>> ^quantumushroom:

Why are the socialists pretending they've "lost" because there were no tax hikes?
The "spending cuts" barely amount to a paper cut.
As Rand Paul said:
“The President called for a “balanced approach.” But the American people are calling for a balanced budget. This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt."
Every time The Kenyanesque Hawaiian was declared a naked emperor and enemy of free market capitalism, the left balked. Meanwhile Jugears and Co. have been overclocking the economic engine for three years with non-stop spending. This clown never wanted jobs growth, he wanted 'brakes' on the economy and America in general, they are his idealogical enemies.
taxocrats = traitors
RINOs = traitors


It's amazing to me that you blame Obama yet have no harsh words for say Reagan or Bush. He's essentially the same as them...how the fuck is he different? You're just an idiot man...give it up!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why are the socialists pretending they've "lost" because there were no tax hikes?
The "spending cuts" barely amount to a paper cut.
As Rand Paul said:
“The President called for a “balanced approach.” But the American people are calling for a balanced budget. This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt."
Every time The Kenyanesque Hawaiian was declared a naked emperor and enemy of free market capitalism, the left balked. Meanwhile Jugears and Co. have been overclocking the economic engine for three years with non-stop spending. This clown never wanted jobs growth, he wanted 'brakes' on the economy and America in general, they are his idealogical enemies.
taxocrats = traitors
RINOs = traitors


No True Scotsman

Why are the socialists pretending they've "lost" because there were no tax hikes?

The "spending cuts" barely amount to a paper cut.

As Rand Paul said:

“The President called for a “balanced approach.” But the American people are calling for a balanced budget. This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt."

Every time The Kenyanesque Hawaiian was declared a naked emperor and enemy of free market capitalism, the left balked. Meanwhile Jugears and Co. have been overclocking the economic engine for three years with non-stop spending. This clown never wanted jobs growth, he wanted 'brakes' on the economy and America in general, they are his idealogical enemies.

taxocrats = traitors
RINOs = traitors

>> ^Selektaa:

I like him, I've seen him live, but I wonder if he used to be much heavier, because that shirt is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too big on him. As a former (and still kinda) heavy guy, it was honestly distracting


No, I remember watching him on The Comedy Channel (predecessor to Comedy Central) over 20 years ago and he didn't look much different. In one of his specials from a few years ago he points out that he's wearing his "I'm-getting-fat clothes" so my guess is he's wearing the roofers' tarp because he thinks it makes him look better.

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

The Hate-GOP Machine
By Brent Bozell
7/27/2011


The latest polls show the people are not happy with President Obama's handling of budget matters, but Republicans look even worse. And yet, while the GOP delivers one idea after another, Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Why then is the public blaming Republicans more? It is because of the ceaseless, shameless and oftentimes utterly dishonest attacks on them coming from Obama's media hit men. A day doesn't go by without a leftist "news" media outrage. They come in all shapes, too.

First, there is the asinine. Think MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski. There she was broadsiding the Republicans for having refused Obama's proposal. "I think the Republicans look stupid and mean," she declared. "This is stupid. This is a no-brainer in terms of a deal. This is a no-brainer, and they look mean, and they look difficult, and they're going to lose this." But what is "this"? What was Obama's proposal? There was none, just nebulous language about the "wealthy" needing to pay their "fair share," of "revenue," which in the English language means a massive tax hike, which the GOP, correctly, rejects.

There is the inaccurate. MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts loudly complains that the party of the "super-rich" is to blame. "We haven't had tax increases over the last 10 years. We've had a recession; we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"

That's almost exactly upside down. The Tax Foundation has estimated that the top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the entire income-tax burden, and the top 5 percent pays 58 percent. The bottom 50 percent pays nothing in federal tax. With these numbers, it could be argued that the bottom 50 percent has a chokehold on the top 5 percent.

There is the "I've lost all sense of sanity and class" crowd, and yes, we're talking Chris Matthews here. On "Hardball," Joan Walsh of Salon.com said the Republican resistance to new taxes is "deadly and it's wrong and it's hostage-taking, and you shouldn't negotiate with hostage-takers." Matthews had a chance to step in with a gentle, "Whoa, cowgirl." Instead it just carried him away, and he could only add: "I agree. It's terrorism!" A pundit who looks at the debt talks and sees deadly terrorism doesn't need a math class. He needs psychological help.

There is the obsequious. Obama is painted as the perfectly reasonable negotiator who has bent over backward. NBC's Matt Lauer wants to know, "Where is the shared sacrifice going to come from on the Republican side?" CBS's Bob Schieffer insists Obama talks compromise, but "I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that's their negotiating posture."

No one, but no one in the media (outside of Fox News, of course) is calling this double-talking president of ours on the carpet. This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama's binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. "Wait a minute! 'He created with his spending'? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?" Norquist said yes, he wasn't kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: "OK, we're going to pass by that question because that's an unreasonable position."

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is "unreasonable" to say so.

The leftist news media aren't coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They're just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it's their vision that is driving us right over a cliff.

Part of your writing is about what happened and the rest is about what you believe. Are the rich universally callous a-holes who care nothing about their employees? Some are like that, others ain't. Capitalism is like a military tank; it's better to be riding in the turret than getting caught under the treads.

Historically there appears to be more misery when taxocrats run the show than repubs. Why, what's stopping His Earness from announcing he loves socialism and implementing a carbon copy of the European model (have you see Greece lately)?

Not that I have much stake in defending them, but the wealthy pay the most taxes in America, despite the cheaters, that's fact. The bottom 50% don't even pay income tax but suck up plenty of "free" goodies.

There's a moral basis for making others pay a fair share of taxes, but not the lion's share.



>> ^RFlagg:

Let me tell you about "Employers". My former employer, just prior to the Presidential election sent out a memo saying that if Obama won the election and put his tax plan into effect he would have to fire 300 some people. Obama of course won, and even before Obama took the oath of office, they fired on the order of 380 people and told the rest that we wouldn't get a raise that year because the cost of living went down so much. He then went out and bought a private jet and another mansion in Glenmoor (a high end gated Arnold Palmer designed golf community) to add to the one he already had there (the second largest in Glenmoor) and his place on Miami Beach among others. A new year for the companies health care plan rolls around and the rates were supposed to go up 22% (the same amount as last year, but this is not mentioned the memo) but they held the line at only a 5% increase (again just like last year but not mentioned in the memo); the very next sentience of the memo about the health care cost increase goes to say how the company disagrees with Obama's costly health care plan as if it had anything to do with the insurance rate increases that year (one should note it is deceptive stuff like that which they put in their marketing which is why they can't do business in FL, PA, CA and a few others). Then when the Ohio governorship is up for election he sends another memo out talking how under Ted Strickland the company lost 380+ jobs and that we should vote for John Kasich. John Kasich wins and the owner fires 230+ people and once again no raises for anyone. 600+ people out of work but guess who still has his private jet. And it isn't like he is a rare case. Aside from the memos of voter intimidation he is typical of the rich and what they think of their employees. He has been given huge tax credits and incentives from the state, county and cities, but he still hasn't hired many people, and as a matter of fact fired over 600 people (far exceeding those hired by several hundred still) and pocketed the savings so he could get a jet. So don't believe or spread the lie that if we give the rich tax breaks or more money it will eventually help the working class. 30 years of trickle down economics has proven that doesn't happen. Of course you Republicans won't let facts stand in the way of robing the working class to support the rich, and using the media to tell them it is for their own good... sadly too many of the American public is too brain dead to realize they are being coned.
People like that guy is who the Republicans are all about rather blatantly, at least the Democrats pretend to care about the working class even if they don't have the balls to stand up to the Republicans or the rich. Some of the more caring Democrats have a plan that would balance the budget 10 to 20 years faster than the Republican plan, all without cuts to essential services to the working poor. If the Republicans really wanted to balance the budget as they say, and cut spending as they say, then they would go with the People's Budget, but since that cuts into Republican funded things like Tarp and cuts the military budget and raises taxes on the upper 2% they won't have it. Of course Obama and the majority of the Democrats are too chicken to support it themselves...

Let me tell you about "Employers". My former employer, just prior to the Presidential election sent out a memo saying that if Obama won the election and put his tax plan into effect he would have to fire 300 some people. Obama of course won, and even before Obama took the oath of office, they fired on the order of 380 people and told the rest that we wouldn't get a raise that year because the cost of living went down so much. He then went out and bought a private jet and another mansion in Glenmoor (a high end gated Arnold Palmer designed golf community) to add to the one he already had there (the second largest in Glenmoor) and his place on Miami Beach among others. A new year for the companies health care plan rolls around and the rates were supposed to go up 22% (the same amount as last year, but this is not mentioned the memo) but they held the line at only a 5% increase (again just like last year but not mentioned in the memo); the very next sentience of the memo about the health care cost increase goes to say how the company disagrees with Obama's costly health care plan as if it had anything to do with the insurance rate increases that year (one should note it is deceptive stuff like that which they put in their marketing which is why they can't do business in FL, PA, CA and a few others). Then when the Ohio governorship is up for election he sends another memo out talking how under Ted Strickland the company lost 380+ jobs and that we should vote for John Kasich. John Kasich wins and the owner fires 230+ people and once again no raises for anyone. 600+ people out of work but guess who still has his private jet. And it isn't like he is a rare case. Aside from the memos of voter intimidation he is typical of the rich and what they think of their employees. He has been given huge tax credits and incentives from the state, county and cities, but he still hasn't hired many people, and as a matter of fact fired over 600 people (far exceeding those hired by several hundred still) and pocketed the savings so he could get a jet. So don't believe or spread the lie that if we give the rich tax breaks or more money it will eventually help the working class. 30 years of trickle down economics has proven that doesn't happen. Of course you Republicans won't let facts stand in the way of robing the working class to support the rich, and using the media to tell them it is for their own good... sadly too many of the American public is too brain dead to realize they are being coned.
People like that guy is who the Republicans are all about rather blatantly, at least the Democrats pretend to care about the working class even if they don't have the balls to stand up to the Republicans or the rich. Some of the more caring Democrats have a plan that would balance the budget 10 to 20 years faster than the Republican plan, all without cuts to essential services to the working poor. If the Republicans really wanted to balance the budget as they say, and cut spending as they say, then they would go with the People's Budget, but since that cuts into Republican funded things like Tarp and cuts the military budget and raises taxes on the upper 2% they won't have it. Of course Obama and the majority of the Democrats are too chicken to support it themselves...

If they really were with concerned about their men lusting after women, maybe instead of demanding we throw tarps over women they demand that muslim men learn to control their wandering eyes.

Obama is conservative as fuck. He's worse then Bush.

"Fact" and opinion. Both wrong.

More warrantless wiretapping.

Same if not a minor decrease in torture.

Sold us out to Big Pharma Banks & Military Complex.

For fuck sake, he cutting community organization budgets and heating assistance for low income groups.

Just proves my point about the leftmedia. If they'd done their job you would've known he'd turn out this way. It's too bad this Obamian "conservatism" you speak of stops well before low taxes, free markets and the rule of law. And not bowing like a serf to foreign kings and the mayor of Tampa, Florida for fk's sake.

What the fuck else do you want to happen to prove that Obama is in no way liberal or progressive or whatever pejorative label you have for left leaning ideology?

How bout that whole POS unaffordable socialized medicine scheme 26 states have now filed lawsuits against? Remember that? Remember the failed scamulus? TARP? Bailouts? And yes Bush is also to blame, but only for starting crap that a "conservative" Obama would've tried to stop. But as we all know, NO ONE outspends taxocrats and by gosh, they'll prove it! Ever stop and wonder why crony capitalism looks so much like socialism?

The entirety of United States politics has shifted more and more to this crazy neo-conservative free-market less government-but-we-still-want-govern-who-you-marry-&-force-you-to-have-babies mentality since 2000.

Really? Abortion is still legal. Civil unions are recognized by many states. Government is an ever-bigger gorilla with a machine gun. Taxes will go up and the 'crats know it: "someone" has to pay for all this indolence and the 50-fucking-percent of Americans who pay NO federal income tax but suck up plenty of government entitlements.

The entire world is owned my wealthy bankers and war profiteers. They all favor the "conservative" mentality you hold because it makes them more money.

Wrong and wrong. You're prejudiced against the wealthy because you believe that life is a zero-sum game. In other words, someone has to "lose" at economics so someone else can "win". You believe that life is a lottery and those who have money have simply been "fortunate" without doing anything to earn it. If the liberal phantasy of giving everyone an equal share of $$$ (by force) were to come true, as long as markets were allowed to work, by the end of the week the poor would be poor again. You've been brainwashed by 12 years of government schooling followed by indoctrination at 'kollij'. Where do you think all those otherwise unemployable 1960s marxist dinosaurs are hiding from reality? The universities. No one busting their ass in the real world to survive only to hand over 40% to the federal mafia believes this BS. Yeah, life is unfair and freedom is hard. And BTW, no, I am not rich, and I don't believe I have a "right" to plunder my neighbor's wealth.

You're too narrow-minded and indoctrinated to understand that.

I hope you don't have kids. I would feel sorry for them.


You undermine your "devastating" talking points with personal attacks. I would hope you own a library card. And use it.

p.s. - Obama is Political Science Major who taught Constitutional Law.

Palin majored in journalism.. yet can't name any newpaper or magazine she reads regularly.

The "scholar" who doesn't understand America and is a total ingrate for the opportunities he received, now reviled as a clueless idiot by all except the diehards and the leftmedia VERSUS the "dumb" beauty queen who loves America and recognizes American Exceptionalism, and thus so terrifies the left they're still attacking her.

Now you can continue your point about who is more qualified as a president.

It's done. I would vote for this over the dangerous crypto-marxist who believes in unlimited federal power.

>> ^lantern53:
50% of the people in this country pay no income tax. Yet they have an equal voice in government and hence the threat of the taking of private property that belongs to another.


Let's break that one down into the component logical assertions:

1. 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax.
   
2. All people have an equal voice in government.
   
3. People only pay no income tax when their incomes are so low that the standard deduction reduces their obligation to zero. (unstated, but common knowledge)
   
4. People with low incomes are more prone to "[take] private property that belongs to another", i.e. "steal" (strongly implied)
   

Once you decompose that argument a bit, you realize that even if I grant you 1-3 for the sake of argument, #4 is unquestionably a prejudicial statement without any real basis in fact.

Were you in favor of TARP, or did you decry that as a bailout? Given that the banksters have a team of lobbyists constantly petitioning the government for favors, and you seem to think of taxation as theft, isn't it rich people trying to steal every time major corporations ask the government for even one dollar of subsidy?

Does that really change if it's a tax credit, like the standard deduction that (supposedly) lets 50% of people pay no income tax?
>> ^lantern53:

It is a valid point.

No, it's really not.

Daddy's little princess.

Hey! Did they just put a tarp down at the office?

Daddy, why are they putting a tarp over that car?

Don't look son. . . don't look.

>> ^Lowen:

We know vaccines work because we checked to see if they work via scientific method. The results were and are very clear, so the medical community can say with certainty that they work and are not snake oil.
I challenge you to find this clarity, or even a consensus, similar to what vaccination enjoys with the medical profession, within the community of economic experts.

Let's turn this double standard right on around. I challenge you to find the level of clarity, or even a consensus, similar to what vaccination enjoys with the medical profession, within the community of economic experts, that says to believe these programs were effective is akin to believing that human sacrifice is effective.

>> ^Lowen:
They are not the same.
and, FYI my comment was a sarcastic remark, not a serious comparison.

Right, and when I responded to your hyperbole with my own, you dismissed it. You didn't present an argument, you just flapped your yap with completely unjustified smug certainty.

I'm certainly up to hashing through an in-depth debate of whether any of these programs did what they were supposed to, if you put forth an actual argument. But I'm going to treat a snide, off the cuff remark like a snide, off the cuff remark.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lowen:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lowen:
By the same logic Rachel uses, human sacrifice as practiced by the Aztec also worked.

By the same logic you're using, we should be deeply skeptical that vaccination works.

No, not really.

The logic Rachel is using is scientific method, established by experts in their respective fields. TARP did better than anyone ever dreamed it would. The stimulus created the number of jobs it was expected to, and health care reform is a massive improvement to the system on every front.
You're basing your comment on what logic, exactly? We did all this stuff, and nothing obviously good happened, therefore it must have had no effect?
Again, that logic implies you should be skeptical of vaccination. Nothing's wrong, they stick you with a needle, and then there's no apparent effect. Vaccines must be snake oil!


We know vaccines work because we checked to see if they work via scientific method. The results were and are very clear, so the medical community can say with certainty that they work and are not snake oil.

I challenge you to find this clarity, or even a consensus, similar to what vaccination enjoys with the medical profession, within the community of economic experts.

They are not the same.

and, FYI my comment was a sarcastic remark, not a serious comparison. However I stand by the point I was making. Even if you're right and we know that these programs actually worked, neither you nor Rachael offer any evidence for believing why they worked beyond saying that some experts believe so. While it's fine to start with expert opinions, it isn't enough to justify your smug certainty.