This president has failed us all. Why won’t you compromise Mr. president? Do you hate Republicans so much that you are willing to destroy an entire country in order to get even? Stop your insanity Mr. POTUS…stop it now!

Our Government is a big FAIL on this one.

And if you are taking either sides on this one, then you are nothing but a partisan hack. Open your eyes people: What does it say when the people we elect cannot find common ground? Forget what the pundits are screaming about and think for yourselves.

The Teabaggers will chase Boener around with a strap-on if he makes a deal to avert a default. The GOP = the fiscally irresponsible party.

i can’t understand how much hate boehner, mcconnel, and the rest of the republicans have for obama that they would be willing to put the proud reputation that america holds in the world of being a country that can be counted on through the worst possible times. mcconnel said again this morning that his #1 goal is to make obama a one term president. it’s just sad to see they are willing to destroy the country to do so. i urge all you republicans to tell mr boehner and mr. mcconell to please put our country first.

where are the jobs mr. boehner?

King Obama won’t give in yet to the compromise offered since he would like a couple more weeks to demagogue and scare seniors .

CORPORATE JETS !

MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES !

OIL AND GAS SUBSIDIES !

Dem4Ever says:

This president has failed us all. Why won’t you compromise Mr. president? Do you hate Republicans so much that you are willing to destroy an entire country in order to get even? Stop your insanity Mr. POTUS…stop it now!

What??? Isn’t that exactly what he was trying to do when he put SS and Medicare on the table for cuts. Wasn’t he doing exactly what the GOP said they wanted, and seriously address the deficit? Why do people think the wealthy and mega corporations have no social responsibility to contribute a little more during this time of crisis?

So Boener went soft on the deal and pulled out.

No surprise. America is not satisfied.

Republicans are hoping for a default.

Meh, 401k’s are overrated anyways. Let the default begin.

In just 2 years with Obama, Pelosi and Reid in control, Federal Spending grew a whopping 28.0 % and our National Debt increased by over 50%…In Just 2 Years!

Because of these huge Spending Increases created by Democrats, our National Debt will increase over $1,700,000,000,000 Trillion Dollars this year alone.

The reason we are in this mess is a direct result of the unprecedented growth in Government Spending Democrats added in the 2009-2010 Budget.

We do not have a Revenue problem, we have a Spending problem.

Increasing Taxes will Not solve our problem, Cutting Spending will.

FOX NEWS ALERT : Richard Trumka has confirmed today that from now on , King Obama will be mowing the White House lawn himself . This will finally give him a real accomplishment to point to during his last 18 months of campaigning for reelection .

Boehner = American Terrorist

Bushy-Boy left a $1.3 trillion annual deficit.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/29/barack-obama/obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

Clinton left Bush a $200 billion surplus.

http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

We all know who F**Ked the country over.

Love you Mr . President !

We as a nation are presently borrowing $.41 cents of every $1.00 dollar we spend.

This year alone we will borrow over $1,645,000,000,000, Dollars.

To put that in perspective; If you spent 1 Million Dollars, Every Day, from when Jesus walked the earth to today. You would not spend Half of what we will borrow this year alone.

In 2008 the US Government spent 2. 98 Trillion Dollars.

In 2011 the US Government spent 3. 82 Trillion Dollars.

From the Moment Obama took office and the Democrats took control of both the Houses and Senate in January 09 to today. Federal Spending has increased an unbelievable 28%.

On the last day of September, 2008, the national debt hit $10,000,000,000,000 (Ten Trillion Dollars) for the first time in history…Today it is $ 14,248,000,000,000 and rising. Thats an increase of almost 50% is just 2 years.

We simply cannot afford the increases in Spending Obama and the Democrats have saddled us with…Sorry, but we just cant.

Spending is the Problem, and to solve our problem, spending must be cut.

Once Pelosi pushed her way into the talks , Medicare and SS were off the table .

Obama knew it and was not serious anyway .

The speaker offered a compromise that would pass .

The Mouth from Chicago will continue to demagogue and howl , since that is all he knows how to do .

King Obama had to be talked out of organizing buses full of union thugs to surround the Speaker’s house and protest . ( his usual M.O.)

Laughably and happily, Bitch Pelosi whined and banged her little fists, insisting that she ‘be at the table’ when debt talks occurred. The feminist shrew is nowhere to be found.

She’ll have to wait till it’s passed to find out what’s in it.

CosmosDan said:
Why do people think the wealthy and mega corporations have no social responsibility to contribute a little more during this time of crisis?

And when the “crisis” ends then you will lower their taxes? Yeah, right. There will never be an end to this crisis. We are just beginning. You can’t keep punishing the successful. You can only tax them so high until you can’t tax them anymore. Then what? They keep raising the debt ceiling and keep spending like drunken sailors. That is not a winning scenario. Eventually it is game over when you have taxed everyone 100% but are still spending trillions of dollars.

ya know, it’s too bad that boehner has that weepy, little girl crying thing going on because it makes the average empathetic american feel sorry for him. when you have the potus on one side and boehner on the other, boehner will always get the pity votes because he is such a whiney, little baby.
the match up in clinton/ginrich debate was much better because clinton is just a likable guy no matter who you are. ginrich looks like a freaky pedophile and you could imagine him dressing up like a clown and smelling like cheap vodka so when they matched up the public came down on clinton’s side.
obama matched up with boehner? might go obama’s way as long as boehner doesn’t cry.

Republicans are sabotaging the debt deal because an improved economy would hurt them in 2012.

And of course you don’t see either side offering something in between as a compromise right?Oh no because that wouldn’t “play to the bases”.Look folks if you think any of these dicks we vote into office care about anything more than they care for themselves you are an idiot.

This is a classic moment in American politics when yet again the people we choose to lead and to make the hard choices for the betterment of the nation instead make choices designed to aide themselves regardless of what it does to the nation.

This isn’t about one political party,this is about an entire population of a country and the people we choose to work to improve the conditions for that population have failed us again and again.Yet like the sheep we are we keep voting for them,we buy into their propaganda,we believe and listen to their propaganda outlets and personalities and in the end we suffer for it.

Girth Brick said:
Bushy-Boy left a $1.3 trillion annual deficit.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/29/barack-obama/obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/

Clinton left Bush a $200 billion surplus.

http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

We all know who F**Ked the country over.

i don’t think anyone denies that bush was a terrible president. at first, it seemed like the obama’s stimulus would get us through the rough parts but i don’t think anyone realized who bad bush f**ked this country up.
it might have been a bit easier to clean up if we didn’t go to iraq. hell, he might have been able to get bin laden instead of leaving that also up to obama.
it’s a good thing that most good americans realize that the potus is trying to clean up bush’s disaster and it’s a tough ride.

Girth Brick said:
Clinton left Bush a $200 billion surplus.

It was a “projected” surplus. For each alleged “surplus” year of Clinton’s presidency, the U.S. National Debt GREW, which would have been an impossibility if there really was a surplus. If a surplus really existed, the National Debt would have gone down. It didn’t. The mythical Clinton “surpluses” were really slick accounting tricks, smoke and mirrors.

Very simply the U.S. National Debt is made up of two parts, the public debt and intergovernmental debt. During the supposed Clinton surpluses, the public debt portion went down from 1998-2000 (how they claim alleged surpluses), but the intergovernmental debt went UP by even more, leading to overall debt increases.
At no time did the National Debt ever go down under Clinton. It went up every year.

possibly said:
Republicans are sabotaging the debt deal because an improved economy would hurt them in 2012.

that’s what mcconnel said this morning to bret bear. his number one goal is to make obama a one term president and what better way than to have a high unemployment number. it’s disgraceful.

Girth Brick said:
We all know who F**Ked the country over.

And Obama’s budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

“In his White House run, Obama assailed the economic policies of his predecessor, President George W. Bush. But the dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, would amount to more than four times the deficits of Bush’s presidency.”

Obama’s deficit will be 4 TIMES THE DEFICITS OF BUSH’S PRESIDENCY. Just thought that needed repeating. So yeah, we all know who is phucking over the country.

The economy needs more cowbell .

ChiliPeppersFan said:
that’s what mcconnel said this morning to bret bear. his number one goal is to make obama a one term president and what better way than to have a high unemployment number. it’s disgraceful.

Really? He really said he wants to keep the unemployment number high just so he can ensure Obama be a one term President? Please post a link to the clip as I would love to watch it.

2012freedom said:
It was a “projected” surplus. For each alleged “surplus” year of Clinton’s presidency, the U.S. National Debt GREW, which would have been an impossibility if there really was a surplus. If a surplus really existed, the National Debt would have gone down. It didn’t. The mythical Clinton “surpluses” were really slick accounting tricks, smoke and mirrors.

.

No, Clinton left an actual surplus of $236 billion.

Treasury debt grew that year but you are not considering cash accumulated on account. Its like charging your credit card while making money in your checking account. Charge $1000 and earn $3000 and you net two grand while still accumulating debt.

(from the same factcheck link)

“Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the “Social Security surplus” makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while”

possibly said:
Republicans are sabotaging the debt deal because an improved economy would hurt them in 2012.

I see the Liberals are running with the new talking points put out for them.

2012freedom said:
And Obama’s budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

“In his White House run, Obama assailed the economic policies of his predecessor, President George W. Bush. But the dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, would amount to more than four times the deficits of Bush’s presidency.”

Obama’s deficit will be 4 TIMES THE DEFICITS OF BUSH’S PRESIDENCY. Just thought that needed repeating. So yeah, we all know who is phucking over the country.

You’re confusing debt and deficit.

Bush left a $1.3 trillion annual DEFICIT – which is still there and will be there for years. Obama has barely moved it.

So yes, Obama DEBT will be 8 years X $1.3 trillion = $10.4 trillion if no one had done anything in the White House.

2012freedom said:
I see the Liberals are running with the new talking points put out for them.

I don’t care .

These are the things that The Rachel Maddow tells me .

Girth Brick said:
Treasury debt grew that year but you are not considering cash accumulated on account. Its like charging your credit card while making money in your checking account. Charge $1000 and earn $3000 and you net two grand while still accumulating debt.

I will concede that what Clinton did do was pay down the public debt. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security). The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration. President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002. So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton’s.

We can argue about it all day but it won’t change anything. The National Debt grew every year under every President.

Ellen Carey Rowe said:
Love you Mr . President !

Will love keep US together?

Doleful Lions said:
The economy needs more cowbell .

The economy needs more Clinton.

I think it is finally sinking into the comprehension of the Left that the Republicans holds all the cards in this game. In the US political system, Congress controls spending. (Any liberals still want to debate me on THAT one?) The Republicans can make as few or as many demands as they like, and Obama has no other options than to cave in. He can cave in quickly or slowly — the timing is up to him — but he has no leverage in this negotiation.

Of course, Democrats would have much, much more clout and power if they didn’t need to fund their programs with more borrowed money, day after day, week after week, month after month. But that was a decision they needed to make decades ago. And they never did. Now they constantly need more and more cash to hold up their house of cards, and the Republicans control the purse. Tough, ain’ it? But the Dems put themselves in this position, and now have to live with it.

2012freedom said:
I will concede that what Clinton did do was pay down the public debt. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security). .

Social Security data says you are dead wrong. Assets (Treasuries) grew every year during the Clinton years – and grew a lot in 1999-2000.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fyOps.html

Nasty Face said:
Will love keep US together?

Tee Hee !

Anybody else here wish we had Sarah Palin in the White House to deal with raising the debt ceiling? She would really take a hammer to wasteful government spending while creating jobs at the same time. Forget these establishment Republicans and socialist libs. America needs Sarah Palin ASAP. Let’s hope she runs. God bless Sarah Palin. And God bless the United States of America.

Dem4Ever said:
This president has failed us all. Why won’t you compromise Mr. president? Do you hate Republicans so much that you are willing to destroy an entire country in order to get even? Stop your insanity Mr. POTUS…stop it now!

“Compromise”? The Republicans have explicitly said they won’t support any taxes at all, where exactly did they compromise?

Girth Brick said:
Bush left a $1.3 trillion annual DEFICIT – which is still there and will be there for years. Obama has barely moved it.
So yes, Obama DEBT will be 8 years X $1.3 trillion = $10.4 trillion if no one had done anything in the White House.

Potato, potado. The bottom line is, Obama will outspend Bush by twice as much.

2012freedom said:
Really? He really said he wants to keep the unemployment number high just so he can ensure Obama be a one term President? Please post a link to the clip as I would love to watch it.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s remarkably honest confession to National Journal’s Major Garrett that “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”
http://www.mediaite.com/online/white-house-appears-to-want-to-shame-the-shameless-mitch-mcconnell-and-company/

given the group you guys running against him, how else could one of them beat him without keeping the unemployment number as high as it is?

All of you can rest assured that the Republican congress will be history after this session ends. Do you think America is going toallow these guano laddened wing nuts to:

1. Destroy Social Security
2. Dismantle Medicare
3. Let the rich go on paying less and less taxes
4. Busting unions and anything to do with fair treatment of labor (mostly on the state level but a republican is a republican)

Republicans keep up the good work, stay the course and write when you find work

Republicans Are Liars said:
All of you can rest assured that the Republican congress will be history after this session ends. Do you think America is going toallow these guano laddened wing nuts to: 1. Destroy Social Security.You idiots already did that.2. Dismantle Medicare. Your lips to Gods Ears.3. Let the rich go on paying less and less taxes. They pay more than anyone you idiot, 47% of the population pay none.4. Busting unions and anything to do with fair treatment of labor (mostly on the state level but a republican is a republican)12% of the workforce shouldn’t have the ability to collapse all business Republicans keep up the good work, stay the course and drive the socialist commie bastards off shore

Fixed it for ya.

Girth Brick said:
Social Security data says you are dead wrong. Assets (Treasuries) grew every year during the Clinton years – and grew a lot in 1999-2000.

Of course it grew. Up until last year it took in more than it paid out in benefits. The surplus is what Clinton borrowed instead of leaving it in the SS account. In all fairness most Presidents borrow from SS. Clinton did it to help create his balanced budget and alleged “surplus.”

ChiliPeppersFan said:
given the group you guys running against him, how else could one of them beat him without keeping the unemployment number as high as it is?

If that’s not projection, I don’t know what is. Give me a working link to an actual audio, the links in the article are stale and require a subscription. Even if it WERE true, it doesn’t even come close to all the stuff Øbama does for purely political purposes, such as:

- Ignoring those out in the field to draw down troops prematurely from Afghanistan;
- Reneging on entitlements as a sop to his “base”;
- The 30 M barrel withdrawas from SPR only delayed, not eliminated, increases in oil prices (we do have to buy the oil back to replenish the reserve):

- And more.

So don’t go there about politics; Øbama has been campaigning for reelection since January 20, 2009.

You freaking clueless commie socialists can argue until you are blue in the face too, it won’t change the math.

You morons spend more than what comes in for decades and you wonder why we’re broke? We’re borrowing money to pay the interest on the old borrowed money. How long will that work? Just tax the rich you say?? Fine, do the math, taxing the rich is like putting a fricking band-aid on a slit jugular vein, it’ll ease the pain for a very very short period of time only, it doesn’t fix the problem which is SPENDING.

Then what do you do when you run out of rich people? You will have acheived your goal, everyone will be poor. That’s always worked out soooo well in the past…

timzank said:
Fixed it for ya.

You need to FIX yourself. Tell me Numb Nutz… What part of socialism do you hate the most? Is it the police department, the fire department, the highway department, the building inspectors, the meat inspectors, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the armed services, the veterans administration, social security, Medicare, the federal aviation administration, FEMA, the EPA or Federal Trade Commission? these are all social services to protect people from corrupt businesses or protect our country that we come together as a country to fund for the protection of all. I believe that is socialism. Which one do you want to get away from first. Please tell me how many jobs you have created Mr. Entrepreneur? Do you have a pension outside of Social Security? Not a 401K or IRA, do you have a pension of your own? Come clean, your just a bigot. You’re a racist and this is your only outlet to spout off your stupidity. I can’t wait to see you when your house is repossessed from delinquent medical bills. LOL!

Alternate headline:

Obama demands additional tax increases while eliminating any cuts to entitlement programs.

In other words, its his way or the highway….there is no compromise from this WH, none. He doesn’t want to cut spending, he wants only to increase revenues. Idiot.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
given the group you guys running against him, how else could one of them beat him without keeping the unemployment number as high as it is?

Okay, so you are projecting the new Liberal talking point that Republicans are purposefully keeping unemployment numbers high so Obama will be a one term President? Because when McConnell said it in 2010 and again today that he wants Obama to be a one term President I agree with him and so does every other Republican along with a lot of Independents. That isn’t a stretch for the opposing party to say that about a sitting President.

timzank said:
You freaking clueless commie socialists can argue until you are blue in the face too, it won’t change the math. You morons spend more than what comes in for decades and you wonder why we’re broke? We’re borrowing money to pay the interest on the old borrowed money. How long will that work? Just tax the rich you say?? Fine, do the math, taxing the rich is like putting a fricking band-aid on a slit jugular vein, it’ll ease the pain for a very very short period of time only, it doesn’t fix the problem which is SPENDING. Then what do you do when you run out of rich people? You will have acheived your goal, everyone will be poor. That’s always worked out soooo well in the past…

Now from 1976 through the end of The Bush the Idiot’s reign over America the Republicans increased the debt. more than democrats by far and a away. Then Bush the Idiot had drove tis country so far into the ground that the only way to keep the USA afloat was to spend a ton of money trying to stimulate the economy – whcih was the right course of action. Face the fact, if it hadn’t been done you would be living in a tent city somewhere and selling apples for a nickle on the street. Now, you want to blame the guy that saved your ass for your idiot Republican mistakes. Can I ask you a few questions? Have you ever created a job for someone? Are you a multi-millionaire? Do you have any other pension then Social Security waiting for you? Are you so well off you’re insolated from the economic calamities of a catastrophic illness in your family? Are you upside down in your house? Do you run credit card balances? Are you still employed? Do you think that taking billions and billions of dollars out of the economy in state and federal spending will help the economy or take further into the recession? Why is there the biggest gap[ between rich and poor there has ever been in this country? Why has the top 2% income increased 237% in the last 30 years while the remaining 2% have been flat?
You wonder why we’re calling people names? It is because it is the only to get idiots like yourself to understand it is REPUBLICAN economic policies that have gotten us into this mess. You are too stupid to realize this. You keep voting for people who are diametrically opposed to your own self-interest, unless you are a multi-millionaire. REPUBLICANS ARE FILLED WITH FLAWED LOGIC and you’re too stupid to try and learn the difference. Ask youself another question, if these tax breaks for the wealthy are what’s creating jobs, where are the jobs? These tax breaks are in effect? Why is corporate America sitting on 2 Trillion dollars in cash? Why aren’t they creating jobs with it?

Republicans Are Liars said:
Come clean, your just a bigot. You’re a racist and this is your only outlet to spout off your stupidity.

Please tell us all if you will be voting for Herman Cain. If not, why? Either you hate black people or you hate his politics. Which one is it?

Republicans Are Liars said:
You need to FIX yourself. Tell me Numb Nutz… What part of socialism do you hate the most? Is it the police department, the fire department, the highway department, the building inspectors, the meat inspectors, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the armed services, the veterans administration, social security, Medicare, the federal aviation administration, FEMA, the EPA or Federal Trade Commission? these are all social services to protect people from corrupt businesses or protect our country that we come together as a country to fund for the protection of all. I believe that is socialism. Which one do you want to get away from first. Please tell me how many jobs you have created Mr. Entrepreneur? Do you have a pension outside of Social Security? Not a 401K or IRA, do you have a pension of your own? Come clean, your just a bigot. You’re a racist and this is your only outlet to spout off your stupidity. I can’t wait to see you when your house is repossessed from delinquent medical bills. LOL!

You are a poor misguided fool. You can only squeeze money out of everyone else for so long. Eventually the gravy train ends. You are a leech, you contribute nothing monetarily (or intellectually obviously) and are drain on society. You are no more than a common thief and beggar sucking off the hard work of everyone else and eventually the money will run out. You and your ilk have no self respect and no motivation. get off your dead a**es and become a productive member of society and quit sucking off of the rest of us.

timzank said:
You are a poor misguided fool. You can only squeeze money out of everyone else for so long. Eventually the gravy train ends. You are a leech, you contribute nothing monetarily (or intellectually obviously) and are drain on society. You are no more than a common thief and beggar sucking off the hard work of everyone else and eventually the money will run out. You and your ilk have no self respect and no motivation. get off your dead a**es and become a productive member of society and quit sucking off of the rest of us.

Speaking as someone who pays a decent chunk of taxes every year, I wouldn’t mind paying a little bit more for the good of the country. That’s what makes us a NATION and not just a collection of self-interested individuals–that some of us are willing to make modest sacrifices for others.

Republicans Are Liars said:
Come clean, your just a bigot. You’re a racist and this is your only outlet to spout off your stupidity. I can’t wait to see

This unhinged dink says he’s a businessman and a job creator .

Yes. He really seems to be intelligent .

If by creating jobs he means assistant drug dealers or lookouts while he steals hubcaps , sure .

His name is contentious and ignorant , as is he .

2012freedom said:
Please tell us all if you will be voting for Herman Cain. If not, why? Either you hate black people or you hate his politics. Which one is it?

I think you know the answer to this… An idiot is an idiot no matter what ethnicity. Now write me back and tell me that Obama, probably the most intelligent president we have had in decades is an idiot and we will know exactly where your head is at.

AmericaSucks said:
Speaking as someone who pays a decent chunk of taxes every year, I wouldn’t mind paying a little bit more for the good of the country. That’s what makes us a NATION and not just a collection of self-interested individuals–that some of us are willing to make modest sacrifices for others.

Have at it. No one is stopping you from sending the Government every last cent you have. Forcibly taking it because you feel entitled is what we object to.

timzank said:

You morons spend more than what comes in for decades and you wonder why we’re broke? We’re borrowing money to pay the interest on the old borrowed money. How long will that work?

George W. Bush did what?

GoneFishing says:
We simply cannot afford the increases in Spending Obama and the Democrats have saddled us with…Sorry, but we just cant.

Spending is the Problem, and to solve our problem, spending must be cut.

And Obama put Medicare and SS on the table didn’t he? You might also take note that some of the Freshman GOP that campaigned on the deficit and cutting spending are still reaching out for federal money when it serves their purpose. The companies that got billions in the bail outs are showing huge profits, and yet we can’t expect a portion of that back in taxes to address the deficit? By all means address spending , and let’s start with looking at ending a futile war , and look at our inflated defense budget.

AmericaSucks said:
Speaking as someone who pays a decent chunk of taxes every year, I wouldn’t mind paying a little bit more for the good of the country. That’s what makes us a NATION and not just a collection of self-interested individuals–that some of us are willing to make modest sacrifices for others.

If you really are an asst prof as you claimed, that would put you in the $50k bracket and after deductions you probably don’t pay squat.

timzank said:
You are a poor misguided fool. You can only squeeze money out of everyone else for so long. Eventually the gravy train ends. You are a leech, you contribute nothing monetarily (or intellectually obviously) and are drain on society. You are no more than a common thief and beggar sucking off the hard work of everyone else and eventually the money will run out. You and your ilk have no self respect and no motivation. get off your dead a**es and become a productive member of society and quit sucking off of the rest of us.

Again you are an ill informed moron. I pay more in taxes in one year then you probably make in two years. I employ people who all make a good living. I am a job creator. How many jobs have you created, smart guy? Tell me in your next lame ass post how many jobs you have created? BTW… you piece of white trash… In the midst of this recession I have even started new companies that employ more people. So just tell me you marginally illiterate piece of crap how many jobs you have created.

CosmosDan said:
By all means address spending , and let’s start with looking at ending a futile war , and look at our inflated defense budget.

Like Libya?

Republicans Are Liars said:
I think you know the answer to this… An idiot is an idiot no matter what ethnicity. Now write me back and tell me that Obama, probably the most intelligent president we have had in decades is an idiot and we will know exactly where your head is at.

So, you aren’t going to answer. Figures. Exactly how do you know that he is the most intelligent? Because you like what he does? That doesn’t make him intelligent. I think Ronald Regan was one of the most intelligent along with George Washington. We don’t know any of their IQ’s, it is all subjective.

2012freedom said:
Of course it grew. Up until last year it took in more than it paid out in benefits. The surplus is what Clinton borrowed instead of leaving it in the SS account. In all fairness most Presidents borrow from SS. Clinton did it to help create his balanced budget and alleged “surplus.”

Clinton didn’t “borrow” anything, you clown.

The SS data I linked shows the SS Trust Fund added assets every year under Clinton.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fyOps.html

Republicans Are Liars said:
Again you are an ill informed moron. I pay more in taxes in one year then you probably make in two years. I employ people who all make a good living. I am a job creator. How many jobs have you created, smart guy? Tell me in your next lame ass post how many jobs you have created? BTW… you piece of white trash… In the midst of this recession I have even started new companies that employ more people. So just tell me you marginally illiterate piece of crap how many jobs you have created.

You are lying through your teeth and it’s obvious. You are a paid (albeit poorly) blog poster. It’s obvious.

Doleful Lions said:
The economy needs more cowbell .

LOL!

2012freedom said:
Have at it. No one is stopping you from sending the Government every last cent you have. Forcibly taking it because you feel entitled is what we object to.

You are the real taker, dude. You are the reason this country is in the shape it is in. You keep voting against your own interest. You are not the one who will be asked to pay more in taxes. You are the one who will benefit from taxing the rich. Why are you so stupid about this? You probably don’t have a pot to piss in, in the big scheme of things. Dogs bless america. Cats too.

timzank said:
If you really are an asst prof as you claimed, that would put you in the $50k bracket and after deductions you probably don’t pay squat.

Who said asst? And who said that’s my only source of income?

Believe it or not, some of us are contributing members of society. You should check it out sometime.

CosmosDan said:
The companies that got billions in the bail outs are showing huge profits, and yet we can’t expect a portion of that back in taxes

13 of those companies already owed back taxes. Why did they get money in the first place? Seems a little odd that so many people in Obama’s administration owed back taxes and then companies that got Obama stimulus money owed back taxes. Hmmmm…..makes one wonder why they got the money.

timzank said:
You are lying through your teeth and it’s obvious. You are a paid (albeit poorly) blog poster. It’s obvious.

Dude, there are a couple of things clear here. 1. You never created a job in your life. 2. I am not a paid poster.

Republicans Are Liars said:
I employ people who all make a good living. I am a job creator

Details ?

Republicans Are Liars said:
You are not the one who will be asked to pay more in taxes. You are the one who will benefit from taxing the rich.

You know absolutely nothing about me other than I am a Conservative. Just remember that we are all richer than someone else. Eventually every one of us will be considered to one of the “rich.” It is just a matter of time before they come for you.

America Sucks (aka Royal King), Castro took every dime from the rich. How much did it boost Cuba’s economy?

AmericaSucks said:
Speaking as someone who pays a decent chunk of taxes every year, I wouldn’t mind paying a little bit more for the good of the country. That’s what makes us a NATION and not just a collection of self-interested individuals–that some of us are willing to make modest sacrifices for others.

then send in more money, nothing is stopping you

2012freedom says:
And when the “crisis” ends then you will lower their taxes? Yeah, right. There will never be an end to this crisis. We are just beginning. You can’t keep punishing the successful. You can only tax them so high until you can’t tax them anymore

Maybe we can stay away from false memes on either side and look at the factual details. Nobody wants to punish the successful. All that was proposed is returning the tax rates to the pre Bush tax cut rates. Bush cut taxes and did it create more jobs as the GOP keeps suggesting? No it didn’t. Did it help prevent the recession? No it didn’t. In fact it was a lot of the successful people who helped cause it by gambling with other people’s money. Obama agreed to not raise them last time. Did we see jobs come out of that? No.
I was baffled when conservatives criticized teachers in WI for doing to well and needing to sacrifice to help their state {which they were willing to do} and then still fought tooth and nail to keep those making far more than those teachers from contributing a little more. It doesn’t make sense to me.
I completely agree that we need to reign in spending and take a look at incredible amounts of waste going on but don’t fool yourself that it’s just the Dems doing it. Check how many GOP freshman who campaigned on cutting spending and the deficit still reached out to grab federal money when it served them.

Obama put cuts for medicare and SS on the table which seemed to be what the GOP wanted, and they still backed out to defend a few % points on those who can easily afford it. I don’t get it. This society made it possible for the wealthy to get wealthy. They didn’t achieve their success in a vacuum.

AmericaSucks said:
And who said that’s my only source of income?

Robert is a famous hair stylist in the alternative lifestyle community .

Also makeup consultant , Avon saleslady and free range dumpster diver .

Republicans Are Liars said:
Dude, there are a couple of things clear here. 1. You never created a job in your life. 2. I am not a paid poster.

Don’t engage the “pay per post” argument–none of them really believes it, but they entertain themselves by saying it over and over and over and over. . . . Kind of like their “hey, you are X” shtick, or their “you’re a commie” shtick, or their “let’s gut social programs and don’t you dare even THINK of returning taxes on the wealthy to where they were just a few years ago” shtick.

You know what, though? They profess not to believe that folks like you and me are successful (and quite likely more successful than most of them), but deep down they know it’s true and they HATE us for it.

So, let them hate.

America Sucks, if America sucks, how are you making so much money?

re-writer said:
America Sucks (aka Royal King), Castro took every dime from the rich. How much did it boost Cuba’s economy?

You are 100% right.

Now, tell me about China, please.

2012freedom says:
Really? He really said he wants to keep the unemployment number high just so he can ensure Obama be a one term President? Please post a link to the clip as I would love to watch it.

That’s the problem when politics over rides the welfare of the citizenry. True bipartisan effort results in success for the incumbent , which is politically undesirable.

Girth Brick said:
Clinton didn’t “borrow” anything, you clown.
The SS data I linked shows the SS Trust Fund added assets every year under Clinton.

You just can’t fix stupid. Yes, he borrowed. Sorry to burst your “surplus” myth.

Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion came from excess Social Security taxes. In addition to:

$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Okay, King. China is currently making most of the goods we have. So if we take away all the money from our rich, that will stop. Right?

I refuse to believe that a college professor would stoop to commentate on a blog such as mediaite, especially on a Sunday.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Robert is a famous hair stylist in the alternative lifestyle community .

Also makeup consultant , Avon saleslady and free range dumpster diver .

Zzzzzzzzzz….

Please, some new material. PLEASE!!!!!

2012freedom says:
I see the Liberals are running with the new talking points put out for them.

and what exactly are you doing that is far different?

AmericaSucks said:
Speaking as someone who pays a decent chunk of taxes every year, I wouldn’t mind paying a little bit more for the good of the country. That’s what makes us a NATION and not just a collection of self-interested individuals–that some of us are willing to make modest sacrifices for others.

cjd ohio 1 said:
then send in more money, nothing is stopping you

well how much extra did you send in this year?

I’d like to know how, it the country sucks, that he came to be making that much in the first place.

Nasty Face said:
I refuse to believe that a college professor would stoop to commentate on a blog such as mediaite, especially on a Sunday.

What am I gonna do instead? Go to church?!

2012freedom says:
Potato, potado. The bottom line is, Obama will outspend Bush by twice as much.

projections for 10 years down the road are nearly pointless since circumstances and budgets do change.

Nasty Face said:
I refuse to believe that a college professor would stoop to commentate on a blog such as mediaite, especially on a Sunday.

He became a lawyer as a teenager , goes to London for tea and scones and plays rugby in the senior league .

Yes . A Senior Rugby Team . Shuffleboard , maybe .

re-writer said:
I’d like to know how, it the country sucks, that he came to be making that much in the first place.

Hard work, my boy. Hard work. But guess what? I could have done it lots of other countries just as well.

America Sucks, we are in agreement. Go find one of those countries that you don’t think sucks and have at it.

The Lantern of Truth said:
He became a lawyer as a teenager , goes to London for tea and scones and plays rugby in the senior league .

Yes . A Senior Rugby Team . Shuffleboard , maybe .

You, sir, are a coward.

re-writer said:
America Sucks, we are in agreement. Go find one of those countries that you don’t think sucks and have at it.

Nah, too much of a hassle to move. And I’d lose my season tickets.

AmericaSucks said:
You, sir, are a coward.

as are you lol, mr ivy

cjd ohio 1 said:
as are you lol, mr ivy

Nope. I engage my attackers. Green Lantern boy doesn’t have the stones.

AmericaSucks said:
I could have done it lots of other countries just as well.

Go now . Then you can blather as Algeria Sucks , Robert .

TfT says:
Alternate headline:

Obama demands additional tax increases while eliminating any cuts to entitlement programs.

In other words, its his way or the highway….there is no compromise from this WH, none. He doesn’t want to cut spending, he wants only to increase revenues. Idiot.

Where exactly are you getting your information? Did he or did he not propose cuts in SS and medicare as part of the compromise?

AmericaSucks said:
Nope. I engage my attackers. Green Lantern boy doesn’t have the stones.

really, i did not attack, just asked a simple question, which you appear afraid to answer

GoneFishing said:
We as a nation are presently borrowing $.41 cents of every $1.00 dollar we spend.

This year alone we will borrow over $1,645,000,000,000, Dollars.

To put that in perspective; If you spent 1 Million Dollars, Every Day, from when Jesus walked the earth to today. You would not spend Half of what we will borrow this year alone.

In 2008 the US Government spent 2. 98 Trillion Dollars.

In 2011 the US Government spent 3. 82 Trillion Dollars.

From the Moment Obama took office and the Democrats took control of both the Houses and Senate in January 09 to today. Federal Spending has increased an unbelievable 28%.

On the last day of September, 2008, the national debt hit $10,000,000,000,000 (Ten Trillion Dollars) for the first time in history…Today it is $ 14,248,000,000,000 and rising. Thats an increase of almost 50% is just 2 years.

We simply cannot afford the increases in Spending Obama and the Democrats have saddled us with…Sorry, but we just cant.

Spending is the Problem, and to solve our problem, spending must be cut.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/2010_Receipts_%26_Expenditures_Estimates.PNG

The Lantern of Truth said:
Go now . Then you can blather as Algeria Sucks , Robert .

No need to space before punctuation marks, Gordon.

And I think I’ll stay a little while longer. I’m looking to franchise some clinics and I want to keep my ear to the ground.

2012freedom says:
Have at it. No one is stopping you from sending the Government every last cent you have. Forcibly taking it because you feel entitled is what we object to.

It’s not entitlement. It’s the very same society and legal system that allowed the prosperity that is being taxed.

A rich guy like you, and it’s a hassle to move? So you stay in a place that you think sucks? That doesn’t make any sense.

timzank says:
Like Libya?

Yes, I seriously question the on going military action there and our involvement.

And I am also betting that the “other” section is related to DoD spending too..

cjd ohio 1 said:
really, i did not attack, just asked a simple question, which you appear afraid to answer

Whoops–sorry, I didn’t see your question.

I’ve looked into it a little bit, but from what I can tell it’s actually difficult (if not impossible) to pay more than one’s legal share. So I give to a few charities. But if you know more about this than I do, feel free to shoot me the info and I will definitely consider it. I don’t mind setting a good example for others.

2012freedom says:
13 of those companies already owed back taxes. Why did they get money in the first place? Seems a little odd that so many people in Obama’s administration owed back taxes and then companies that got Obama stimulus money owed back taxes. Hmmmm…..makes one wonder why they got the money.

Or why the bailout money didn’t come with compulsory repayment with interest attachments. But that’s not just on Obama is it, since Bush got the ball rolling. IMO, it’s an indication of widespread corruption that crosses party lines, and the power and influence held by giant “to big to fail” mega corporations. You know, the successful giants you seem to want to defend.

possibly said:
Republicans are sabotaging the debt deal because an improved economy would hurt them in 2012.

Dems are sabotaging the economy because they want it to fail so they can reconstruct it into a Socialist utopia. Cloward and Piven anyone!

AmericaSucks said:
No need to space before punctuation marks

Thanks, Bob.

You can use RRK again, it’s entertaining.

gifts to the united states, dept of treasury, credit accounting branch, 3700 east-west highway room 622, hyattsville, md 20782

cjd ohio 1 said:
gifts to the united states, dept of treasury, credit accounting branch, 3700 east-west highway room 622, hyattsville, md 20782

Thank you!

AmericaSucks said:
Whoops–sorry, I didn’t see your question. I’ve looked into it a little bit, but from what I can tell it’s actually difficult (if not impossible) to pay more than one’s legal share. So I give to a few charities. But if you know more about this than I do, feel free to shoot me the info and I will definitely consider it. I don’t mind setting a good example for others.

address above, so write that check

Now start talking about Utah, Bob. Really keep us guessing.

CosmosDan said:
Maybe we can stay away from false memes on either side and look at the factual details.

-Okay, let’s end the tax cuts. Since everyone got a tax cut, let’s end them for everyone.
- The teachers Unions have destroyed what is great about teachers. The Union bosses are thugs. The teacher’s pay in a very small amount compared to what they take out. It is unsustainable. You can’t continue to take in $1 and pay out $5. Basic accounting. Joining a Union should not be mandatory. Taking the money out of the paychecks and automatically sending them to the Union needs to stop. The teachers should be able to choose if they want to be in a Union and if they want their union dues going directly to Democrats.
- Raising taxes on the rich does not necessarily result in more money coming in to the treasury. If you keep raising their taxes the rich will find more and more ways to hide the money. Not a pretty fact but true. Tax revenue went up when Regan lowered the tax rates.
- I am not delusional in thinking it is only the Democrats spending. We didn’t get $14 trillion in debt without Republican help.
- Obama said he put the cuts out there for SS and Medicare. The bottom line is it would have never passed the Senate. It was a folly.
- If we do nothing to SS and Medicare they will implode. Something has to be done. We have over promised what will be available. Would you rather it all go completely bankrupt or try to do what we can to save it for the current people? Ryan’s plan didn’t affect anyone over the age of 55. The whole “throw grandma over a cliff” was a lie.

AmericaSucks said:
Speaking as someone who pays a decent chunk of taxes every year, I wouldn’t mind paying a little bit more for the good of the country. That’s what makes us a NATION and not just a collection of self-interested individuals–that some of us are willing to make modest sacrifices for others.

Then do it! NO one is stopping you!

cjd ohio 1 said:
address above, so write that check

I’m going to investigate this further. A quick look indicates that such gifts are put into a fund for “general use,” and I want to see if they can be targeted for deficit reduction. I’d rather not have my gift spent on another useless war, or to take a lobbyist out to dinner.

Robert is so rich, the extra he sends in will probably wipe out the deficit.

AmericaSucks said:
I’m going to investigate this further. A quick look indicates that such gifts are put into a fund for “general use,” and I want to see if they can be targeted for deficit reduction. I’d rather not have my gift spent on another useless war, or to take a lobbyist out to dinner.

now there are conditions, lol

Liberal Tormentor - tormenting liberals with logic and facts since 1972 said:
Then do it! NO one is stopping you!

Quiet down back there, kid. I’m probably paying out more in taxes every year than you–income tax AND sales tax AND property tax. But I’m not complaining about it. I like being able to drive on paved roads and neat stuff like that.

re-writer said:
Robert is so rich, the extra he sends in will probably wipe out the deficit.

Well, to be frank, that’s one thing that gives me pause. What’s the point of doing it at all if it will do so little?

He likes all the neat stuff, but still thinks the country sucks.

AmericaSucks said:
Quiet down back there, kid. I’m probably paying out more in taxes every year than you–income tax AND sales tax AND property tax. But I’m not complaining about it. I like being able to drive on paved roads and neat stuff like that.

But you say you wouldn’t mind paying more. I’m saying go for it. Why don’t you just pay more? Why must you be forced before you do it?

cjd ohio 1 said:
now there are conditions, lol

Well, I could have given you some b.s. line about writing a cheque today, but I’m playing it straight. I don’t mind pitching in a little bit extra. I can afford it. I’m far from super-rich, but I’m comfortable, and if I thought the money would actually do some good, it would make me feel good to write that cheque. So stay tuned. I might have some news for you before long.

Although, on second thought, it would probably be a better idea just to cut extra cheques to Planned Parenthood and PBS.

Liberal Tormentor - tormenting liberals with logic and facts since 1972 said:
But you say you wouldn’t mind paying more. I’m saying go for it. Why don’t you just pay more? Why must you be forced before you do it?

O.k., I will.

And he spells check as cheque. But he’s not RRK. Gosh, what a mystery!

AmericaSucks said:
Well, I could have given you some b.s. line about writing a cheque today, but I’m playing it straight. I don’t mind pitching in a little bit extra. I can afford it. I’m far from super-rich, but I’m comfortable, and if I thought the money would actually do some good, it would make me feel good to write that cheque. So stay tuned. I might have some news for you before long. Although, on second thought, it would probably be a better idea just to cut extra cheques to Planned Parenthood and PBS.

glad to see you changed your tune, charity instead of taxes lol

AmericaSucks said:
O.k., I will.

Sure you will.

AmericaSucks said:
Although, on second thought, it would probably be a better idea just to cut extra cheques to Planned Parenthood and PBS.

Good idea. Then the government can stop sending them money. Let them be sustained on donations.

cjd ohio 1 said:
glad to see you changed your tune, charity instead of taxes lol

I thought you righties were all about helping folks out through charitable donations. What’s your problem now?

He’s writing that cheque now. On his honourourour.

CosmosDan said:
“to big to fail” mega corporations. You know, the successful giants you seem to want to defend.

You mean like GE?

AmericaSucks said:
I thought you righties were all about helping folks out through charitable donations. What’s your problem now?

lol, you seem to be on both sides of the issue, rock on

The Lantern of Truth said:
Details ?

Why you need a job? I just filled my last open position. Sorry.

AmericaSucks said:
I thought you righties were all about helping folks out through charitable donations. What’s your problem now?

so what is it, taxes or charity?

2012freedom said:
Good idea. Then the government can stop sending them money. Let them be sustained on donations.

Your i.d. and avatar are offensive. I refuse to engage you any longer.

Surely some of the Palin children have outraged Robert this past week .

cjd ohio 1 said:
so what is it, taxes or charity?

Both!

AmericaSucks said:
I thought you righties were all about helping folks out through charitable donations. What’s your problem now?

We are, which is why conservatives consistently give more to charity than you libs. We don’t
have to be FORCED to give.

AmericaSucks said:
Well, I could have given you some b.s. line about writing a cheque today, but I’m playing it straight. I don’t mind pitching in a little bit extra. I can afford it. I’m far from super-rich, but I’m comfortable, and if I thought the money would actually do some good, it would make me feel good to write that cheque. So stay tuned. I might have some news for you before long. Although, on second thought, it would probably be a better idea just to cut extra cheques to Planned Parenthood and PBS.

So you admit the government would waste it. See that wasn’t hard.

AmericaSucks said:
Your i.d. and avatar are offensive. I refuse to engage you any longer.

Translation, I’VE LOST the argument. Now I know you are RRK.

Checkqueue his posts. America Sucks is not Robert. Hounest. His word of honourourour.

AmericaSucks said:
Both!

so you are going to write three checks now? correct

Republicans Are Liars said:
Why you need a job? I just filled my last open position. Sorry.

Hmmm… I’m trying to imagine the skill set that Lantern brings to the work force…

Well, good luck to him. There must be a job SOMEWHERE out there that will allow him to combine drooling, mouth-breathing, and knuckle-dragging.

Oh, oh! I know! He can get paid a penny per post by FoxNation!

timzank said:
So you admit the government would waste it. See that wasn’t hard.

If I could direct it to education, infrastructure, etc. then I’d be all over it.

The King is getting agitated. Can talking about Cheetos and trailer parks be far behind?

Liberal Tormentor - tormenting liberals with logic and facts since 1972 said:
Translation, I’VE LOST the argument. Now I know you are RRK.

LOL. Damn you beat me to it.

The Republican concept of compromise — a key component of any meaningful negotiation — is for the opposition to drop their own beliefs and completely embrace the conservative point of view.

Case in point: Cantor throws a tantrum and leaves the bargaining table, Boehner parrots the same fact-devoid talking points (e.g., “Americans are opposed to any form of tax increase”), and their Congressional GOP colleagues hold the nation hostage.

And why? Because the Democrats refuse to abandon an economic tenet that progressives regard as essential and the conservatives oppose (i.e., returning to pre-Bush era federal income tax levels and/or ending tax breaks for corporations that have been earning record profits) while simultaneously demanding that Democrats accept a fiscal component that conservatives regard as essential and progressives oppose (namely, significantly modifying or eliminating Medicare and/or Social Security).

re-writer said:
The King is getting agitated. Can talking about Cheetos and trailer parks be far behind?

Personally, I’m waiting for a Mountain Meadow reference.

cjd ohio 1 said:
so you are going to write three checks now? correct

Actually, I also have to write cheques for my cleaning lady, the vet, and they guy who’s redoing my basement. So that makes 6.

Oh, and I think I still have to pay that parking ticket. That makes 7. Thanks for reminding me!

Now, what cheques will YOU be writing this week?

Liberal Tormentor - tormenting liberals with logic and facts since 1972 said:
We are, which is why conservatives consistently give more to charity than you libs. We don’thave to be FORCED to give.

Michael White a blogger wrote this and it pretty well answers why one may draw a conclusion that conservatives give more… I thought it should be shared

Rather than taking that at face value, several questions should immediately pop into your mind:

1. Is this because more conservatives go to church, and give money to their church? For example, Mormons (who tend to be conservative), give 10% of their income to one of the wealthiest churches on the face of the planet, and one which does considerably less humanitarian work around than many churches (liberal and conservative) with much less wealth. Most of us wouldn’t count everything you give to your church as “giving to charity,” so you should ask yourself if the studies Kristof talks about take church giving into account.

And in fact, Kristof notes that “According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do.”

But maybe that’s because conservatives are already giving a big chunk of change to their church (which may really go to substantial charitable work, and not just to the general operating expenses of the church), so there is less money left over to give to non-religious charities. Thus excluding “donations to all religious organizations” may not be a fair comparison either.

2. Are conservatives richer, and thus able to give more to charity? Kristof notes that “measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes,” but we’re given no information on how giving relates to wealth. When I’m spending 80% of my income on basics like food, housing, and transportation, I have less money to give as a percentage of my income. If I only spend 30% on the basics, I’m free to give a larger chunk to charity.

3. How much is related to say, issues of urban vs. rural environments, instead of liberal/conservative? One claim is “People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often.” Is that because there are more volunteer opportunities in smaller towns than in big cities? I grew up outside of the fairly small city of Ithaca, NY. I volunteered for the local fire department there, something I could never do now in St. Louis because the fire department is all professional.

AmericaSucks said:
Actually, I also have to write cheques for my cleaning lady, the vet, and they guy who’s redoing my basement. So that makes 6. Oh, and I think I still have to pay that parking ticket. That makes 7. Thanks for reminding me! Now, what cheques will YOU be writing this week?

none

Do they have to convert those ‘cheques’ from pounds to dollars?

cjd ohio 1 said:
none

Sorry to hear that.

Oh well, at least ONE of us is making a contribution to the economy. See, what happens is that they cleaning lady, the vet, and the contractor will spend some of that money in my community, thereby making the world a better place.

Why are you so resistant to employing people in this country?

If you think America sucks, why do you care?

timzank said:
So you admit the government would waste it. See that wasn’t hard.

Of course they will! Haven’t you noticed that the Republic Party controls the House? What else could they possibly do?!

AmericaSucks said:
Sorry to hear that. Oh well, at least ONE of us is making a contribution to the economy. See, what happens is that they cleaning lady, the vet, and the contractor will spend some of that money in my community, thereby making the world a better place. Why are you so resistant to employing people in this country?

lol, st jude, kidney foundation, and DAV are taken directly from my pay check, but why aren’t you sending in more taxes like you preach?

re-writer said:
If you think America sucks, why do you care?

Newsflash: I don’t think America sucks.

I know it.

And yet you stay. Not very bright, are you?

AmericaSucks said:
Of course they will! Haven’t you noticed that the Republic Party controls the House? What else could they possibly do?!

so higher taxes are only good when democrats control the government lol

AmericaSucks said:
Newsflash: I don’t think America sucks.
I know it.

Then get the phuck out. Wholyshit! Are you Michael Moore? That would explain a lot.

cjd ohio 1 said:
lol, st jude, kidney foundation, and DAV are taken directly from my pay check, but why aren’t you sending in more taxes like you preach?

Well, I don’t “preach” it. I’d just prefer that the wealthy among us pay a bit more. I’d be willing to, even though I’m at the low end of that bracket. I think I’ve made that clear. If I change my name to Green Lantern and say that, I have a feeling you’ll be all for it…

AmericaSucks said:
Hmmm… I’m trying to imagine the skill set that Lantern brings to the work force…
Well, good luck to him. There must be a job SOMEWHERE out there that will allow him to combine drooling, mouth-breathing, and knuckle-dragging.

Wow. I’ll have to cheque my notes , but that is the best insult Robert has ever come up with .

Kudeauxs !

re-writer said:
And yet you stay. Not very bright, are you?

ivy league educated lol

cjd ohio 1 said:
so higher taxes are only good when democrats control the government lol

Who said anything about democrats? I’m an independent.

AmericaSucks said:
Well, I don’t “preach” it. I’d just prefer that the wealthy among us pay a bit more. I’d be willing to, even though I’m at the low end of that bracket. I think I’ve made that clear. If I change my name to Green Lantern and say that, I have a feeling you’ll be all for it…

then do it, wow………………….but you have conditions lol

AmericaSucks said:
Who said anything about democrats? I’m an independent.

lol

cjd ohio 1 said:
ivy league educated lol

I hear some nervousness in your laughter–the kind that reveals that you know it’s true, and that I’m better than you. Now be a good boy and bring me my car. Thanks.

So you’ve become wealthy, but you think the country sucks. Even a dog won’t bite the hand that feeds it. Unless it’s rabid.

cjd ohio 1 said:
then do it, wow………………….but you have conditions lol

What can I tell you? Some of us choose to exercise intellect and discretion; others, like you, are motivated to act by whatever shiny object is flashed at them at any given time.

AmericaSucks said:
I hear some nervousness in your laughter–the kind that reveals that you know it’s true, and that I’m better than you. Now be a good boy and bring me my car. Thanks.

lol, your parents wasted their money, because you talk out of both sides of your mouth, better than me lol

re-writer said:
So you’ve become wealthy, but you think the country sucks. Even a dog won’t bite the hand that feeds it. Unless it’s rabid.

The country didn’t make me, bozo. Why do you think that only the government can make us whole? Why do you you believe that WE THE PEOPLE can only get ahead if we receive handouts? Commie!!!! Go back to Cuba!!!!!

CosmosDan said:
Or why the bailout money didn’t come with compulsory repayment with interest attachments. But that’s not just on Obama is it, since Bush got the ball rolling. IMO, it’s an indication of widespread corruption that crosses party lines, and the power and influence held by giant “to big to fail” mega corporations. You know, the successful giants you seem to want to defend.

Thank you for stating so clearly what should be the obvious.

I’m just trying to figure out how if they were really in such crisis they paid the money back already and are turning huge profits on top of that. It’s amazing how many people don’t know that the ties that bind politicians on both sides to these corporations are not payoffs and lobbying. Most of these politicians are not being bought off. They are either doing favors for themselves, their families or their close friends. The politicians of America are either from the ‘ruling’ class or sell their souls in college (they call it networking) to get a seat at the table. No matter how much they attack each other for the cameras and their bases, these people grew up together, went to the same schools and are members at the same exclusive country clubs. Their fathers and grandfathers did the same in many cases. They want the same thing and they fully understand the opposing roles they need to play in order to get it. Both parties love Wall St, lobbyists, using religion as a cudgel, getting to pretend to be the opposition party every 4 -12 years and above all else, their status, wealth and power.

They’ve tricked many on both sides on the aisle into believing that they’re not attending the same church, drinking the same kool-aid and paying the same tithes that go into the pocket of the same greedy, corrupt pastor. Once we understand and accept this truth, the real question becomes how does the political class plan to avoid paying the taxes they appear so easy to raise on themselves. After all, they do also write the tax code that is already full of loopholes they engineered to do this very thing in the past. I worry that raising taxes will fail to improve America’s situation for that reason alone. We would be better served to try to figure out ways to curtail political power than to continue to play by the rules that the DemoPublicans have dictated.

AmericaSucks said:
What can I tell you? Some of us choose to exercise intellect and discretion; others, like you, are motivated to act by whatever shiny object is flashed at them at any given time.

well you better go workout, because your intellect and discretion appear to be flabby

But King, if the country sucks, how did you manage to get ahead? Wouldn’t you be better off in Cuba? There, the leader actually did take all the money from the rich. Get packing.

cjd ohio 1 said:
lol, your parents wasted their money, because you talk out of both sides of your mouth, better than me lol

Sorry to burst your bubble, chuckles. I grew up poor. My parents didn’t have the money to send me to university. Student loans got me through the first two years. Scholarships and fellowships (the latter being YOUR tax dollars hard at work) the rest of the way. I paid back my loans within 3 years of leaving school AND made donation to the UNCF.

cjd ohio 1 said:
well you better go workout, because your intellect and discretion appear to be flabby

LMAO !!!

re-writer said:
But King, if the country sucks, how did you manage to get ahead? Wouldn’t you be better off in Cuba? There, the leader actually did take all the money from the rich. Get packing.

You haven’t addressed your own communist leanings. Why do you think that the government is “the hand that feeds us”? Why do you hate your country? Why?

Girth said:
LMAO !!!

In today’s example of irony, a guy with a Limbo avatar laughs at a joke about flabbiness.

God damn, I love this place!

AmericaSucks said:
I’m better than you

C’mon, Robert. Talk about Fox “News” and Tollhouse Cookie Perry.

The Lantern of Truth said:
C’mon, Robert. Talk about Fox “News” and Tollhouse Cookie Perry.

Well, Gordo, I don’t even attach the word “news” to what FOX does. To me it’s just FOX.

King, what a load of bullshite. (Note the fancier spelling.) Now you’re saying you grew up poor, yet your arrogance still causes you to use British spellings. What a pathetic jerk.

AmericaSucks said:
to send me to university.

“to university”

Ever go on holiday or to hospital ?

Look under the bonnet of your lorry?

Take the lift ?

re-writer said:
King, what a load of bullshite. (Note the fancier spelling.) Now you’re saying you grew up poor, yet your arrogance still causes you to use British spellings. What a pathetic jerk.

Hahahahahaha! I love that you had to point out your “fancier spelling,” since we’d otherwise just have assumed that you spelled something wrong yet again.

You kill me.

The Lantern of Truth said:
“to university”

Ever go on holiday or to hospital ?

Look under the bonnet of your lorry?

Take the lift ?

Well now you’re just not making any sense at all. Sigh.

The King is so stupid, he uses the name America Sucks, then asks others why they hate the country. I didn’t think it possible, but he’s even farther out than before. He’s getting even worse.

The Lantern of Truth said:
“to university”
Ever go on holiday or to hospital ?
Look under the bonnet of your lorry?
Take the lift ?

No wonder he hates America. He is still pissed off that we kicked their ass.

AmericaSucks said:
Well, Gordo, I don’t even attach the word “news” to what FOX does. To me it’s just FOX.

Well of course not. Anything that doesn’t sing praises to Obama or not have commentators getting thrills up their leg couldn’t possibly be considered News to you.

To get into character as A.S., Robert calls his kitty Millard Fillmore, switches to a powdered toupee and drinks Bosco with Glenlivet .

re-writer said:
The King is so stupid, he uses the name America Sucks, then asks others why they hate the country. I didn’t think it possible, but he’s even farther out than before. He’s getting even worse.

You still haven’t answered the question: why do you think the government needs to be the hand that feeds us?

Or, better yet, why don’t you have the courage to answer that simple question? Typical coward. I’m beginning to suspect that you’re not an American at all. You’re probably from Texas.

King, I never said the government should feed us. I said this country is where you became wealthy, and still you say it sucks. So if you’re wealthy, and you think this country sucks, why stay? Doesn’t seem very bright.

AmericaSucks said:
You still haven’t answered the question: why do you think the government needs to be the hand that feeds us? Or, better yet, why don’t you have the courage to answer that simple question? Typical coward. I’m beginning to suspect that you’re not an American at all. You’re probably from Texas.

why does america suck?

re-writer said:
King, I never said the government should feed us. I said this country is where you became wealthy, and still you say it sucks. So if you’re wealthy, and you think this country sucks, why stay? Doesn’t seem very bright.

Don’t make me go back to the previous page and quote your line about “biting the hand that feeds you.” The only logical interpretation of your comment is that the government is that hand, since the “country” does not possess agency. The agent of the country is the government, and you believe in government handouts.

So, once again: why do you hate America?

But I’ll be gracious and answer, once and for all, your question about why I stay here. It’s simple: it makes travel easier for my annual pilgrimage to spit on Reagan’s grave.

cjd ohio 1 said:
why does america suck?

sssh! re-writer is trying to think!

Typical Royal King runaround and bullshit. He uses the name America Sucks, then asks others why they hate the country. And in his psychotic mind, it all makes sense. And King, your name says America sucks, not the government sucks. Care to explain?

re-writer said:
Typical Royal King runaround and bullshit. He uses the name America Sucks, then asks others why they hate the country. And in his psychotic mind, it all makes sense. And King, your name says America sucks, not the government sucks. Care to explain?

Answer the question, coward.

Or, if you like, simply admit that you misspoke. A little humble pie will be hard to choke down, but it won’t kill you.

AmericaSucks said:
Hmmm… I’m trying to imagine the skill set that Lantern brings to the work force… Well, good luck to him. There must be a job SOMEWHERE out there that will allow him to combine drooling, mouth-breathing, and knuckle-dragging. Oh, oh! I know! He can get paid a penny per post by FoxNation!

lol! I wouldn’t hire him to wipe my ass

re-writer said:
Typical Royal King runaround and bullshit. He uses the name America Sucks, then asks others why they hate the country. And in his psychotic mind, it all makes sense. And King, your name says America sucks, not the government sucks. Care to explain?

What does America have to do with the government?

Oh, I see. You’ve been misinterpreting my i.d. all this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_%28band%29

Republicans Are Liars said:
lol! I wouldn’t hire him to wipe my ass

Well, you’re confusing his vocation with his avocation. Some things he does just for the sheer pleasure of it.

What is the question, King? You’re saying I said something I didn’t say, then asking me to explain why I said it. The post is only a page back. Quote where I said the government should feed us. And since you insist you know what I ‘meant’, I’ll clarify it now. I was talking about the country in general, not just the government. So why does your name say America Sucks, referring to the entire country. Will you change it to say Government Sucks?

AmericaSucks said:
Whoops–sorry, I didn’t see your question.

I’ve looked into it a little bit, but from what I can tell it’s actually difficult (if not impossible) to pay more than one’s legal share. So I give to a few charities. But if you know more about this than I do, feel free to shoot me the info and I will definitely consider it. I don’t mind setting a good example for others.

Try this — don’t claim any deductions on your future tax returns. And no sheltering income in retirement funds or other ways. Just keep it all out there on the table and I promise, you will get your wish and get to pay more than your legal share with no questions asked.

Republicans Are Liars said:
Michael White a blogger wrote this and it pretty well answers why one may draw a conclusion that conservatives give more… I thought it should be shared

I don’t care who does more charitable giving. That said, none of what you posted gives any answers or refutes anything. It just makes vague suggestions that can be used to attempt to discredit the claim.

1. The author does a good job of refuting this claim with the 3rd paragraph in the interest of fairness. I’ll just add that the number of religious charities probably far exceeds the number of non-religious ones. If this is true, it means this argument is completely dead in the water.

2. The greater giving to charities holds true even if you only look at the political class. There’s also nothing to prove that the number of rich conservatives is significantly greater than that of rich democrats or that there’s any wealth differential at all. As far as the lower classes go, since they so greatly outnumber the upper class, if there was any significant difference in number for the party divide, it would be obvious since the same party would win every general election.

3. Anyone who has ever lived in a big city and a small town would know that there are far more opportunities for volunteerism in a big city. In a small town, the volunteer fire dept would be one of very few options to volunteer. The big city would, due to it’s disparity in income (where small towns tend to be much more even) offer many more opportunities to volunteer. The author is also trying to infer that blue states have more big cities and more democrats are concentrated in these big cities. If that is true, that would mean that democrats have even more opportunity for volunteering than republicans and are still outdone.

If I were you, the argument I would make is that democrats are more likely identify public service as a more effective means of giving back than conservatives, so they tend to pursue careers in government, as teachers, or doing things like americorps in higher numbers than conservatives. If that’s actually true, the fact that they usually make less than they could pursing private sector jobs should be considered a form of volunteerism itself and should be weighed against charitable donations in terms of both time dedicated and income lost.

fanofamerica said:
Try this — don’t claim any deductions on your future tax returns. And no sheltering income in retirement funds or other ways. Just keep it all out there on the table and I promise, you will get your wish and get to pay more than your legal share with no questions asked.

Great idea! I can see how you’ve made such a great success of yourself, Gordon.

re-writer said:
What is the question, King? You’re saying I said something I didn’t say, then asking me to explain why I said it. The post is only a page back. Quote where I said the government should feed us. And since you insist you know what I ‘meant’, I’ll clarify it now. I was talking about the country in general, not just the government. So why does your name say America Sucks, referring to the entire country. Will you change it to say Government Sucks?

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

2012freedom said:
Okay, so you are projecting the new Liberal talking point that Republicans are purposefully keeping unemployment numbers high so Obama will be a one term President? Because when McConnell said it in 2010 and again today that he wants Obama to be a one term President I agree with him and so does every other Republican along with a lot of Independents. That isn’t a stretch for the opposing party to say that about a sitting President.

no, this is what he said… “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”

not “the single most important thing is jobs.” not “the single most important thing is cutting the deficit.” not “the single most important thing is being the best senator i can be.”
it’s to keep obama as a one-term president and he could care less if this country fails. boehner, on the other hand, appears as someone who is willing to work and come to a bipartisan agreement.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
no, this is what he said… “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”

not “the single most important thing is jobs.” not “the single most important thing is cutting the deficit.” not “the single most important thing is being the best senator i can be.”
it’s to keep obama as a one-term president and he could care less if this country fails. boehner, on the other hand, appears as someone who is willing to work and come to a bipartisan agreement.

Exactly, and Bachmann and a heap of the other sellouts are reading from the same script. It’s shameful behavior.

King, you’re not fooling anyone with all this dancing around. You’re an extreme far leftist who hates this country and despite all your lies about being rich, bottom line is you’re too damned poor to move anywhere else. So live with it.

AmericaSucks said:
sheer pleasure of it.

Republicans Are Liars said:
wipe my ass

Two of the most obnoxious, repulsive liars on the Internet converse!

Just like the day Schultz met Olbermann!

re-writer said:
King, you’re not fooling anyone with all this dancing around. You’re an extreme far leftist who hates this country and despite all your lies about being rich, bottom line is you’re too damned poor to move anywhere else. So live with it.

Keep projecting, re-tard, if it makes you feel better.

I did like that one where the King said his mom was born in 1935, yet he claims he graduated law school in the sixties. And he thinks no one can do the math. Truly pathetic.

AmericaSucks said:
Well, you’re confusing his vocation with his avocation. Some things he does just for the sheer pleasure of it.

yOU KNOW i LIke you

The Lantern of Truth said:
Two of the most obnoxious, repulsive liars converse!

Just like the day W met Cheney!

Fixed it for you. I can understand your having spelled “Cheney” wrong, but how in god’s name did you mess up “W”?!

Robert’s Avon business is doing too well to leave Austin.

Who else would have thought of setting up a booth in an alternatve choices bar?

Republicans Are Liars said:
yOU KNOW i LIke you

ssssssh . . . . they’ll starting thinking that YOU’RE real royal king, too.

America Sucks is also big on correcting spelling and grammar, besides using British spellings. But he’s not RRK. LOL

The Lantern of Truth said:
Robert’s Avon business is doing too well to leave Austin.

Who else would have thought of setting up a booth in an alternatve choices bar?

Oh god, you really do have me wrong. I would never, ever live in Texas. Too many crazy secessionist governors for my liking…

“AXIOM,”

Examples:

“The sun rises in the East, then sets in the West.” “What goes up, must come down.” “When one writes a check, without adequate funds in the account, the check bounces.”

A person, group or Nation cannot arbitrarily disregard rules, laws and axioms, without significant negative effects on themselves, as well as outside groups.

Einstein, Fermi and Teller had to rely on axiomatic, mathematical rules to build the Atomic Bomb. So too must America maintain reliance on very basic but imperative rules of business, economics and governance, to create, maintain and journey our Nation into the future.

Apparently, there is enough blame to go around as to how we arrived at this dilemma.

What defies interpretation, is how and why the Obama administration would virtually defy axiomatic realities as methodology to achieve economic stability for America?

What Obama and his acolytes have done is akin to Edward Teller attempting to build a bomb, sans, simple arithmetic! Why did Obama do such a thing? Gross ideological malfeasance? Incompetence? Or, as has been suggested by some, (myself included) a desire to diminish the power and prestige of the United States of America.

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

And now he’s mentioning the governor of Texas. Yep, he’s definitely not Robert.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Two of the most obnoxious, repulsive liars on the Internet converse! Just like the day Schultz met Olbermann!

You wouldn’t know the truth if it came up and bit you in the ass.

re-writer said:
I did like that one where the King said his mom was born in 1935, yet he claims he graduated law school in the sixties. And he thinks no one can do the math. Truly pathetic.

That is wonky. And I’ll level with you: I’m not a lawyer, but I did briefly have a large corner office in the Law building at my alma mater. Great view of the river. Never bothered to get to know any of the lawyer-types.

AmericaSucks said:
Great idea! I can see how you’ve made such a great success of yourself, Gordon.

Who’s Gordon? I’m a woman with a much more feminine name, I assure you.

re-writer said:
mom was born in 1935,

He also claimed on Mediaite that he was 62 . ( He was born before Pearl Harbor )
So he was born to a 12 or 13 year old .

So the British spellings, the hatred of America, the correction of others’ spelling, that’s all just coincidence.

Quote: “Given that tax increases were likely too difficult for Republicans to swallow, and since Democrats were strongly opposed to significant cuts in Medicare or Social Security, the likelihood of a “grand deal” may have been wishful thinking. Instead, Boehner is now leaning towards a deal closer to $2 trillion in savings”

Matt Schneider seems to be presenting this story honestly and without any personal bias. That’s not always the case with Mediaite’s writers, but it’s a welcome development when it happens.

There is little point in crafting some grand compromise, if it cannot pass even one house of Congress. Most Republicans and at least some moderate Democrats are convinced that the problem is spending, and they are only interested in discussing spending cuts in exchange for a “yea” vote on the debt limit.

Later on, during general budget discussions, reform of taxes and entitlements can be negotiated. But right now, we need to get firm spending cuts only. Not a reduction in the growth rate of spending, several years from now, but genuine cuts during the next 1-3 years. If Mr Obama is not willing to discuss real cuts in the immediate future, then there is nothing to negotiate about.

Robert can be anything or anyone on the Internet . Everybody can .

My girlfriend, Shania Twain, whispered that to me this morning as we touring Venice in a gondola this morning.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Robert can be anything or anyone on the Internet . Everybody can . My girlfriend, Shania Twain, whispered that to me this morning as we touring Venice in a gondola this morning.

It was morning , I say!

Robert, for example, would then say that Shania was born in 2005, and expect that no one would see anything wrong with the statement.

fanofamerica said:
Who’s Gordon? I’m a woman with a much more feminine name, I assure you.

Whatever you say, Gordo.

The Lantern of Truth said:
He also claimed on Mediaite that he was 62 . ( He was born before Pearl Harbor )
So he was born to a 12 or 13 year old .

You do know that that’s entirely possible, right?

No, wait. Let me guess: if your 12- or 13-year-old daughter got pregnant, you’d be hauling ass to get her to an abortion clinic, wouldn’t you?

We continue to find out what a coward boner really is. He talks tough, talks big, makes threats, and then tucks his devil tail between his legs, and backtracks. Cantor is even worse. As these two incompetents continue to torment the american people, we continue to feel abandoned, abused, and taxed to the max. There will come a day, called “election day” when all these righteous GOP candidates will get what’s coming to them. And to this date, not one of them has a plan. But I bet they’re not suffering like we are.

re-writer said:
Robert, for example, would then say that Shania was born in 2005, and expect that no one would see anything wrong with the statement.

I must say that I admire your ability to work your masturbation fantasies into your trolling so seamlessly. Don’t get me wrong–it’s really weird. But still an admirable psychological feat.

Obama played Boehner like a fiddle.

Robert would be more interested in Barbra Streisand or Cher , two of his jukebox favorites at Ramrod’s.

But if she was 12, I doubt she was married. And the King, (whom you don’t know) is always very against women having babies out of wedlock. So he must be a hypocrite on that subject.

eyemjustsayin said:
We continue to find out what a coward boner really is. He talks tough, talks big, makes threats, and then tucks his devil tail between his legs, and backtracks. Cantor is even worse. As these two incompetents continue to torment the american people, we continue to feel abandoned, abused, and taxed to the max. There will come a day, called “election day” when all these righteous GOP candidates will get what’s coming to them. And to this date, not one of them has a plan. But I bet they’re not suffering like we are.

I have to admit that I wasn’t a fan of calling their bluff, but it’s well worth it now that we see how they turn tail and run.

Cowards, cowards, cowards.

Hey! I think I just figured out who re-tard is!

re-writer said:
But if she was 12, I doubt she was married. And the King, (whom you don’t know) is always very against women having babies out of wedlock. So he must be a hypocrite on that subject.

I’m a proponent of having children AND getting abortions out of wedlock.

So you agree that the King (whom you don’t know) is either lying, or being a hypocrite.

re-writer said:
So you agree that the King (whom you don’t know) is either lying, or being a hypocrite.

Well, I only have your version of what he’s said, so I can’t offer a strong opinion. But given the available evidence, such as it is, I’d tend to lean toward him lying or being really bad at math.

You’re getting better at this, Bob.

Thanks, Gordon.

Don’t mention it, King.

I bet Boehner’s office phone was ringing off the hook. When you talk about killing social security that usually doesn’t sit too well with your base.

AmericaSucks said:
Whatever you say, Gordo.

If you’re trying to do what re-writer and Lantern have done (outing you as King), you should know you lack their ability. And wit. And logic. But call me Gordon/Gordo all you’d like — he must be a pretty good guy if he has the opposite viewpoint of you.

Tax hikes, Obimbo’s answer to everything! Social security, and the Medicare programs do need to be realigned. Under the present system, they are unsustainable.
The middle class and senior citizens can not bare the brunt of all the cuts? This group is paying little or nothing now in taxes which tells us business is. The very same buisnesses that are not hiring because they don’t know what their tax bill will be costing them. And you can damn well bet that if taxes go up, jobs will stagnate, and those enormous entitlements loose revenue. How do you fix this problem, by getting the government out of the way, and letting the free market take over.

AmericaSucks said:
You do know that that’s entirely possible, right? No, wait. Let me guess: if your 12- or 13-year-old daughter got pregnant, you’d be hauling ass to get her to an abortion clinic, wouldn’t you?

I sure would. Nothing worse than a 12-13 year old mother, forced upon her like the Republicans do. they don’t seem to care if it is rape or incest. But the thing that gets to me is how “un-Christian” these GOP folks are when it comes to taking care of the little one once it is born.

CAconservative said:
Tax hikes, Obimbo’s answer to everything! Social security, and the Medicare programs do need to be realigned. Under the present system, they are unsustainable.The middle class and senior citizens can not bare the brunt of all the cuts? This group is paying little or nothing now in taxes which tells us business is. The very same buisnesses that are not hiring because they don’t know what their tax bill will be costing them. And you can damn well bet that if taxes go up, jobs will stagnate, and those enormous entitlements loose revenue. How do you fix this problem, by getting the government out of the way, and letting the free market take over.

Tax cuts seems to be the ONLY answer the GOP seems to think of. And, that is exactly what got us into this mess. TAX cuts that were unpaid for along with two wars and that wonderful “socialist” senior drug program that George knew would win him a second term.

fanofamerica said:
If you’re trying to do what re-writer and Lantern have done (outing you as King), you should know you lack their ability. And wit. And logic. But call me Gordon/Gordo all you’d like — he must be a pretty good guy if he has the opposite viewpoint of you.

That’s what I love most about you, Gordon: your construction of arguments that YOU believe to be bulletproof but that the rest of us simply yawn and shrug our shoulders at.

Gorgegirl said:
I sure would. Nothing worse than a 12-13 year old mother, forced upon her like the Republicans do. they don’t seem to care if it is rape or incest. But the thing that gets to me is how “un-Christian” these GOP folks are when it comes to taking care of the little one once it is born.

Well, that’s for someone else to do, of course. Odd, then, that they whine about the “nanny state.”

Except for re-writer/re-tard. He’s on record here as saying that people can only succeed in America if they get a handout. God bless his charitable heart.

atreyue said:
I don’t care who does more charitable giving. That said, none of what you posted gives any answers or refutes anything. It just makes vague suggestions that can be used to attempt to discredit the claim. 1. The author does a good job of refuting this claim with the 3rd paragraph in the interest of fairness. I’ll just add that the number of religious charities probably far exceeds the number of non-religious ones. If this is true, it means this argument is completely dead in the water. 2. The greater giving to charities holds true even if you only look at the political class. There’s also nothing to prove that the number of rich conservatives is significantly greater than that of rich democrats or that there’s any wealth differential at all. As far as the lower classes go, since they so greatly outnumber the upper class, if there was any significant difference in number for the party divide, it would be obvious since the same party would win every general election. 3. Anyone who has ever lived in a big city and a small town would know that there are far more opportunities for volunteerism in a big city. In a small town, the volunteer fire dept would be one of very few options to volunteer. The big city would, due to it’s disparity in income (where small towns tend to be much more even) offer many more opportunities to volunteer. The author is also trying to infer that blue states have more big cities and more democrats are concentrated in these big cities. If that is true, that would mean that democrats have even more opportunity for volunteering than republicans and are still outdone. If I were you, the argument I would make is that democrats are more likely identify public service as a more effective means of giving back than conservatives, so they tend to pursue careers in government, as teachers, or doing things like americorps in higher numbers than conservatives. If that’s actually true, the fact that they usually make less than they could pursing private sector jobs should be considered a form of volunteerism itself and should be weighed against charitable donations in terms of both time dedicated and income lost.

Charitable giving by a Republican is usually their 10% tithing at the church while Democrats are usually the philanthropists – like Bill Gates, Warren Buffit, Mark Zuckenberg. Name one republican philanthrophist that gives to education, AIDS, etc that isn’t “religious” directed.

Rokker said:
Obama played Boehner like a fiddle.

Boehner and Cantor are going to have crap all over their faces come election time too. Tea Party candidates will split the GOP and their positions will probably end up in the democrat column. Yes, 2012 is going to be an exciting election with seniors voting against the republicans for wanting to gut social security and medicare.

Gorgegirl said:
Boehner and Cantor are going to have crap all over their faces come election time too. Tea Party candidates will split the GOP and their positions will probably end up in the democrat column. Yes, 2012 is going to be an exciting election with seniors voting against the republicans for wanting to gut social security and medicare.

Yes, that would be my guess. The Republic Party is going to be longing for the good old days, when the only person running interference for the Democrats was Ross Perot.

Gorgegirl said:
Charitable giving by a Republican is usually their 10% tithing at the church while Democrats are usually the philanthropists – like Bill Gates, Warren Buffit, Mark Zuckenberg. Name one republican philanthrophist that gives to education, AIDS, etc that isn’t “religious” directed.

I’m generally with you on this, and I’m no lover of the religious crowd, but it’s not really fair to disqualify faith-oriented charity from your calculations.

I see the Democrat press, has got the talking points down pat. It is ALMOST like they all get the same White House memo or something. Amazing!

QUOTE:

If we can prevent the Government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.”

Samuel Adams, 1802

purveyor said:
QUOTE:

If we can prevent the Government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.”

Samuel Adams, 1802

Typical founding father, telling everyone what they “must” do.

Thank god that modern liberalism grew from those roots, in order to give Americans and all the world TRUE freedom!

NOTE,

There has been some debate recently over the patriotism of the Republicans versus the Democrats. The assertion is: That Democrats don’t support the Military, don’t revere the flag, Don’t venerate the Constitution, etc.

Above, I quoted one of the most admired members of the American Revolution, and both SUCKS, and another Democrat, presumably, indicate their dislike.

You make the call?

The starting point for a deficit deal is to remember how much the federal government was spending just a few years ago — for instance, $2.73 trillion in fiscal year 2007, the last year that Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. And FY 2007 followed several years of rapid spending growth, creating a lot of criticism inside the GOP.

But in FY 2011, the federal government is expected to spend $3.82 trillion, and the Obama administration submitted a budget for FY 2012 calling for spending of $3.73 trillion.

Does anyone remember a speech Obama gave late last year, where he called for a spending reduction of $100 MILLION? Not billion, but million.

What needs to happen is to get federal spend back to at least the growth track it was on in FY 2007 — though ideally the starting point should be a few years earlier than that.

This would mean starting from roughly $2.7 trillion in FY 2007, or $2.3 trillion in FY 2004, and then calculating a reasonable geometric rate of growth from one of those points.

If we started from the level of spending in FY 2004, and grew spending 5% per annum, that would mean about $3.4 trillion for FY2012 — not $3.73 trillion that Obama wants.

So, let’s start with a minimum cut of $350 billion for the next fiscal year, which would save nearly $2 trillion over five years. Let us NOT talk about $2 trillion over 10 years, or over 12 years, because that is a sign that people are not serious about spending control.

Once these cuts are locked in, then… maybe… we can talk about tax reform that is more than just revenue neutral. It would also help if the Democrats cooled it with the class warfare rhetoric, too.

Assuming the Dems do not want to go along with this, then I suggest we up the ante. Instead of 5% growth starting in FY 2004, how about 4% starting in FY2007 (when the Democrats took over)? That 1% makes a huge different. Then there would need to be over $400 billion in cuts for FY 2012, and over two trillion over five years.

And don’t imagine that all or most of the cuts can come out of the defense budget, either. Some, maybe, but only a small share.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
no, this is what he said… “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”

not “the single most important thing is jobs.” not “the single most important thing is cutting the deficit.” not “the single most important thing is being the best senator i can be.”

This makes sense, because the only way to fix the economy, the only way to fix the budget, the first step in fixing any of the problems we face is to get rid of Barack Obama.

Nothing good can be accomplished while Barack Obama is in the White House.

So America Sucks says America has true freedom, and it sucks. What an odd character.

The only “good” that needs to be accomplished by keeping Barak Obama in the White House, is to keep the republicans out. That will keep them from completing their plans to destroy the nations economy, a plan they nearly accomplished under George W. Bush.

purveyor said:
NOTE,

There has been some debate recently over the patriotism of the Republicans versus the Democrats. The assertion is: That Democrats don’t support the Military, don’t revere the flag, Don’t venerate the Constitution, etc.

Above, I quoted one of the most admired members of the American Revolution, and both SUCKS, and another Democrat, presumably, indicate their dislike.

You make the call?

I never click on those thumbs up/down icons. Not my thing.

Look elsewhere, scallywag.

CAconservative said:
Tax hikes, Obimbo’s answer to everything! Social security, and the Medicare programs do need to be realigned. Under the present system, they are unsustainable.The middle class and senior citizens can not bare the brunt of all the cuts? This group is paying little or nothing now in taxes which tells us business is. The very same buisnesses that are not hiring because they don’t know what their tax bill will be costing them. And you can damn well bet that if taxes go up, jobs will stagnate, and those enormous entitlements loose revenue. How do you fix this problem, by getting the government out of the way, and letting the free market take over.

You have totally drank the kool-aid. Business is not hiring not because they do not know what their tax burden will be, wrong again!!! They are not hiring becuase there is no greater demand for their products. Their is no greater demand because of the number pof people unemployed. Do things like cut governement spending and you will send more people to the unemployment linescreating less demand for products making it even less likely for business to hire. What sort of dumb ass can’t understand this????

Purveyor, just look at the name. That pretty much says where his sympathies lie.

The Lantern of Truth said:
Two of the most obnoxious, repulsive liars on the Internet converse! Just like the day Schultz met Olbermann!

Please tell me where I have lied. Don’t make comments based on bullshit. Take a pill for your cranial rectal inversion.

I don’t know about the lies, RAL, but you agree with America Sucks, so you are repulsive.

Perdido said:
I don’t know about the lies, RAL, but you agree with America Sucks, so you are repulsive.

And screw you too, you moron

Right back at ‘cha, babe. America Sucks hates the country and you agree with him. When he leaves, make it a duo.

Looks like the tan man blinked.

Perdido said:
Right back at ‘cha, babe. America Sucks hates the country and you agree with him. When he leaves, make it a duo.

Oh, I don’t hate the country in the least; my hatred is reserved for the state. And it’s true: America sucks.

Tedderman said:
The only “good” that needs to be accomplished by keeping Barak Obama in the White House, is to keep the republicans out. That will keep them from completing their plans to destroy the nations economy, a plan they nearly accomplished under George W. Bush.

Are you always this much of a drama queen?

Republicans Are Liars said:
Their is no greater demand because of the number pof people unemployed. Do things like cut governement spending and you will send more people to the unemployment linescreating less demand for products making it even less likely for business to hire. What sort of dumb ass can’t understand this????

Ummm…I thought Obama spent almost a trillion dollars on a jobs bill to prevent soaring unemployment? I guess he should have actually used the money for jobs instead of political paybacks. So, you suggest we keep spending into oblivion because in your limited little mind if we cut any government spending it creates unemployment?

purveyor said:
NOTE, There has been some debate recently over the patriotism of the Republicans versus the Democrats. The assertion is: That Democrats don’t support the Military, don’t revere the flag, Don’t venerate the Constitution, etc. Above, I quoted one of the most admired members of the American Revolution, and both SUCKS, and another Democrat, presumably, indicate their dislike. You make the call?

Who says democrats don’t support the military, don’t revere the flag nor respect the US Constituition:?
As to the US Constituition, it is the Republican Supreme court that has been making up new law instead of interpreting the constitution. After all, who else would think that a corporation was a person?

2012freedom said:
Ummm…I thought Obama spent almost a trillion dollars on a jobs bill to prevent soaring unemployment? I guess he should have actually used the money for jobs instead of political paybacks. So, you suggest we keep spending into oblivion because in your limited little mind if we cut any government spending it creates unemployment?

He wanted to, but the Republicans held out until a lot of it was used as “TAX BREAKS” for corporations.

2012freedumb
Are you always this much of a drama queen?

Not really, but I’ve always enjoyed poking dumb animals with sharp sticks.

Gorgegirl said:
He wanted to, but the Republicans held out until a lot of it was used as “TAX BREAKS” for corporations.

really , the house or the senate

America Sucks, I wasn’t aware there was a state named America. Is it in the midwest, or what?

2012freedom says:
-Okay, let’s end the tax cuts. Since everyone got a tax cut, let’s end them for everyone.

Well that’s one way to address the deficit, but why everyone? One thing I would look into is ending the earned Income credit which has people getting more back than they actually paid in. That never seemed reasonable to me. The union issues are a tangent. Why is it okay to make teachers chip in more because of an economic crisis, but not people earning 250,000 and up? Doesn’t make sense.

Raising taxes on the rich does not necessarily result in more money coming in to the treasury. If you keep raising their taxes the rich will find more and more ways to hide the money. Not a pretty fact but true

Some will some won’t. Some will get caught and some won’t. They’re also addressing money being hidden offshore. The bottom line is it WILL bring in billions more.

Obama said he put the cuts out there for SS and Medicare. The bottom line is it would have never passed the Senate. It was a folly.

Maybe, but it won’t even get to the Senate now will it? He was willing to make a hard compromise to move us forward, but it was rejected.

Gorgegirl said:
He wanted to, but the Republicans held out until a lot of it was used as “TAX BREAKS” for corporations.

Republicans had nothing to do with it. It was passed 100% by Democrats. Sorry, try again.

Tedderman said:
Not really, but I’ve always enjoyed poking dumb animals with sharp sticks.

Well that’s no surprise but what does that have to do with you being a drama queen?

2012freedom says:
If we do nothing to SS and Medicare they will implode. Something has to be done. We have over promised what will be available. Would you rather it all go completely bankrupt or try to do what we can to save it for the current people?

It is not an immediate crisis , although it does need to be addressed. Using the debt ceiling as a lever is political strong arming IMO, and Obama put Medicare and SS on the table, and called their bluff.

Ryan’s plan didn’t affect anyone over the age of 55. The whole “throw grandma over a cliff” was a lie

And I detest that kind of political dishonesty. We need honest fact based discussion. Tell you what you get the GOP to stop using those tactics and I’ll work on the Dems. Good luck. .

2012freedom says:
You mean like GE?

Yes, The Dems decided that to compete financially they had to have their own corporate allies and who gets screwed when that happens. Both conservative and liberal working class. Then the SCOTUS decides that bribery should be called free speech and we still spend our time with useless partisan bickering.

2012freedumb
Well that’s no surprise but what does that have to do with you being a drama queen?

Someone’s really fixated on the whole “drama queen” thing, aren’t they, looked in any mirrors lately?

CosmosDan said:
Well that’s one way to address the deficit, but why everyone? One thing I would look into is ending the earned Income credit which has people getting more back than they actually paid in. That never seemed reasonable to me. The union issues are a tangent. Why is it okay to make teachers chip in more because of an economic crisis, but not people earning 250,000 and up? Doesn’t make sense.

Okay, I am all for ending the earned income credit. I agree with you. It is not just the teachers that need to kick in more, it is all public employees. The states can’t afford these lavish pensions any longer. Again, you can’t make the math work when you put in to the system $1 and get $5 back. If we are going to hit the people making $250K and above then the Liberals at least need to be honest and stop calling them all “millionaires” and “billionaires” hoping to confuse ignorant voters.

Even if we start to tax the people making $250K at a higher rate what do you think that is going to do? If it was such a grand idea why didn’t the Democrats do it when they controlled all the pieces of the Government? They didn’t have the votes then, and they won’t have the votes now. Democrats talk a good game but even they know that raising taxes in the middle of a recession is not a good idea.

CosmosDan said:
It is not an immediate crisis , although it does need to be addressed. Using the debt ceiling as a lever is political strong arming IMO, and Obama put Medicare and SS on the table, and called their bluff.

But that’s the point. No one wants to address it because it’s “taboo.” So it gets kicked down the road for a few more years. At what point will it be addressed? Both sides use the debt celiing as a political hammer. I probably don’t need to remind you what Obama said about it when he was a Senator. He voted against raising it. The Democrats all did political dances about the end of the world when Bush was President. Now it is the Republicans turn. It just switches with whomever is the sitting President.

CosmosDan said:
And I detest that kind of political dishonesty. We need honest fact based discussion. Tell you what you get the GOP to stop using those tactics and I’ll work on the Dems. Good luck.

Again, I totally agree with you.

Tedderman said:
Someone’s really fixated on the whole “drama queen” thing, aren’t they, looked in any mirrors lately?

Is that like saying; “I know you are but what am I?”

Gorgegirl said:
Democrat, presumably, indicate their dislike. You make the call?
Who says democrats don’t support the military, don’t revere the flag nor respect the US Constituition:?
As to the US Constituition, it is the Republican Supreme court that has been making up new law instead of interpreting the constitution. After all, who else would think that a corporation was a person?

I think my logic made the point just fine. Two presumed Left wing Democrats, both, indicated a dislike for the words of a founding father. Typical!

Case in point!

GORGEGIRL

Now the number is 4, presumuably Democrats who dislike a famous quote by Samuel Adams.

Ergo, is it reasonable to assume that these 4 dislike other symbols of America/ Maybe America itself?

GORGEGIRL I

I dont see anyone (you) complaining about the upside down flag of America SUCKS

I did, and I told him so. did you?

Oh yeah, you are patriotic

2012freedom says:
It is not just the teachers that need to kick in more, it is all public employees. The states can’t afford these lavish pensions any longer. Again, you can’t make the math work when you put in to the system $1 and get $5 back.

Agreed. The same thing happened to corporations who made promises to employees about pensions. Then when business changed , as it always does, they had to break those promises to their most loyal employees.

If we are going to hit the people making $250K and above then the Liberals at least need to be honest and stop calling them all “millionaires” and “billionaires” hoping to confuse ignorant voters

agreed. As I said, I hate the dishonesty that is associated with politics. We have serious problems and lots of good people are hurting. Stop the BS and let’s have a little straight talk. {It’s a nice dream anyway}

If it was such a grand idea why didn’t the Democrats do it when they controlled all the pieces of the Government?

I believe it’s because we were in a recession and they needed to address it. Obama even cut taxes more for most Americans. Then the GOP and the Tea Party started talking about the deficit consistently and how it needed to be addressed. So, when the Bush tax cuts were set to expire they suggested letting them expire only on those making 250,000 or more , once again, to address the deficit and the recession as well. It was a no go with the GOP.
That said, you may be right. The way the deal went down made me wonder if the public ever knew what was really going on.

The Democrats all did political dances about the end of the world when Bush was President. Now it is the Republicans turn. It just switches with whomever is the sitting President.

Yep. It’s a dishonest game on both sides. I’m convinced things won’t seriously get better until the masses can stop the partisan bickering and come together on some issues and really put the pressure on both parties. Let’s elect a crap load of independents in 2012 and see how they feel about that. Seriously. Independents and moderates from both parties ought to find decent independent candidates and vote them in.

“The Governments view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it, If it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Ronald Reagan

Gorgegirl said:
As to the US Constituition, it is the Republican Supreme court that has been making up new law instead of interpreting the constitution. After all, who else would think that a corporation was a person?

The Supreme Court, in the Citizens United case, upheld precedent dating back to the 1819 case Dartmouth College v Woodward — holding that corporations as artificial persons possessed many of the rights of natural persons. But even that court was only affirming what had been accepted as a part of the common law, going back to at least the 1600s. And in some respects the rights and responsibilities of corporations date back to Roman law, more than 1500 years of tradition.

So do not imagine that the Roberts Court invented some new legal theory — it just reversed mistakes made in 2002 when the McCain-Feingold case first came up for review.

CosmosDan said:
Yep. It’s a dishonest game on both sides. I’m convinced things won’t seriously get better until the masses can stop the partisan bickering and come together on some issues and really put the pressure on both parties. Let’s elect a crap load of independents in 2012 and see how they feel about that. Seriously. Independents and moderates from both parties ought to find decent independent candidates and vote them in.

We can agree on quite a bit actually. I really appreciate an honest respectful debate. The problem is there are so many people who are absolutely clueless as to what is going on in the world of politics and the problems with our country.

2012freedom says:
We can agree on quite a bit actually. I really appreciate an honest respectful debate. The problem is there are so many people who are absolutely clueless as to what is going on in the world of politics and the problems with our country.

I agree on both counts. I began doing some research and it taught me fairly quickly that it takes a lot more effort than just listening to your favorite partisan talking head to be informed. Admittedly some issues are very complex and it’s very hard to be informed on everything, but we should be able to acknowledge that , rather than just repeat talking points and hurl insults. That doesn’t do anybody any good.

J Baustian said:
corporation was a person?
The Supreme Court, in the Citizens United case, upheld precedent dating back to the 1819 case Dartmouth College v Woodward — holding that corporations as artificial persons possessed many of the rights of natural persons. But even that court was only affirming what had been accepted as a part of the common law, going back to at least the 1600s. And in some respects the rights and responsibilities of corporations date back to Roman law, more than 1500 years of tradition.

So do not imagine that the Roberts Court invented some new legal theory — it just reversed mistakes made in 2002 when the McCain-Feingold case first came up for review.

BAUSTIAN

Back in 1993, I did a paper on the Commerce Clause for a Federal Judge. Santa Clara v Southern Pacific Railroad, affirmed personhood of corporations. As a young(er) man and student I was amazed at how powerful and corrupt the Commerce Clause could be.

Moreover, GORGEGIRL would be surprised at how the Commerce Clause was used for Civil Rights!

Just thought I’d add this bit of “dicta.”

Purveyor

purveyor said:
Back in 1993, I did a paper on the Commerce Clause for a Federal Judge. Santa Clara v Southern Pacific Railroad, affirmed personhood of corporations. As a young(er) man and student I was amazed at how powerful and corrupt the Commerce Clause could be.

I am somewhat familiar with Santa Clara v Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). But I typically do not mention it when defending Citizens United because Dartmouth v Woodward was nearly 70 years earlier and closer to the ratification of the Constitution.

Santa Clara certainly affirms and elaborates on the rights and responsibilities of corporations, in particular that the equal protection clause applied to them as well as to natural persons. The preliminaries to the decision included this statement: “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”

“ALL of the opinion… ” So this was not even allowed to be an issue in their determinations — they ALL agreed that the 14th Amendment applied to corporations. I just liked the simplicity of Dartmouth, which did not rely on the 14th Amendment.

J Baustian said:
I am somewhat familiar with Santa Clara v Southern Pacific Railroad (1886). But I typically do not mention it when defending Citizens United because Dartmouth v Woodward was nearly 70 years earlier and closer to the ratification of the Constitution.

I guess that is why I mentioned my paper: The Commerce Clause has been busy, for a long time. That and further your point about Judicial activism has more often found itself within the province of Liberal ideology.

The scope of my paper was broad yet detailed, typical of the Law. The odyssey of the commerce clause has, by my conclusion, been improper application.

The final portion was devoted to the Civil Rights cases such as: Katzenbach and Heart of Atlanta Motel. Which of course, were born of Wickard v Filburn… I then ended with a crescendo of Busing and reverse discrimination.

Considering I wrote the paper 1993, I was ahead of the curve, so to speak. LOL

Just wanted to share this with you

CosmosDan said:
And I detest that kind of political dishonesty. We need honest fact based discussion. Tell you what you get the GOP to stop using those tactics and I’ll work on the Dems. Good luck. .

I didn’t think your comments merited a thumbs down. However, you do have a hint of the idealist in you, respectfully.

COSMOS,
Perhaps another type of “thumb” is needed? The hmm, I’m thinking thumb?