ryan’s compassionate Catholicism is what makes it impossible for him to be a full-throated Randian.
        Still, the left claims that Paul Ryan’s budget policies are intended to throw grandma out on the street and that he intends an Ayn Rand-like destruction of the welfare state. But the truth is, his Roadmap For America’s Future goes out of its way to save the welfare state by paring it down to an economically sustainable form. Ryan is not proposing any end to the welfare state.
        Ayn Rand was not nearly so kind. She called the welfare state an imposition of complete immorality on a polity and opposed its construction. Whatever you think of her philosophy, there is no evidence that Paul Ryan ever signed on to all of her ideas.
        So, it just isn’t true that Paul Ryan is some wild-eyed “objectivist” ready to tear down grandma’s safety net. Paul Ryan is clearly a fan of Ayn Rand in many ways. But he is not a Randian objectivist. And he never was.
        http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/11/Lefty-Attack-Paul-Ryan-is-a-Follower-of-Ayn-Rand

        • One of the things Ryan said is that he requires his staffers to read Atlas Shrugged.

          Cruel and Unusual Punishment … which some of yous here put me through … an absolute piece of garbage that really needed an editor willing to shave about 700 pages from the repetitive message she COMPLETELY IGNORED WHEN SHE TOOK SOCIAL SECURITY.

          Paul Ryan … kiss that election goodbye, wingies …:)

          • Charlie..you do realize that all the Rand novels are FICTION, right…based on THEORY. Do you live your life as a faithful communist?

            • They are horrendous fiction (the Rand novels) … used by her and her ilk (SUFA) to propose “individualism” vs. the “greater good” (i.e., screw thy neighbor, take care of your own) … but here’s a Montana Senator taking GOP money to run AWAY from the Ryan budget … 🙂

              http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/07/nrsc-fueled-rehberg-antiryan-ad-filings-show-129629.html

              • @Charlie

                used by her and her ilk (SUFA) to propose “individualism” vs. the “greater good” (i.e., screw thy neighbor, take care of your own)

                See what I mean. I haven’t seen anyone here at SUFA espouse screwing their neighbor. But if that misrepresentation is what you need to present in order to marginalize our points, then by all means continue to do so. But I think it shows a weakness in your positions that you resort to such measures.

            • I didn’t answer your question. No, I can’t be a faithful commi in a capitalist economy, but Rand could be a faithful individualist in one (with all the gelt she made from those dopey books) and what did she do? She took social security … hated government aid out one side of her mouth and kissed it on the other side. Much like Paul Ryan … and most people (which is one reason the ranting against government is so comical).

              • Welp..everyone has a wish list. Rand wished for a free market where everyone could pursue their own happiness absent government constraints. You want government to constrain everyone, leaving no free will. So far neither of you has your wish granted. I’ll take Rand’s world anyday.

                She took SS, big deal. She or her husband played by the govt rules and took it. Wouldn’t you?

            • Anita, The left can only attack Romney/Ryan because Obama has been a complete failure as a President. They are worried about Medicare, which I can understand alittle, except for the part about how the left and the media blow eveything out of proportion. Ryans budget was a proposal, not much more than that, of course Obamalini’s budget proposal was destroyed in the Senate, like 96-0 (don’t worry, they will forget about that). Since Obamacare has totally screwed up healthcare insurance (let’s not mention all the waivers of this great piece of shit, I mean legislation), raising costs and putting more people on the rolls of the uninsured. The left has to attack the right, liberal policies are a failure and they can’t accept it. Why Charlie is babbling, I don’t know, it’s not like Marx is running for office. But, maybe that’s what paid trolls need to do 😉

        • @Anita… I wouldn’t bother. Those that hate Rand will do so. They are not interested in the fact that most of us who enjoyed her literary works agree with parts of it and disagree with other parts. Charlie is guilty of this on a regular basis here. We like a few of the 100 things she espoused, so we are crazy people who don’t care about others. Who are we to allow what we actually believe to get in the way of what they must portray us to believe in order to attempt to marginalize the points we make?

          • I’m not stressin USW. Just giving Charlie something to bellow about 😉

            • charlieopera says:

              So, pray tell, what is it about Rand that you do like, USW? Please make it clear so when I attack it, I’m not accused of missing the mark …:)

          • charlieopera says:

            her literary works

            Talk about stretching it, my man. I don’t think there are too many people who regard her crap as literature of any kind. It’s pretty much garbage writing with a very heavy political slant (fantasy perhaps). Literature? Atlas Shrugged? Seriously? Might be time to take a read of books that aren’t of the indoctrination ilk …

            • charlieopera says:

              Although I will give her this much … she didn’t use a fugazy moniker on her books …

  50. charlieopera says:

    @USW … geez, I’m not sure I can count the times here the “nanni” state has been used to describe a basic safety net. If that’s not “screw thy neighbor”, I’m not sure what is. We’re a nanni state for offering welfare, food stamps, unemployment, pell grants, medicare, medicaid, O’Romney care, etc., for those who need it … let them at cake is the attitude … Ayn Rand-like visions of everyone doing their own thing as if everyone had the same starting point and same goals and desires … all rational thought that avoids the real world … great plan if you’re the King in control of the peasants … not so great when you’re one of the peasants (slaves) … of course SUFA doesn’t stand for Rand-like principles (just a few of the 100, so I’m really anxious to read which ones you do support) … because you do have links to her website here … it’s kind of like an altar 🙂

    • geez, I’m not sure I can count the times here the “nanni” state has been used to describe a basic safety net.

      I think that is actually somewhat incorrect. I think when we discuss a nanny state here, we are often talking about the over the top things like telling us we cannot have a soda over 16 oz or the dumb shit like that, which the far left seems to be doing more and more of with each passing day. As for welfare, food stamps, etc., I think most of us are OK with the concept of a safety net. But that is not really what we are talking about here is it? I thought welfare reform was working when it was requiring that you look for work. The left removed that requirement with a simple executive order. That isn’t improving the system to provide a safety net. That is creating a situation where people are permitted to sit on their ass and do nothing for free money.

      If that’s not “screw thy neighbor”, I’m not sure what is.

      My, and many other’s, position is not screw thy neighbor, Charlie, and you know it full well in spite of the bullshit you attempting to peddle here. We simply prefer that some sort of system be set up where it really is just the safety net that you attempt to falsely claim it is. I have long said I am willing to help those who are willing to help themselves. Cannot be bothered to look for work? Cannot be bothered to get out and actually perform some sort of work to EARN that welfare check? Then why should I have to pay for it?

      We’re a nanni state for offering welfare, food stamps, unemployment, pell grants, medicare, medicaid, O’Romney care, etc., for those who need it …

      No. We are a nanny state because we set up those programs in a way that isn’t a safety net, but is instead designed to provide cradle to grave payments, and which create a systemic dependency which spans multiple generations. What amazes me is that when these are the ACTUAL RESULTS WE ARE SEEING HAPPEN, you still try to claim that we are crazy for pointing them at as causing those results.

      Not to mention the fact that some of those programs, Pell Grants and Government Student Loans, have served to allow universities to continually raise the costs of getting an education. That your loved programs feed the very system that you despise seems lost on you.

      let them at cake is the attitude … Ayn Rand-like visions of everyone doing their own thing as if everyone had the same starting point and same goals and desires … all rational thought that avoids the real world … great plan if you’re the King in control of the peasants … not so great when you’re one of the peasants (slaves) … of course SUFA doesn’t stand for Rand-like principles (just a few of the 100, so I’m really anxious to read which ones you do support) …

      I am at work so replying to that will have to wait until I have more time later.

      because you do have links

      No, I have a single link

      to her website here … it’s kind of like an altar

      I also have links to the Democratic Party as well as about 30 other websites. I hardly think that a single link among all the others qualifies as an altar. What a ridiculous statement. But as usual, don’t let the facts get in the way of you making your point.

      • “I thought welfare reform was working when it was requiring that you look for work. The left removed that requirement with a simple executive order.”

        Great line…if only it were true…

        A few minor points to the whole welfare-work thing:

        1) GOP governors had requested greater flexibility and state control.
        2) Romney had made a similar request when he was governor.
        3) In order to obtain the waiver, the state’s plan must place MORE people back to work.
        4) If the state is not placing MORE people back to work under its plan, then the waiver is waived and the old work requirement reimposed.

        So in a nutshell — Obama is granting waivers ato grant more flexibility and control to the states as requested by Republican governors and, in order to maintain this waiver, the states must be demonstrating that more people are returning to work than otherwise would be the case. And yet Obama is being lambasted for ‘destroying welfare’. Sheesh!

        • I will research this more when I have a few minutes Buck. I see that I could very well be wrong.

          However, remember that it does no good to point out if I am wrong. According to Chaz, I knew I was lying when I typed it and only did so to intentionally mislead the readers of SUFA, because so many of them are on the fence as to where they stand politically that I need to persuade them to lean my way.

      • charlieopera says:

        The left removed that requirement

        Not true and you know it. Do you work for FOX now?

        As to the rest of it, it’s you who are peddling bullshit, USW. You’re doing some walking back here … but don’t let those facts get in the way of trying to make your point. I’m sure it’s tough having to deal with how Ryan’s Rand influence is getting pulled to pieces the last two days (not quite the Sarah Palin bump yous expected, is it?). Here’s some more for you: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/13/what-did-ayn-rand-teach-paul-ryan-about-monetary-policy/

        Like I said, let them eat cake …

        • Not true and you know it. Do you work for FOX now?

          So there has not been a memo put out allowing states to waive the requirement for work when administering welfare? Is that what you are claiming?

          As to the rest of it, it’s you who are peddling bullshit, USW. You’re doing some walking back here …

          You know what.. enough of your BS on these subjects. You are the largest hypocrite in the world regarding the “black and white issue.” While constantly denouncing BF for only seeing black and white, you do the exact same thing on a regular basis. Support capitalism? Well then you automatically fall into the black category: you hate the little guy, support the corrupt mega businesses, and want a 2% upper class rule. Like some of Rand’s works and beliefs, we then you automatically support every words that ever uttered from her petite little lips. You obviously worship her and believe exactly as she did. Support a single GOP plan or idea, you are a whack job wingnut who blah, blah, blah.

          Get a new schtick Charlie. This one is wearing out. Either you are able to have conversations where you listen to people’s thoughts and ideas, accept that when they say I believe part of what she says, they mean that THEY BELIEVE PART OF WHAT SHE SAYS, or you are just going to continue flapping at the jowls attempting to debate what you want to claim we believe instead of what we actually believe.

          Now, are you ready to stop playing your little games where you tell me what I believe and debate that position? Or are you going to grow up, debate like a grown up and ask me what I think, accept that I said what I really think, and debate on the merits of the facts rather than continuing to fall back on “you are walking it back, you really believe something other than what you say you believe.” Cause you know what, your ideas may be delusional, but at least I will accept you believe those delusions and debate you on what you are saying. You are too busy attempting to play games here and thus eliminating any meaningful discourse on the subject.

          And for the record, if I am wrong on the welfare to work thing, you can just say so. You don’t have to attempt to portray me as someone intentionally trying to mislead people and lead them astray. I will research whether I am wrong. If I am I can admit so. But if your only tactic in this area is to attempt to sell the idea that I am some pundit pushing my agenda with intentionally dishonest things, then we have nothing further to discuss.

          How about you consider this little fact while you process your claims about me: Who the frack am I attempting to mislead or alter the opinion of, Charlie? The readers at SUFA, by and large, have their beliefs on these subjects fairly determined. So the ONLY possible reason I could have for making a statement is because it is what I believe to be true and I am attempting to discuss the matter with you to either prove my belief is right or wrong. If I was intentionally lying about welfare reform above, exactly who the hell do you think I am trying to persuade to vote against Obama? THINK before you type….

          • charlieopera says:

            Get a new schtick Charlie. This one is wearing out. Either you are able to have conversations where you listen to people’s thoughts and ideas, accept that when they say I believe part of what she says, they mean that THEY BELIEVE PART OF WHAT SHE SAYS, or you are just going to continue flapping at the jowls attempting to debate what you want to claim we believe instead of what we actually believe.

            Enough of your bullshit, USW. You get a new shtick. Yours was worn out long ago. Why should I accept your bullshit? Well, what do you believe, jowlman? What part of Rand do you follow? I’m still waiting. From what I can tell, all of it. Then again, I don’t listen to what you say (like Paterno where you were made to look foolish). I must just cherry pick, I guess.

            Now, are you ready to stop playing your little games where you tell me what I believe and debate that position? Or are you going to grow up, debate like a grown up and ask me what I think, accept that I said what I really think, and debate on the merits of the facts rather than continuing to fall back on “you are walking it back, you really believe something other than what you say you believe.” Cause you know what, your ideas may be delusional, but at least I will accept you believe those delusions and debate you on what you are saying. You are too busy attempting to play games here and thus eliminating any meaningful discourse on the subject

            Interesting take on it, USW. I thought we had a pretty good debate the last few days, but it seems you get your panties twisted when I mention SUFA (as if it’s something holy). It seems to me when you don’t like what I have to say, it’s suddenly me putting words in your mouth and telling you what you believe. I think you have walked back a few attacks on what is called the nani state here at SUFA. I remember making a general statement something akin to: “What do you want them to do, pull up their boot straps and do it all on their own.” It was a general statement (way too vague to be taken seriously here). I was talking about people with genuine disadvantage and YOU and pretty much every other wingie here had the same response (which to me, like it or not, is “screw my neighbor”).

            And for the record, if I am wrong on the welfare to work thing, you can just say so. You don’t have to attempt to portray me as someone intentionally trying to mislead people and lead them astray. I will research whether I am wrong. If I am I can admit so. But if your only tactic in this area is to attempt to sell the idea that I am some pundit pushing my agenda with intentionally dishonest things, then we have nothing further to discuss.

            You might have a point here, USW. I heard on television this morning (morning joe, I believe), that it wasn’t actually going to do away with workfare. If I’m wrong (I don’t have the time to research it today), then one for you.

            How about you consider this little fact while you process your claims about me: Who the frack am I attempting to mislead or alter the opinion of, Charlie? The readers at SUFA, by and large, have their beliefs on these subjects fairly determined. So the ONLY possible reason I could have for making a statement is because it is what I believe to be true and I am attempting to discuss the matter with you to either prove my belief is right or wrong. If I was intentionally lying about welfare reform above, exactly who the hell do you think I am trying to persuade to vote against Obama? THINK before you type….

            This is interesting. I wonder if you realize how many times you do this, USW? Suggest people know something and are being misleading … what can I tell you, brother … you need to look in the mirror once in a while.

            • Enough of your bullshit, USW. You get a new shtick. Yours was worn out long ago. Why should I accept your bullshit? Well, what do you believe, jowlman? What part of Rand do you follow? I’m still waiting. From what I can tell, all of it. Then again, I don’t listen to what you say (like Paterno where you were made to look foolish). I must just cherry pick, I guess.

              Interesting tact. You say (my summary of what you are saying above) “I have no interest in believing what you say you do and don’t believe about Rand’s ideas, but I am waiting for you to tell me what you believe.” Why should I bother? Besides the fact that I don’t have a ton of time to get into details so I said specifically I would address it later when I did have time…

              But the long and short of it is this: I believe that some of the concepts she put forth of men or women working to get ahead only to have government feel they are entitled to reap the benefits are correct. I agree with some of the tenants behind individualism and objectivism. I believe that the solutions she offered were largely unrealistic and at times border on an un-needed cruelty to other people who are trying to scrape by. I also believe that despite her deep seated ideals, she was somewhat hypocriticial in her actions (although I think there is a stark difference between espousing that this is the way it SHOULD BE and actually operating effectively in the environment that actually exists. Adapting to today’s reality while striving for a different reality in the future is not necessarily hypocritical)

              Interesting take on it, USW. I thought we had a pretty good debate the last few days, but it seems you get your panties twisted when I mention SUFA (as if it’s something holy).

              My problem here has nothing to do with any mention of SUFA. If you said something about SUFA in general today, I missed it. I don’t think it is holy. But I will speak up when I believe you are inaccurate with your assessment.

              It seems to me when you don’t like what I have to say, it’s suddenly me putting words in your mouth and telling you what you believe.

              When you do that, I say you do it. It has nothing to do with whether I like what you have to say. It has to do with you telling me what I believe as a reply to me telling you that I believe something different. When I say I believe “X”, then I believe “X”. Heck I may have believed “Y” yesterday, but that isn’t really the point, is it? You are free to point out that I changed my position if you think I have. You are not free to claim that what I just said I believe is not what I believe.

              I think you have walked back a few attacks on what is called the nani state here at SUFA.

              Have I walked back my position or have I attempting to further clarify my position? In terms of the nanny state, I believe it is the latter. Some of my thoughts or positions HAVE changed over time. Others I feel you don’t fully understand my position so I further attempt to clarify. Those who have spent many years at SUFA have seen me completely change sides on some fundamental concepts when what is presented to me shows me a flaw I can’t reconcile.

              I remember making a general statement something akin to: “What do you want them to do, pull up their boot straps and do it all on their own.” It was a general statement (way too vague to be taken seriously here). I was talking about people with genuine disadvantage and YOU and pretty much every other wingie here had the same response (which to me, like it or not, is “screw my neighbor”).

              I can understand that being your perception, but look a little closer and you will find that all of us have differing levels of belief along those lines. This is why JAC always espouses defining things up front rather than allowing your opponenet to define your position for you…

              This is interesting. I wonder if you realize how many times you do this, USW? Suggest people know something and are being misleading … what can I tell you, brother … you need to look in the mirror once in a while.

              Perhaps I do. I will look in the mirror and think about that. But I don’t necessarily think I do it as much as you think that I do. I know I have done it to you in the past, but I think that it has been more along the lines of “you know that isn’t what that person believes” as opposed to “you are intentionally lying to people to sway opinion.” That isn’t to say I have NEVER done that to you, but I think I have done it less than you think I have. On the flip side, that seems to be something that is said about me regularly by both you and Todd. The other folks on the left here seem to tell me I am wrong, but they rarely claim that I am intentionally lying.

  51. charlieopera says:
  52. charlieopera says:
  53. LOI or USW…..I have a lengthy comparison of the Medicare plans that I would like to post….I do not know how to start a new thread. Should I post it to commentator and you decide when to publish or just go for it here.

    • Never mind….I went to the dashboard. It is submitted for review. Post it at your leisure.

      • D13,

        I do not have access at the dashboard to your account. I normally write an article there as a new post and when done, publish if no one has had any new material posted. If that does not work, you can post here & I will copy and re-post as a new article. Can also Email you and offer other options….

    • you can send it to me Colonel, and I will post it for you 🙂

  54. charlieopera says:
    • Hiya Charlie…….howzit goin’…………….I have not yet read Romney’s Plan but as soon as I can find it…..in its entirety, I will read it thoroughly as I have the other two plans…..as it pertains to Medicare.

      • charlieopera says:

        Buon Giorno, Colonel! Captain Cannoli is having fun this fine morning … Pluto continues to celebrate the Romney collapse and looks forward to the next few months of back and forth gibberish. And how can we not enjoy the Tebow unseating of poor Mark Sanchez and the Moonachie Green Team, the Y-E-T-S, Yets, Yets, Yets! ???

        When Obama wins in November, it’ll be cannoli for everybody (even if wanted sfogliatelle!)

        • Good Morning Captain Canolli 🙂 I see you are still making statements that you cannot back up with reality 😆 Pluto must be a great place to troll from, no logic and lots of good LSD it seems. My morning was busy old French loving friend, as I tracked and found a nice adult doe that I blew her heart out last evening at 200 yards just before dark. She is cleaned and hanging, waiting to be butchered and canned today 🙂

          I’ll be eating good when the economy goes to shit, ya’ll will still be trying to figure out which side is at fault, the Dumbocrats or Retardicans. Keep on preaching that sharing the prosperity thingy, doubt many will agree to it, but you can try 🙂

          • charlieopera says:

            Gman, my new SUFA superhero for being the bravest of the brave (we won’t mention you’re shooting a defenseless animal from 200 yards–I’d love to see you up close with a grizzly and a .22), but that’s just the commi pinko in me. You are the ONLY wingie to announce your full name, etc., so kudo to you, you bambi killer, you …:)

            As for sharing the prosperity thingy, realize when people starve, they do their own brand of hunting … 🙂

          • Hey Gman a little early there slaying Bambie’s mom isn’t it? 200 yards is not too shabby, what caliber were you shooting? It has to get a lot cooler in my neck of the woods for me to slay any critters. Even though it is still hot I have been checking out a place that is loaded with wild hogs and when fall gets here lookout ham.

            • Hey BamaDad! Well, we have a big herd that causes lots of crop damage. State biologists come in to the farms and determine how many doe tags that the farmer can have to lower the herd numbers and reduce crop damage. The farmer can then offer 1 red tag and 2 DMAP tags to his chosen hunters. Red tag season is July 1 to Sept 28, Pops and I have both filled our tags now ( does must be shot on the farm). Bow season comes in Sept 29, I have 1 regular buck tag, 1 regular doe tag and two DMAP tags (for does that must be shot on the farmers property). We both shot does with a .308 pump (remington bushmaster) with a 19 inch barrel and a 4 power scope. We shoot 150 grain ballistic tips.

  55. charlieopera says:

    Pay attention, yous wingies … “what we have, we have to share” … how will Mr. Ryan ever come to terms with his Christianity and Randiality?

    🙂

    • “Ryan the Serious” — http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/paul-ryan-capitol-hill-serious_n_1774605.html

      A few quotes:

      Ryan the Serious is so serious, in fact, that Bowles didn’t risk offending by mentioning the needlesome fact that Ryan voted against Simpson-Bowles, dooming it to failure. Seriously.

      It does take a certain amount of courage to advocate whole-heartedly to strip what few benefits the working class derives from the government and leave them with nothing, but it’s hardly a “tough choice” to hurt vulnerable people who’ve no clout in Washington at the urging of those who do…

      But in Washington, Ryan gets a pass for never specifying what he would do. This leaves it to others to attempt to game out what might be brought about by his roadmap…When this happens, Ryan complains that his opponents are imputing things that he has never said. The Beltway media takes his side. His opponents never get a pass. That’s the benefit of being thought of as a Serious man.

  56. VH

    Didn’t you post an article a while back regarding the definition of “work” in reference to the welfare to work program. Not exactly sure what the examples were, something like surfing the web qualified as “work”..I don’t know what else..peeling potatoes, maybe :). Am I crazy or could you dig up that article?

%d bloggers like this: