74 responses

  1. Barbara Orla
    Thursday Nov 8th, 2012

    I agree with you Big Dog. I’m sure there was fraud and Obama and the dems have no conscience. I emailed Fox News after they declared Obama the winner and told them I wanted the announcement changed to “the winner cannot be declared until every vote is in in every state and checked for fraud.” I don’t care how many days it takes. How can I go about getting this changed?

  2. victoria
    Thursday Nov 8th, 2012

    It sure seems pretty fishy. But it is like Hannity said, the Democrats ran the dirtiest rottenest campaign ever and said Romney was a felon, and murderer etc. etc. and like Miller said on OReilly, “If it has become that Romney is what’s wrong with this nation, then we are in trouble.” The Democrats have no low that they are not willing to sink to and no shame. It was below the office of the presidency to behave in that manner. Romney wasn’t the most conservative for my liking but he was an honest kind decent man and I believe he loves this country and would have done everything in his power to get the economy back on track unlike this poser we have in there again. Someone posted a picture of the White House on my facebook with the caption, “The only house in this country that Romney couldn’t buy.” That is what people were convinced of, like Obama didn’t just do that. I truly am embarrassed for my country and sad too. I don’t think the US is going to be here in 2016 for another election. This constitutional republic is over and done with which is Obama’s plan all along. Clowerd and Piven (sp) remember overwhelm the country from within and turn it into a dictatorship.

  3. Adam
    Thursday Nov 8th, 2012

    I was wondering when you’d weigh in on the election. I’m a bit disturbed to see you suggesting what you’re suggesting. I hope you’re kidding about this, but let me address a couple of your points anyway:

    “Republican turn out was 3 million lower than in 2008 and Obama hit his numbers?”

    What do you mean by Obama “hit his numbers?” Romney had only 1.8 million fewer votes than McCain while Obama had 8.3 million fewer than he had in 2008.

    “How else can one explain internal polling that showed Romney winning battleground states by a comfortable margin?”

    Actual vote margins and voter ID levels matched weeks worth of external polling from multiple pollsters. It’s doubtful that internal polling showed anything different.

    “Obama did not win in ANY state that requires a photo ID to vote.”

    Actually, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania require a photo ID to vote.

    “Barack Obama is illegitimate. He won because of fraud and this was his plan because he knew he would not win otherwise.”

    Let’s think about this reasonably. Assuming Florida goes for Obama, he won 25 states. Of those 25, he won 13 states with less than a 10% margin. I think we can agree that Obama can’t steal 10% of the vote in a state, right? Of those 13 he won only 7 by fewer than 100,000 votes. I think we can agree that Obama can’t steal 100,000 votes in a single state.

    Subtract those 7 states and that leaves Obama with just 255 electoral votes, needing 15 to win. Let’s take Iowa and Colorado which gave Obama 9 and 6 votes and where Obama leads by 88,629 and 86,138. Do you think tens of thousands of fake voters were bussed in? Or tens of thousands of people had their votes changed because of faulty touch screen programming without noticing?

    The reality is a lot like last time when some folks called the election stolen by Obama. We know that’s impossible, much like this one is. There You’re talking massive and widespread fraud on the level which would not go unnoticed. Contrast this to 2000 where the entire election hung on one single state, Florida, where the margin was only 537 votes. Remind me what you felt about that election and whether it was stolen?

    • Big Dog
      Friday Nov 9th, 2012

      You have been quiet for a while because you thought he was going to lose and now you are here to try and spin it. Facts are facts. PA does NOT have an ID requirement. A judge blocked it and it was not in force for this election. Michigan and New Hampshire only REQUEST photo IDs and can’t stop you from voting if you do not have one. So nice try. Look at the “turn out” in Philly. In some CO counties more people voted than live there and in Ohio Somalis were bused in and given pre filled ballots or told how to vote. Only a moron would believe that voter turn out was lower on the right after the energy that went into this. How about the voting machine problems?

      There was massive widespread problems that went unnoticed because the GOP judges were thrown out. I also suspect some folks registered as GOP judges but were not really Republican. Yes, this was a massive fraud. In heavily Democrat areas they push up the vote in order to offset other places.

      It is what it is and I hope they prosecute but good luck with your future. You’ll be paying for it long after I am dead.

    • Eduardo
      Sunday Nov 11th, 2012

      The touch screen problems are the distraction, not the move. I could write a self-deleting algorithm that would convert a % of Romney votes to Obama or straight GOP votes to straight Dem, whatever I want. I could alter the algorithm by county so you wouldn’t have Obama winning a heavy coal area. If I used 10% and the state was 50-50, it would turn it 55-45 Obama, so yes 10% can be stolen.

      Just consider this. In Pennsylvania, court ordered GOP observers were thrown out by local election officials. One area where this happened recorded 9955 votes for Obama and 55 for Romney.

    • Blake
      Tuesday Nov 13th, 2012

      Adam, When I went to vote in my precinct (and mind you, this is TEXAS), I was told that several of the machines “inexplicably”, when punched for the Republican, auto-switched for Obammy- and when I voted, before I entered my ballot I checked, and, yes, it had switched my vote, so I cleared the machine of all my choices, and this time, I entered a straight Republican ticket( which I have never before done- and it did it again, so I rinsed and repeated. This time I was recorded truthfully- but when I got out of that booth, I had to tell them they should take that machine out of the system. Perhaps it was just a software glitch, of perhaps it was intentional, I do not know, but I have heard of several stories similar to mine, and I cannot find anyone who will admit to voting for that tyrannical POS.
      Go figure.

  4. victoria
    Thursday Nov 8th, 2012

    This probably about says it all right here.
    http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4497

  5. carter
    Thursday Nov 8th, 2012

    I especially enjoyed a conservative opining that God had let us down. There is not a conservative site with a correct sense of optimism and there is the problem people. You thought all we had to do was plug and play. Get the values right, get the right candidate, get the right topics, broaden the base and hey, lets get everybody praying and surely this thing will work especially when we rub Dick Cheney’s bald head.
    Ronald Reagan was brought to the stage because people were desperate and they prayed like they were desperate and it was God who gave America that savior. We ran on that head of steam for 30 years but we always thought it was a formula. Well, the formula failed because it was a formula, we didn’t have the Spirit, we didn’t have God’s mind for this time. Instead we have Resident Evil in the White House and these proud people are running their proud tongues as though there was no Creator. But God does see it. He says in His Word that those who observe lying vanities forsake their own (God’s) mercy. We act like there is no God in heaven; as though he does not rule in the midst of His enemies and that His Kingdom is over all. The Democrats are on a slippery slope and they are opposing Almighty God. Things may look bleak but our hope must be in God’s “plenteous redemption” His ability to work things out for good, His way is to bring life out of death and who knows how this will play out for America. Even if we are being harshly judged God always judges with a view toward redemption. Do you believe that God was after something when He formed this Country? I do too so we shouldn’t say we have no hope. A hand can come out of the wall at Barry’s next party pronouncing doom to his Administration for their corruption, unforseen events both natural and material can change everything and it will be patriots who will rise to the new challenges. Go ahead and throw your sucker in the dirt my friend, I’m commanded to give thanks and to not give up hope because it is God who will undertake. And when He does America will again see a brighter day. What we are seeing is the desolation of the wicked and we are told not to fear, we will arise and stand upright.
    In the meantime, watch your six, reduce your footprint and get out of debt.

    • victoria
      Friday Nov 9th, 2012

      If you read the Harbinger–All of Israel had to suffer for the idolators. And America may rise again but in the meantime all of Israel will go down with the ship.

  6. Adam
    Thursday Nov 8th, 2012

    Victoria: “I don’t think the US is going to be here in 2016 for another election. This constitutional republic is over and done with which is Obama’s plan all along.”

    Sorry, Victoria, but that is the same unhinged garbage we heard from your side in 2008 and yet we’re still here and doing fine four years later. In fact we’re stronger today than we were four years ago. It’s sad that as soon as a Democrat wins the White House your side pivots away from touting American greatness and exceptionalism to instead touting our weakness and our instability and suggesting the end of our nation is at hand.

    • victoria
      Friday Nov 9th, 2012

      Boy that just shows what a dream world your in.

      • Adam
        Friday Nov 9th, 2012

        Let’s talk dream worlds for a minute. Do you agree or disagree that this election was stolen by President Obama?

    • Big Dog
      Friday Nov 9th, 2012

      How can you say we are doing fine? Let us not forget that Obama now does not have to worry about reelection. He is already pushing carbon taxes and gun control measures he shied from before the election. Unhinged? From the same guy who blamed Bush, who had a BETTER economic record (let us not forget the Dems took control of Congress and gave us the mess when the Clinton/Carter CRA bomb exploded). Obama has created no new jobs and added 6 TRILLION to the debt. He is now unbridled in his quest to make us a Socialist nation.

      What will the leeches do when the rest of us say no?

      What is sad is how you remained quiet when Americans were murdered at the hands of this guy and you voted for him. I said this before, F*ck everyone who voted for him. I will be fine, I don’t care if others are sleeping on snow covered streets or have no jobs. I hope they suffer immensely.

  7. victoria
    Friday Nov 9th, 2012

    I was not referring to that. However, since you ask, I wouldn’t put anything past him. I was referring to what has been done so far and what is going to be done.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-many-businesses-have-announced-closings-or-lay-offs-since-obama-won-a-second-term/

    • Adam
      Friday Nov 9th, 2012

      Companies are laying off employees all the time. The markets have been in decline for 30 days. None of this is the fault of the election as some have suggested. But this is the same thing we saw last time when Obama won.

      After 2008 Hannity and others said “Is this the Obama bear market?” only to stop talking about Obama and the markets when they started what would be a near 100% growth back to pre-recession levels in the three years since the recession ended.

      • Big Dog
        Friday Nov 9th, 2012

        Right, I guess you will spin all those defense layoffs that Obama forced companies not to send notices for before the election in violation of the law.

        The good thing is he has no mandate so he will be held in check. If not then, to quote Jarrett, there will be hell to pay. I hate the commie b*stard and will not support anything he does.

        A guy in Chicago told me they report to the polls early to get the “early” vote in the machines.

        What does that tell you?

        If a bus load of Obama voters drives off a cliff, is it a tragedy? No, the tragedy is if there was an empty seat.

        I hate liberals and hate them even more. I am tired of paying for them. Screw them all.

      • Big Dog
        Friday Nov 9th, 2012

        You can spin market numbers any way you want. The unemployment numbers were spun prior to the election (there is no way that drop could have been that drastic) and they will rise now that it is over.

        You all got what you asked for. Just don’t put your hand in my face for charity. Call Obama.

      • Adam
        Friday Nov 9th, 2012

        “You have been quiet for a while because you thought he was going to lose and now you are here to try and spin it.”

        Actually, I’ve been very active on Watchblog.com defending Obama and projecting Obama the winner in the weeks up to the election. There were a lot of conservatives there projecting landslide for Romney and some are a bit hard to find since President Obama won.

        “Michigan and New Hampshire only REQUEST photo IDs and can’t stop you from voting if you do not have one.”

        You have to sign an affidavit to vote without one and the identities are checked later. There is no way to vote without your ID verified in those states. The reason Obama lost most states with photo ID requirements is simply because most of the states able to pass that legislation are red states he was never going to win anyway. There are exceptions though of course.

        “There was massive widespread problems that went unnoticed because the GOP judges were thrown out.”

        I’m not going to suggest there weren’t problems in states like there are every single election. You just have no basis to suggest the problems add up to a clear sign Obama is not the legitimately and clearly elected President of the United States. He is. He won. The amount of fraud that would change that would be monumental and there would be no way to hide it.

        “I hate liberals and hate them even more. I am tired of paying for them. Screw them all. … I said this before, F*ck everyone who voted for him.”

        That opinion is one reason I’d rather argue with conservatives on Watchblog than on here, by the way. I only commented to point out the lack of logic behind suggesting Obama stole the election. I simply expected you to take a more reasoned approach to the loss than you have because there was a lot of good outcomes for conservatives in the election as well given strength in Congress and at the state levels. But anyway…

      • Big Dog
        Friday Nov 9th, 2012

        Spin it as you will. Remember how you acted in 2000 when there was no fraud that cost Gore the election?

        I have to take my shots when I get the chance, you are scarce. I should say I hate the liberal ideology. There are plenty of liberals I like as people. I had a good time when we went out to dinner and it would be nice to do that again.

        It is a truth though, I do not like to pay for other people. No matter what happens I know they can count on you to spin it for them. look at how you ravaged Bush when he had a better economy (during the first 6 years you were brutal when UE was low and wages up). But that is partisan politics. I pray he does not get his way.

        But you want unhinged. None of the right was threatening to riot or assassinate Obama if he won. There were a great number of folks on the left doing that.

        The numbers do not add up. There are people who voted who should not have and the numbers of people bused in to cast illegal ballots made a difference.

        When more people vote than actually live in a place then it can affect an election.

        Conservatives should boycott states that went Obama. Don’t visit CA or FL or NV (make the unions in Las Vegas pay). I see a lot of jobs going away. Obamacare alone will end a couple hundred thousand jobs. And how do you feel about how Obama handled Sandy? It is worse than Bush and Katrina and you blasted Bush.

        Heck of a job Barry…

      • Adam
        Friday Nov 9th, 2012

        “I had a good time when we went out to dinner and it would be nice to do that again.”

        And I consider you a real friend, not just someone I know online. The best thing about knowing you is getting your perspective on the military which is obviously something I don’t have. I had a friend who was a Marine who served in Vietnam but he recently passed away.

        “Remember how you acted in 2000 when there was no fraud that cost Gore the election?”

        The election came down to 500 votes so at that point every issue with voting is in question. Every ballot spoiled, every person incorrectly identified as a felon mattered a thousand times more.

        A better example is that I was upset about the outcome of Ohio in 2004 but when you consider the margin of victory you see those arguments lacking. It was wrong of me to question the legitimacy of President Bush’s election based on a state where irregularities could not amount to a shift in the outcome. At that point it’s a different topic of debate.

        “And how do you feel about how Obama handled Sandy? It is worse than Bush and Katrina and you blasted Bush.”

        Worse than Bush and Katrina? Was it really though? I haven’t heard anyone suggest there were failures that rivaled Katrina and that Obama was to blame. Just ask Governor Christie.

  8. victoria
    Friday Nov 9th, 2012

  9. AlphaCat
    Saturday Nov 10th, 2012

    RE “He is now unbridled in his quest to make us a Socialist nation.”
    You are aware that Republicans are hot to pour money into one of the world’s largest socialist undertakings, aren’t you? Romney ran on the promise to increase the socialism. I refer, of course, to the United States military. Obama hopes to reduce this wasteful socialism.

    RE “I don’t care if others are sleeping on snow covered streets or have no jobs. I hope they suffer immensely.”
    That’s very Christian of you. By the way, the blatant hypocrisy of the GOP is two reasons Romney lost.

    RE “You’ll be paying for it long after I am dead.”
    I myself am looking forward to doing a lot of things after you’re dead. If I can find your grave, maybe I’ll dance on it.

    One thing about big dogs: for those who attend to their civic duty, it takes a big scoop to clean up after one.

    ___________________________________________________________

    Arguing with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog’s vomit: it’s an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn’t much help, and it is very clear that he will swallow anything.

    • Blake
      Tuesday Nov 13th, 2012

      Oh, Obammy is a socialist, of that there is no doubt, and his obamascare law is going to make the nation poorer- of THAT there is no doubt-
      RE “I myself am looking forward to doing a lot of things after you’re dead. If I can find your grave, maybe I will dance on it.”- How Christian of YOU- by the way< I an no hypocrite here- I am serious in that I would like to read your entrails someday, but you are doubtless hiding in some liberal pot-smoking brothel with the others of loose reputation.

      • AlphaCat
        Tuesday Nov 13th, 2012

        RE “Obammy is a socialist”
        Never minding your lack of doubt, do cite your evidence that Obama is more of a socialist than, say, Ronald Reagan.

        RE “obamascare law is going to make the nation poorer”
        And your evidence for this is…? Economists, the insurance industry and the medical industry disagree. On a side note, it’s interesting that you call it “Obamascare”. You tough-talkers are actually a bunch of whiny cowards. There is nothing else to explain– or back up– your rhetoric; science says it’s the way your brains are built.

        RE “How Christian of YOU”
        Ah, but you see, I was just being agreeable: Big Dog and I want the same thing. It is important to find common ground in a discussion like this. Also note that as an individual and as a liberal, I have never claimed the mantle of godliness, as you conservatives have. And since we know that conservatives hate Muslims (with their evil planted president), don’t trust Jews (with their liberalmedia and ties to the world banking system), have no use for Buddhists (damned peaceniks), apparently aren’t Hindus (they’d all come back as cockroaches)– well, that pretty much sticks you with that Christian godliness, which is not too keen on wishing suffering on the poor.

        I hope you signed the Texas secession petition.

      • Big Dog
        Tuesday Nov 13th, 2012

        Obama said he hung with the Socialists in school and he told us he believes in redistribution.

        I don’t know which economists outside the Obama toadies who agree. The CBO says it will cost more and I have only talked to one doctor who likes it. I heard another on the radio who said she did. All the other doctors I have spoken to do not like it (and I talk to a lot of doctors in my profession) not to mention the studies that show a few hundred thousand health care professionals might leave the profession. So think what you will but one only needs to look at Endgland to see the mess.

        As for the assertions you make about Christians, i think you are mistaking them for liberals. Christians believe in live and let live. Jews and Christians do not kill Muslims for being Muslim but Muslims kill anyone not a Muslim.

      • AlphaCat
        Tuesday Nov 13th, 2012

        RE “Obama said he hung with the Socialists in school”
        So? I hung with the jocks in school, but I was not, and am not, a jock.

        RE “he told us he believes in redistribution.”
        If the best you can rely on is an out-of-context quote– and we see how well that worked at the Republican National Convention– go ahead. Obama was talking about redistribution of government resources at the local level in order to increase efficiency, not about redistribution of wealth.

        RE “I don’t know which economists…”
        Of course you don’t.

        RE “The CBO says it will cost more”
        I see you’re changing the argument from “make the nation poorer” to “costs more”. These are not the same thing. A Lexus costs more than a Malibu; it also is a better car. Obamacare is, like it or not, an improvement over the former status quo. Better health care for more people is good for the economy.

        RE “I have only talked to one doctor who likes it”
        Not that anecdotal evidence is useful, but I have talked to a lot of doctors and others in allied professions, and they all like Obamacare– but many of them would prefer a single-payer system. Thanks to the generous input of Republicans and the insurance and medical industries, Obamacare is quite the camel– but it is still an improvement.

        RE “As for the assertions you make about Christians, i think you are mistaking them for liberals.”
        Not at all. It is quite clear that I refer particularly to the Republican Party, evangelical Christians, and other conservatives who claim that they are Christian. You might or might not be a Christian yourself, but it doesn’t matter: conservatism has claimed the aegis of God Himself.

        RE “Christians believe in live and let live.”
        What is the chapter and verse on that? Jesus never said it. And as a claim that Christians are tolerant of other religions (which is not absolutely true), it does not address the issue of the un-Christian hope that people suffer.

        RE “Jews and Christians do not kill Muslims for being Muslim but Muslims kill anyone not a Muslim.”
        That is neither true nor relevant.

      • Big Dog
        Tuesday Nov 13th, 2012

        I think the quote to Joe the plumber was in context and dealt with redistributing someone else’s money. And to be clear, there are no government resources that do not come from taxpayers thus he will redistribute taxpayer money. He enacts Socialist policies and has Socialist ideas. If it walks… And was it Time or Newsweek that claimed we are all Socialists now? What made them say that, hmmm?

        You can be condescending if you want but I have read plenty of economists who simply do not agree. Talk about taking a quote out of context, you did it right there.

        If it costs more and we can’t afford it (we have to borrow the money) then it will make us poorer. If you can afford a Malibu and by the Lexus that you can’t afford, it makes you poorer.

        It might be anecdotal evidence but survey after survey supports it. As a health care professional I am involved in it daily. My own physician told me of the burdens and that he might have to get out if he can’t keep up so it is not like the feeling does not exist. The health care system can certainly do with improvements but Obamacare is not an improvement. It is and will be a nightmare.

        There is no proof of your accusations regarding Republicans claiming God for themselves. I have not seen this. I have seen many groups claim God for themselves. Liberals find God when it is convenient like when they are running for office.

        Your last comment is simply false.

        It is obvious that you require someone else to care for you.

        What did we ever do as a nation before taxes on income and government mandated healthcare (that will still NOT cover everyone)?

      • AlphaCat
        Wednesday Nov 14th, 2012

        RE “I think the quote to Joe the plumber was in context and dealt with redistributing someone else’s money.”
        The famous and ubiquitously-repeated-in-truncated-form-by-the-vconservative-echo-chamber “redistribution” quote, which I took to be your reference because of the superficiality of most of your rhetoric, dates from 1998, long before Joe the Plumber’s fifteen minutes of fame:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4
        If there is another one, please provide a source for it.

        RE “And to be clear, there are no government resources that do not come from taxpayers thus he will redistribute taxpayer money.”
        Taxes paid is not personal wealth. It is the price paid by honorable, self-sufficient citizens for the privilege of using societal resources to become wealthy. The implication– and sometimes the explication– of the “redistribution” claim is that the Marxist usurper-President is going to take all of everybody’s money and dole it out. That is not the case.

        RE “He enacts Socialist policies and has Socialist ideas.”
        Like the military and interstate highways, you mean. I like the way you capitalize the “s” in “socialism”. It makes a big word look scarier and more impressive.

        RE “If it walks…”
        …then it has better legs than your argument.

        RE “And was it Time or Newsweek that claimed we are all Socialists now?
        Wow– you actually found something worth citing in Newsweek? Most conservatives label them as part of the liberalmedia and refuse to acknowledge the information, based on that label.

        RE “What made them say that, hmmm?”
        The author was making fun of Sean Hannity. Hmmm….
        http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/02/06/we-are-all-socialists-now.html
        RE “You can be condescending if you want”
        Thank you. You are a kind host.

        RE “Talk about taking a quote out of context, you did it right there.”
        I was just agreeing with you. And in my defense, I must note that I didn’t then use it as the theme for a national political convention. Nor did I use it to bolster a false characterization of the President– or of you.

        RE “If it costs more and we can’t afford it (we have to borrow the money) then it will make us poorer.”
        If that is your argument, then the health care system before Obamacare needed to be ditched. It was the most expensive health care in the world,
        http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/oecd042111.cfm
        out of reach for many citizens and creating financial ruin for many. Using the statistical pooling that makes the insurance industry work in the first place, Obamacare makes healthcare more accessible and less expensive, so that is an improvement.

        RE “It is and will be a nightmare.”
        Yet conservatives originated the idea. Obamacare has much of its basis– particularly the individual mandate– in work done by economist Alain Enthoven and the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s. Obamacare is very similar to the Republican alternative to Hillarycare. Obamacare is less liberal than Romneycare– which seems to work just fine. Obamacare was crafted with more substantive Republican amendments than Democrat, and its most controversial terms were negotiated in advance with the insurance and healthcare industries. Whatever you think of it, it will ultimately be less of a nightmare than what preceded it.

        RE “There is no proof of your accusations regarding Republicans claiming God for themselves.”
        I said that Republicans and conservatives claim to be the godly ones. No proof– other than the Dominionists, the Christian Revisionists, the demonization (literally!) of the Democratic Party and liberals in general as atheists, secular humanists, godless and so on, the heavy promotion of Republican/conservative candidates and issues in the Catholic and evangelical Protestant churches, the pamphlets I got in the mail, Mike Huckabee’s political ads,….

        RE “Your last comment is simply false.”
        Not at all. You said “Muslims kill anyone not a Muslim.” I have attended school with, in groups with, alone with, and generally around a lot of Muslims. Not one of them killed me– a non-Muslim.

        RE “It is obvious that you require someone else to care for you.”
        Not yet, but we built our house to accommodate mobility impairment and home health care, just in case.

        RE “What did we ever do as a nation before taxes on income and government mandated healthcare…”
        Levied other kinds of taxes. And government-mandated health care dates back to 1798. Better question: what did we do as a nation after we levied taxes on income? Won two world wars, built the greatest nation in history, created a notion of American Exceptionalism that the whole world believed (whether they liked it or not), outlasted the Soviet Union,…. And just think– we did that with higher top marginal tax rates than we have now– over ninety percent for a while. Rather makes you think– if you’re so inclined.

        RE “…(that will still NOT cover everyone)?”
        Someday we’ll have single-payer, which will solve that problem– not that you actually consider it a problem.

      • Big Dog
        Thursday Nov 15th, 2012

        Your taxes paid is quite interesting. First of all, taxes paid is the wealth of the person paying it. We the people provide this money for essential government services and not for government to waste it. You also point out that honorable self sufficient people pay taxes. Since the wealthy pay most of the taxes you admit they are honorable and self sufficient and not the unpatriotic jerks the left makes them out to be. And by implication you admit that the 47% who pay no income taxes ore not honorable and are not self sufficient.

        We will not have single payer someday because this nation will not survive long enough. The Republic is on its way out as more and more people take from fewer and fewer paying in. As the wage earners die off (or move) the dishonorable (your description) will fight amongst themselves for the scraps left behind while the ruling elites laugh.

        The nation did not have universal or government mandated health care that long ago. The military is not a Socialist organization (if anything it is more like a caste) and it matter not to me who came up with th eidea of a mandate it is wrong. Government cannot force people to buy a product. The SCOTUS had to ignore the Constitution and rewrite Obamacare to make the mandate a tax in order to bless it. Obama and Democrats said it was not a tax then it should have been treated as such and sent back to Congress. Of course, we fought the first revolution over taxes…

        Just as I do not blindly follow Heritage (as evidenced by rejecting the idea you claim they first came up with) I can attribute to a liberal source when it is deserved. Newsweek was right in its description.

        The Communist Party claims it won in the last election and since Obama was a member I guess they are somewhat correct.

        Obama has discussed redistributive policies for his entire career including when he was a community aggitator. He talks about a level playing field, people with more money paying even more than they do for those who have less, he sided with the occupy morons and he studied under Marxist professors. I know you have trouble seeing it because of your blind allegiance but he is cut from the cloth of those kinds of people. Grandparents were Commies, parents were Commies…

        I capitalize the word Socialist because I refer to people who act or who I think act like they belong to or desire to belong to that party (or philosophy). That is proper use and has nothing to do with being scary. When not using it to refer to the party I usually capitalize it to emphasize the word or to maintain consistency.

        I am sorry that you were scared by a capital letter…

        Perhaps Obama can protect you. Maybe but not if you are in Libya or the womb…

      • AlphaCat
        Wednesday Nov 14th, 2012

        [I somehow managed to quote your preceding comment in my previous comment. If such is possible, perhaps you would be so kind as to remove the reiteration of your post. Thank you.]

      • Big Dog
        Thursday Nov 15th, 2012

        Done

      • AlphaCat
        Thursday Nov 15th, 2012

        RE “First of all, taxes paid is the wealth of the person paying it.”
        Wealth is money one makes beyond what is required to meet living expenses and small savings. Taxes are a living expense. It’s how we pay for the privilege of living in a country with socialized military, local services, infrastructure, and whatever other amenities we decide as a whole to provide to ourselves. I should think a person such as yourself with pretensions to self-sufficiency and self-responsibility would understand that when he agrees to live in a society, he has to pull his own weight in paying for that society.

        RE “Since the wealthy pay most of the taxes you admit they are honorable and self sufficient”
        Up to a point. They also complain a lot and dodge a lot of taxes, even as they derive huge benefits from society.

        RE ” And by implication you admit that the 47% who pay no income taxes ore not honorable and are not self sufficient.”
        That’s not my implication; that’s your inference, and it is not correct. These people pay state income taxes. Most of them also pay payroll taxes. Many of them are retired, and live at such low incomes that they are not required to pay income taxes– having paid into Social Security all of their working lives, by the way. Many of them are disabled. Here’s a chart:
        http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/09/daily-chart-9
        If you don’t like the income thresholds for federal tax liability, blame the Bush tax cuts, which raised the thresholds. If you don’t like the 47% number, blame the Bush tax cuts, which raised the rate of non-payers from about 33% to about 50%. That Bush– what a socialist.

        RE “We will not have single payer someday because this nation will not survive long enough. The Republic is on its way out as more and more people take from fewer and fewer paying in.”
        You call yourself a big dog, but you bark and quiver and you have bulging eyes like a chihuahua. I hope you live in a nice, safe cave.

        RE “The nation did not have universal or government mandated health care that long ago.”
        See http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act#

        RE “As the wage earners die off”
        You must be confused. The people who are going to die off are the Social Security recipients and disabled among the 47% of people that you dislike so much.

        RE “The military is not a Socialist organization”
        Sure it is. All taxpayers pay for it, whether they like it or not. It protects even those who do not pay taxes. How is that not socialist?

        RE “it matter not to me who came up with th eidea of a mandate it is wrong.”
        Apparently not– it’s still in place. And how dare you dismiss our Founding Fathers like that?

        RE “The SCOTUS had to ignore the Constitution…”
        And of course you are more expert in constitutional law than the Supreme Court justices are. Perhaps Obama will nominate you for a seat on their bench.

        RE “…and rewrite Obamacare to make the mandate a tax in order to bless it.”
        They didn’t rewrite it; they reinterpreted it. And the Obama administration had anticipated the interpretation; they went with the penalty angle instead because, frankly, it would sell better.

        RE “Of course, we fought the first revolution over taxes…”
        Among other things. Talk about dishonorable– reneging on all of those contracts.

        RE “rejecting the idea you claim they first came up with”
        I don’t just claim that they did– they did. See http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

        RE “I can attribute to a liberal source when it is deserved.”
        So an opinion piece making fun of an opinion deserves citation as proof of something, but a Supreme Court opinion doesn’t? Interesting. And you are going to tell me about consistency.

        RE “He talks about a level playing field”
        So did Mitt Romney. So do most conservatives.

        RE “people with more money paying even more than they do for those who have less”
        Actually, he talks about people with more paying at a rate commensurate with the benefits they receive from society. To the extent that he is talking about paying the same effective rate as people with lower incomes, he’s talking about the same thing as a flat tax.

        RE “he studied under Marxist professors”
        I had a few libertarian teachers, but I’m no libertarian. You used to soil your diapers. Do you still sit around in your own feces? (You don’t need to answer that.)

        RE “parents were Commies…”
        So? My father is a Republican– thanks to the Southern Strategy.

        RE “When not using it to refer to the party I usually capitalize it to emphasize the word…”
        As I noted.

        RE “…or to maintain consistency.”
        “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” –Ralph Waldo Emerson
        “Consistency is more important than correctness.” –Mediocrites

        RE “I am sorry that you were scared by a capital letter…”
        No more than when a frightened cat arches its back at me.

        RE “Perhaps Obama can protect you.”
        Insofar as he is a better, more steady president than Romney would have been, he probably can. Of course he will have help from our socialized military.

        RE “Maybe but not if you are in Libya or the womb…”
        Romney would have been more of a danger to me were I in Libya. Protecting pre-persons in the womb is not really the president’s job. His duty is to actual persons who are citizens.

      • Big Dog
        Friday Nov 16th, 2012

        The discussion is about FEDERAL Income taxes. It is always amazing to me how liberals will discuss FEDERAL Income taxes and benefits derived from the FEDERAL government and then when one points out that 47% do not pay taxes (in reference to the FEDERAL argument) liberals go off on the state and Social Security tangent. SS is what one pays to allegedly provide for his OWN retirement. It matters not that the money is not used that way and has been wasted. What matters is that one is paying for his own retirement. In fact many people who get SS paid a minimum amount and get bac far more than they ever paid in. I know it is difficult for liberals but if we are discussing FEDERAL taxes then it is wise to stay on topic. State taxes are a state by state issue. I could easily point out that the argument is untrue since some states have NO income tax while others have high income taxes. The poor in Texas pay none and the wealthy in New York pay a lot. On the FEDERAL level, we are all in the same pool. 47% of that pool pays nothing.

        The reality is the wealthy pay most of the taxes and the poor derive most of the benefits. The poor get welfare and the wealthy do not. In fact, the wealthy pay more for government than the poor so even though we all are supposed to get the same benefit from government the wealthy pay more for it. We need roads and battleships and all of us derive the exact same benefit from them. We all get the same use of a road and the same protection from a balltleship but the wealthy pay more for that. When we go to the store a rich man does not pay more for a can of soup than a poor man. They derive the same benefit from it and pay the same amount.

        The article about insurance mandates is factually incorrect. Here is what those items were for and why they are not mandated health insurance. Note that the issue involving firearms was a requirement of the militia under a completely different section of the Constitution and only applied to men. The part about insurance is equally debunked.

        I did not dismiss the Founders. You took the writing of a left wing publication that does not apply and tried to pass it off as proof. See the debunking of it linked above.

        As far as your assertion that the mandate must be OK because it passed, you are worng again. The mandate did not pass. The SCOTUS specifically stated that Congress could not require people to engage in commerce. It changed the mandate to a tax and said Congress had the power to do it because it was a tax. There is a big difference, do try to keep up.

        They went with the penalty because it would sell better. We agree in that part though Obama lied. He specifically said it was NOT a tax. Look it up. They lied to get what they wanted passed. Since the law calls it a penalty and the Court called it a tax when Obama specifically said it was NOT a tax then the SCOTUS rewrote it. Yu can say interpreted but that would require a willing suspension of disbelief. You cannot interpret the words this is not a tax to mean it is a tax without that suspension.

        George Bush could not possibly be at fault. His tax cuts were only for the rich. That is what Democrats have said since those tax cuts passed. ONLY FOR THE RICH. They played that card nonstop. Sorry but you can’t change the rules of the game. That is what they said so that must be so. Therefore Bush had nothing to do with the poor. As I have stated many times, those tax cuts helped the middle class the most but Democrats screamed differently so they have to stick with that line. I refuse to allow them to change.

        You make the argument that Obama is a steady more responsible president than Romney would have been but this requires you tosee the future. This is like claiming that without the trillion dollar stimulus we would have lost more jobs or had a depression or claiming that a job was saved (a lie). You can’t prove an item like this, you can only speculate.

        If a child in the womb is a pre person then why does the government charge a person with two murders if a pregnant woman is murdered? You cannot have it both ways. And since Obama believes that a child born after an unsuccessful abortion should be left to die it appears as if he is not interested in protecting what you would call a person.

        As for Libya, one can only speculate whether he would have been better off under Romney. We know for a fact that one is not better off under Obama. He allowed them to be murdered. Romney would have sent help. Obama ignored their cries for help.

        And to finish, you know you are losing when you reort to ad hominem attacks. The attack on me had nothing to do with the argument and is designed to deflect.

        Is your name Darrell? You have the irritating habit of quoting everything and then going off on tangents with links to liberal claptrap. I think you are one of those freethinkers, posibly Darrell under another name.

        What brought you here? Does not the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos commie site need toadies to suckle their toes?

      • AlphaCat
        Saturday Nov 24th, 2012

        Apparently it was a technical glitch. Good. Here it is again:

        RE “The discussion is about FEDERAL Income taxes.”
        You said “pays no income taxes. If you want me to respond to what you mean, you’ll have to say what you mean. It’s up to you.

        RE “when one points out that 47% do not pay taxes (in reference to the FEDERAL argument)”
        It doesn’t matter what the reference is; the claim that 47% pay NO income taxes– which is what you said– is incorrect, and so is either ignorant or an out-and-out lie. Moving the goalposts is one conservative trick; having no goalpost at all appears to be another.

        RE “liberals go off on the state and Social Security tangent.”
        Never minding state taxes for a moment, the payroll tax is not a tangent: it is a federal tax that is income-based; it has no lower threshold and an upper limit. It is a federal income tax that has more impact on lower incomes than on higher. It makes little difference whether the benefit accrues to the taxpayer in the form of a highway or retirement income, it is still a tax on income. Indeed, when the funds are raided by Congress (usually by Republicans) as a source of revenue, the difference is completely obliterated. Further, if you are going to include the Social Security and Medicare trust funds when you whine about the national debt, then you pretty well have to include the tax in the first place. That debt you carp about didn’t come from nowhere.

        RE “In fact many people who get SS paid a minimum amount and get bac far more than they ever paid in.”
        A couple of points. Some people become very ill and get far more back from their health insurance than they paid in premiums. That’s the way insurance works. And have you seen this chart?
        http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3041/2987025203_fc2c517522_o.jpg
        It’s the listing of states with the greatest imbalances between their contributions to the federal coffers and the federal funds they receive. Look at the number of red states that are net recipients.

        However, that information is a bit out of date. If you can avoid the genetic fallacy and get past the source of this article (the data itself comes from the 2010 Census and the IRS), it is an interesting presentation of where tax dollars come from and where they go. The maps are interactive; you can click on each state in the maps to get specific information. Note that dollars received are given both overall and per capita.
        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps
        There are some good reasons (as well as bad) for the fact that some states get more back than they put in, but do you want to extend your argument to its likely conclusion– that states full of people who vote for Republican presidential candidates are, not coincidentally, full of lazy, greedy, non-producing layabouts?

        RE “if we are discussing FEDERAL taxes then it is wise to stay on topic.”
        It is also wise to make it clear that that is the topic. This statement of yours is also not accurate in terms of what you think you mean. Note again that the payroll tax is a federal tax. On income. If you want to bandy this inaccurate percentage about in a way that castigates almost half of American taxpayers, you should state it as follows: “Forty-seven percent of American taxpayers pay no Federal individual income tax.” It is still misleading (every one of them is at an income level at which payroll taxes are paid if they are working), but at least it is accurate. You’re welcome for the assistance.

        RE “On the FEDERAL level, we are all in the same pool. 47% of that pool pays nothing.”
        Again, you are not stating what you think you mean. On the federal level, the payroll tax is not nothing. And you ignore the people who have very low incomes (damned Bush tax cuts), are retired (and have paid their dues), and are disabled (lucky them!). Damn them all anyway– bunch of slugs.

        RE “Here is what those items were for and why they are not mandated health insurance.”
        Thank you for the link; however, I had read it. As the article notes, they were government mandates that covered healthcare. I didn’t say anything about insurance, and neither did you.

        RE “I did not dismiss the Founders.”
        Yes, you did. They passed laws that mandated health care. You try to blow them off.

        RE “You took the writing of a left wing publication that does not apply and tried to pass it off as proof.”
        Yet you pass off right-wing articles and try to pass them off as proof– on the few occasions that you offer anything more than your opinions.

        RE ” See the debunking of it linked above.”
        Debunking? I read a bunch of details about health care measures that were mandated by the government.

        RE “The mandate did not pass.”
        It is still a mandate: the government still requires that large employers provide insurance and that many individuals get insurance. The question was whether the mechanism for enforcing that mandate is a penalty or a tax. The fact that the semantics of describing that mechanism have changed does not change the fact that it is a mandate.

        RE “do try to keep up.”
        Pffft. Apparently I’m so far ahead of you that you’re confused. The footsteps you hear behind you are reality. Keep running– maybe you can escape it.

        RE “We agree in that part”
        Good for us. I like to agree with people when they are right.

        RE “though Obama lied. He specifically said it was NOT a tax.”
        Whether what he said was a lie is debatable, as the administration’s legal team believed that the penalty argument was more legally valid than the tax argument. The administration knew that Obamacare would be challenged in court, and would likely go before the Supreme Court; why would they deliberately defend it with a weaker argument?

        RE “Since the law calls it a penalty and the Court called it a tax when Obama specifically said it was NOT a tax then the SCOTUS rewrote it.”
        Oh, I suppose that is possible. Show me the passages in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that the Supreme Court rewrote. If nothing in the law was rewritten, then it is an interpretation.

        RE “George Bush could not possibly be at fault. His tax cuts were only for the rich. That is what Democrats have said since those tax cuts passed. ONLY FOR THE RICH.”
        What many Democrats– and some Republicans– have said is that the Bush tax cuts inordinately favor the rich. Since Democrats agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts because they helped people with lower incomes, they are apparently aware– regardless of what you think somebody said– that they benefit all taxpayers to the extent that they keep money in people’s pockets. Obama now wants to end the Bush tax cuts only for the rich. That would leave them in place for everybody else. You need to get over your debilitating notion that just because you think you heard somebody say something, it must be true.

        RE “As I have stated many times, those tax cuts helped the middle class the most but Democrats screamed differently so they have to stick with that line.”
        The helped the wealthy the most. But regardless of who was helped most by the Bush tax cuts, that is a different argument from your claim that they were “only for the rich”– which is clearly false.

        RE “You can’t prove an item like this, you can only speculate.”
        I never said otherwise. Am I not entitled to express an opinion, even if a majority of Amercan voters share it? And of course you endlessly speculate about the impending fall of the United States. Which of us has a more valid speculation, and which speculation shows a more patriotic belief in the greatness and durability of America? (Hint: mine does.)

        RE “If a child in the womb is a pre person…”
        That’s what the Bible says.

        RE “…then why does the government charge a person with two murders if a pregnant woman is murdered?”
        Because lawmakers are panderers, and the law is an opportunity to impose religious belief. The federal law is of limited scope.

        RE “And to finish, you know you are losing when you reort to ad hominem attacks.”
        What attack was that, and what argument did it deflect? I’ll be happy to address whatever argument you think it was.

        RE “Is your name Darrell?”
        No. Is yours? Does it matter?

        RE “You have the irritating habit of quoting everything”
        It allows me (and you) to verify that I am responding to something that was actually said. Of course your claims about 47% of taxpayers, federal taxes and so on, and on other matters, are a bit slovenly; I suppose it is irritating to you to have your misstatements thrown in your face.

        RE “going off on tangents with links to liberal claptrap.”
        Please do cite examples of any tangent I have gone off on, and of “liberal claptrap”. I will note that, as you use it, that Newsweek opinion piece is, indeed, liberal claptrap– but that’s on you.

        RE “I think you are one of those freethinkers”
        I don’t know about “those freethinkers”, but I do like to have facts and evidence at hand when forming opinions.

        RE “What brought you here?”
        I’m not even sure. It’s just too easy to find uninformed whining on the Internet.

        RE “Does not the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos commie site need toadies to suckle their toes?”
        Probably not, but there are some big dogs out there who need their noses rapped with a rolled-up newspaper.

      • Big Dog
        Sunday Nov 25th, 2012

        BTW, I did not make the claim the tax cuts were only for the rich, Democrats did from the moment Bush signed them into law. They never said anything about the people who benefited the most, the middle class. Yes, look it up. The Bush tax cuts helped the middle class the most and the wealthy the least. It is a fact and has been demonstrated many times. Dems could not help but scream about them being for the rich so the hell with it, let them expire and see what happens. We also need to put the SS tax back to what it was. SS is near bankruptcy now and we need to pay what we owe to it.

        As for the taxes and who pays them. Anyone who pays attention knows what we were discussing. If you can’t follow along then you need to get a tutor.

        Having a patriotic belief in a country has nothing to do with speculating on its impending doom. The writing is on the wall. Hell, even Pravda can see what is happening. While I will work hard to ensure my slice of the pie is taken care of and that my country has a chance I will not fight for the morons who put us here. When the crap hits the fan I know what side I will be on. If you are on the other side then that is your problem.

      • Big Dog
        Sunday Nov 25th, 2012

        By the way, how are your goats doing?

      • AlphaCat
        Monday Nov 26th, 2012

        RE “BTW, I did not make the claim the tax cuts were only for the rich”
        I never said you did.

        RE “Democrats did from the moment Bush signed them into law.”
        That is not correct. See
        http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030801a.htm
        and note:
        “Democrats opposed to the bill countered that Bush’s tax cuts would help taxpayers who needed it the least with some 40 percent of the plan’s tax relief going to the top 1 percent of wage earners.”
        That is not the same thing as what you claim.

        RE “They never said anything about the people who benefited the most, the middle class.”
        That also is not the same thing as what you claim. You need to learn the difference between not saying something and saying something.

        RE “Yes, look it up.”
        I did. The whole Internet says you’re wrong. Perhaps you can cite your source. It is generally the duty of the person defending a claim to provide evidence for it. That’s one reason I provide evidence for my claims.

        RE “Anyone who pays attention knows what we were discussing.”
        Anybody who pays attention to my comments, at least. I declared what we were talking about; you kept changing the subject. Start out precise, and stay that way.

      • AlphaCat
        Saturday Nov 24th, 2012

        I see that Big Dog has, after keeping my last comment in unmoderated limbo for over a week, failed to post it. I hope it was a technical glitch rather than trepidation on his part; it would be a shame if his bigness were only in his imagination.

      • Big Dog
        Sunday Nov 25th, 2012

        Your comment must have gone to spam. However, there is a new one that is in moderation. You have to understand that I have a job working hard to pay for people like you and I don’t always get to these things right away. In fact, reviewing anything in moderation is at the bottom of my list of things to do. There is no trepidation on my part. If I don’t like you I just ban you or keep you in moderation forever. You see, my site, my rules.

        As for your latest rant that I approved. You are delusional and I will rapidly tire of your long non fact based liberal twaddle. In fact, your writing style reminds me of a guy who used to be here and I think you are he under another name. He was cowardly that way. You appear to be the same kind of person.

        Keep your comments short and show some respect and you might get to stay around. As for wrapping someone with a newspaper, I am sure you mean that figuratively since you do not have the testicular fortitude to actually do that. I will see how things go before I decide whether to send you to the ash heap. It is always fun watching morons whine because they can’t intrude…

      • AlphaCat
        Sunday Nov 25th, 2012

        RE “Your comment must have gone to spam. However, there is a new one that is in moderation.”
        Thank you for including my post. As I noted, there appears to have been a technical glitch.

        RE “I have a job working hard to pay for people like you”
        You are in no way paying for me, or for the few people who are fortunate enough to be like me.

        RE “I don’t always get to these things right away.”
        Speaking of which, I hope you had a lovely Thanksgiving week. I’m sure it was difficult, as your nation and world are crumbling to ruin all around you, but perhaps you were able to surround yourself with others of like mind, and so able to enjoy one last national day of thanks before Obama cancels the holiday entirely.

        RE “You are delusional”
        Please cite an example of a delusion on my part.

        RE “I will rapidly tire of your long non fact based liberal twaddle.”
        If you will simply refute my so-called twaddle with facts, then you will find it less tiresome, and you might find me less inclined to post here. (Not really. I welcome your factual rebuttal.)

        RE “Keep your comments short”
        Be aware that citing facts, writing carefully and formatting for clarity make for longer posts than does hastily spouting baseless opinions.

        RE “and show some respect”
        Should I take your respectful tone as my guide?

        RE “I am sure you mean that figuratively”
        Your discernment is impressive.

        RE “since you do not have the testicular fortitude to actually do that.”
        When faced with a stupid dog, I have little trouble at all with disciplining him in a way that gets his attention without actually injuring him. When faced with a dog that poses a real threat, I go for the throat, because that is an interaction that dogs understand; it takes the threat right out of them. (Note that I didn’t say– figuratively or otherwise– that I went for your throat.)

        RE “I will see how things go before I decide whether to send you to the ash heap.”
        Because you’re the decider! Should I end up there, I’ll convey your regards to Romney, Ryan, Rove and a bunch of Teabaggers.

        RE “It is always fun watching morons whine because they can’t intrude…”
        If your rhetoric is any indication, I had already intruded, so that probably isn’t an issue.

        RE “By the way, how are your goats doing?”
        I have two cats by choice, and a herd of deer and a raccoon family by circumstance. I have no goats.

        Thank you again.

      • Big Dog
        Monday Nov 26th, 2012

        The word Teabagger is a vulgar one and not tolerated here. TEA Party (party member) is the appropriate word to use. Consider this your first and ONLY warning.

        The Poor and middle class benefited most from the Bush Tax Cuts. Maybe the entire Internet agress with you but the CBO agrees with me.

        http://www.policymic.com/articles/3701/who-really-benefited-from-the-bush-tax-cuts

        And, the cuts were not responsible for the deficit as Obama and Democrats would have us believe (remember, Obama said they were a good thing when he extended them because raising taxes in a recession would be bad). The tax cuts, as tax cuts always do, increased revenue to the fedral government. The real issue was increased spending. It happened to Reagan as revenues increased Congress spent more. Instead of living within its means and paying our bills the government gets more money in and finds other (usually unconstitutional) items to spend it on. This happened here as well.

        The financial collapse was a result of the housing bubble which was created by the Community reinvestment Act. Banks were forced to make bad loans. those banks bundled the loans and sold them. Fannie and Freddie backed a huge amount of the money. People were unable to pay for the loans they took out and defaulted. Trillions of dollars flushed away due to social engineering policies.

        I had a great Thanksgiving. Not everyone around me agrees with me but we agree to disagree. Perhaps you are doing fine but the economy is not and the country is not. I will survive because I don’t depend on government and do not have a debt load that I can’t handle. Too many people are not that fortunate (slaves to government) and things will go south for them. This IS what government wants to create more dependence. We are following what failed in the former Soviet Union.

      • Big Dog
        Monday Nov 26th, 2012

        BTW, your comment going to spam was not a technical glitch. If it went there it was for a reason. The spam filter did not like something in your post. It was moderated the second time so perhaps you removed a link or a word or sentence. In any event, it is not a glitch, it worked as designed.

      • AlphaCat
        Monday Nov 26th, 2012

        RE “The word Teabagger is a vulgar one and not tolerated here.”
        Yet the TEA Party first used the term, and there has been a small conservative move to reappropriate it. Also note that I capitalized the word, as a show of respect.

        RE “The Poor and middle class benefited most from the Bush Tax Cuts.”
        I’ve never said that they didn’t on the whole. Note that the quote I cited, which points out that 40% of the benefits go to the wealthy, must also mean that 60% of the benefits go to the non-wealthy. On an individual basis, however, the benefits accrue mostly to the wealthy. There are a lot fewer people sharing that 40% of benefit than those sharing the 60% of benefit.

        But again, your original claim was that Democrats said that the Bush tax cuts did not benefit the poor and middle class. That clearly is not the least bit true.

        RE “And, the cuts were not responsible for the deficit”
        Not all of it. Bush’s unfunded wars and Medicare Part D had a part. See chart 9 here:
        http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/documents/20120229_essentialecon.pdf

        RE “The financial collapse was a result of the housing bubble which was created by the Community reinvestment Act.”
        The CRA was passed in 1977. It was tinkered with over the years, primarily by Republicans. Note that the bubble didn’t occur until a Republican administration was lax in its oversight of banks, and that the secondary loan products created by banks– not the mortgages themselves– precipitated Bush’s magnificent recession, and gave it an international flair as well.

        RE “People were unable to pay for the loans they took out and defaulted.”
        If it weren’t for the unsustainability and instability of the bundled mortgage products the banks and investment houses created, the recession would not have been nearly as severe.

        RE “I will survive because I don’t depend on government”
        Now that the government has finished training and educating you, anyway. But don’t you take advantage of the veteran’s benefits you’re entitled to?

        RE “BTW, your comment going to spam was not a technical glitch. If it went there it was for a reason….It was moderated the second time so perhaps you removed a link or a word or sentence.”
        The post is identical, except for the addition at the beginning. Maybe “Apparently it was a technical glitch. Good. Here it is again:” is the backdoor password. In any case, you need not be so defensive about the site software– even if you wrote it. Things happen.

    • Vxnschatzee
      Friday Nov 16th, 2012

      Adam, feel free to dance on BD’s grave. You’ll make an excellent target for my Desert Eagle. I don’t mind helping rid the world of one moronic liberal and controlling population at the same time. Swallow that you toad.

      And your mind has more in common with what I clean up after my dog than any conservative I know – it’s useless and stinks.

      • Big Dog
        Friday Nov 16th, 2012

        It was not Adam it was AlphaCat who wrote that. He will never dance on my grave he will be too busy standing in the welfare line. And how does he know that I won’t take him with me?

  10. Jack
    Friday Nov 16th, 2012

    Americans Are Becoming Marks-ists !

    Congratulations, all you dumb Americans, Americanos, Amerikans etc.!
    The 2012 Presidential election was won by you who put a Mark on a ballot and chose to give up your freedom for “things” offered by God-banning, election-cheating (and now back-stabbing) Marks-ists!
    You may not know it, but the Mark you chose can lead you straight to the Mark of the Beast found in the book of Revelation (chapters 13 and 14) – and if you choose that Mark, the same Scripture warns that you will literally (and stupidly) be giving up your eternal soul for more “things.”
    Meanwhile don’t worry, you ingrate Americanimals. You won’t have to remove “God” from all 50 of your state constitutions or from your Pledge of Allegiance or your money because God is already removing Himself from YOU!

    (Still with me? Check out the coming disasters revealed in Revelation that have your name on them. Also Google “The Background Obama Can’t Cover Up.”)

  11. Big Dog
    Monday Nov 26th, 2012

    I don’t care who used the word, it is offensive and I won’t allow it. Jesse Jackson used the N word but I consider that vulgar and would not allow it to be used here either. You see, I don’t care what others do, what I do matters.

    Yes, a smaller portion of the population spread out that 40% tax cut. Since that smaller portion pays almost all of the federal income taxes it is only logical they would get a bigger return. But it benefited those in the middle class the most. They went from about 20% not paying federal income taxes to nearly 50%.

    And yes, the Dems always hailed it as the evil Bush tax cuts for the rich. I say to let them all expire and put the SS tax back to where it was. We all need skin in the game. in fact, we need to make sure everyone pays their fair share and not just the wealthy and those of us in the top 50%.

    • AlphaCat
      Monday Nov 26th, 2012

      RE “I don’t care who used the word, it is offensive and I won’t allow it. Jesse Jackson used the N word but I consider that vulgar and would not allow it to be used here either.”
      Although the two words are not really comparable, I will acknowledge this point, this being your site and all. And it’s nice to know that “political correctness” is not strictly a liberal failing.

      RE “And yes, the Dems always hailed it as the evil Bush tax cuts for the rich.”
      And again, that is not the same thing as saying that the Bush tax cuts didn’t benefit the poor and middle class, which was your original claim. You appear to have great difficulty in saying what you mean and sticking with what you have said. That, or you have too little talent in misdirection.

      RE “We all need skin in the game.”
      Ah– another phrase from the conservative echo chamber. As if working forty or more hours a week at minimum wage (and paying payroll taxes on all of your income) is not skin enough. When was the last time you did real low-wage labor– that the government wasn’t paying you to do?

      The minimum-wage construction laborer who is buried in a foundation trench and suffocates has more “skin in the game” than you have.

      Very few people become wealthy without the assistance– direct or indirect– of workers with low incomes, active low-ranking military personnel being one example. As if the stunning Bush recession and the slow recovery thanks to the obstruction of tinkle-down hangers-on in Congress weren’t evidence enough of this. I have more regard for the contribution to society of people who wreck their backs doing concrete work than of desk-jockeys who get paper cuts while creating dangerous financial ventures.

  12. Big Dog
    Monday Nov 26th, 2012

    It is not political correctness. I do not know who read sthis site and I don’t want to have things offensive to children who might happen along. While the words might not be comparable to you they are both equally offensive depending on who uses them and in what context. I don’t allow the F word either and there are many others. I prefer not to have the vulgarity. You seem intelligent enough to make your point without it.

    Skin in the game is not a Republican talking point. Joe Biden said we all had to have skin in the game, I am using his words. I did lots of low wage labor the government did not pay me to do. I worled real hard to get an education and a higher paying job. It still requires lots of labor but I get paid to do it because it is not something anyone can do.
    As if owning a business and taking the risks while working 80-100 hours a week is not tough and all the while paying a lot of taxes to support everyone else. You make an assumption about the minimum wage construction worker having more skin in the game. You do not know what I do or any dangers involved. One thing is for sure. if the low wage worker tries hard and gets educated he can do better.

    It matters not whether people get wealthy by paying lower wages to people who work for them. I don’t know why you would say active military low ranking people make others rich. They are not forced to do the job and they do it for the country. I was low ranking once but got promoted and handed the broom to the soldier behind me.

    That Bush recession belonged to the Democrats in Congress and their foolish ways. Look how things went south when they took over.

    • AlphaCat
      Monday Nov 26th, 2012

      RE “skin in the game”
      The phrase was popular among conservatives and gained wide use in mid-2011. Conservative commenters in online forums used it to death, and the knuckle-dragging chuckleheaded congressman from my district used it several times in town hall meetings in September 2011. Mr. Biden didn’t get around to making a splash with the phrase until July 2012.

      RE “As if owning a business and taking the risks while working 80-100 hours a week is not tough and all the while paying a lot of taxes to support everyone else.”
      Are you describing yourself, or empathizing? In order to be in the top 50% as you earlier said you are, you would have to have an AGI of about $32,500 ($32,396 for 2009). As the Maryland minimum wage is $7.25, a minimum-wage earner there wouldn’t even make it into the top 50% of taxpayers if he worked 80 hours a week, and were paid time-and-a-half for overtime– $36,250 total gross income. Of course most minimum-wage workers who work that much actually have two or more jobs, so they won’t get overtime. They have to make do with $29,000 a year– and juggle multiple jobs. Do you really think you are “supporting” them? Would you trade places with them?

      RE “You do not know what I do or any dangers involved.”
      As I understand it, you are a registered nurse in occupational health. If you are a physical therapist, then you indeed do hard and risky physical work. But even if you own the clinic you work in, you don’t take on the level of risk that, say, a construction laborer does– unless you are literally in the trenches.

      Money is not skin.

      RE “It matters not whether people get wealthy by paying lower wages to people who work for them.”
      But it helps them to get wealthier faster, and thus derive greater benefit from the society built on the foundation of low-wage labor. In other words, it does matter– if you intend to get wealthy as a result of living in a society.

      RE “I don’t know why you would say active military low ranking people make others rich.”
      They protect the nation so people can make money with impunity. It appears to be a conservative precept that a bloated military is vital to the American way of life. This is not to say that I don’t appreciate the service of our military personnel. I have no problem with paying taxes for the feet on the ground.

      RE “Look how things went south when they took over.”
      See http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
      Note that there has not been a Democratic supermajority in the Senate since 1977, and that the GOP made the filibuster and cloture common practice. The Democrats have not lately “taken over”– and certainly not during the creation of Bush’s magnificent recession. The Republicans in Congress have done everything they could to prolong the recession, and we see how that worked out.

  13. Big Dog
    Monday Nov 26th, 2012

    I don’t know what you are referring to with your 50% analogy. I pay nearly the AGI you quoted in taxes.

    [Edited]

    Democrats used the filibuster more and the rules were put in place by KKK Byrd. Let us not forget that Reid, Clinton H, Obama and Biden all said changing the rules would be an affront to the Senate and its tradition. They were Senators all when the GOP was considering making the same changes because of what the Dems were doing.

    No matter what happens the Dems own it so have at it. And the recession was prolonged for the same reason America had a Great Depression while everyone else had a Depression. They threw money we did not have at a problem and thought it would fix things. Keynesian economics has never worked and has always prolonged downturns.

    • AlphaCat
      Tuesday Nov 27th, 2012

      RE “I don’t know what you are referring to with your 50% analogy.”
      It’s not an analogy; it’s math. It demonstrates that one can work eighty or more hours a week and still be in the bottom 50% of taxpayers– which flies in the face of the contention that those people are all necessarily lazy parasites.

      RE “I pay nearly the AGI you quoted in taxes.”
      Federal individual income taxes, or all taxes? You need to be more clear, especially if you are still trying to limit your complaint to federal taxes.

      RE “The worker you describe has not the experience or training…”
      Didn’t my tax dollars pay for much of, if not most of, your experience and training? You’re welcome. That worker still does work that must be done in order to allow others to get rich.

      RE “Democrats used the filibuster more and the rules were put in place by KKK Byrd.”
      Here’s a graph:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html
      Cloture was legislated in 1917; the change in cloture vote requirement– which occurred in 1975, long before the Clintons and Obama– has streamlined, to some extent, legislation in the Senate. It’s interesting that you mention Byrd’s membership in a conservative organization. (Before you go of on another misinformed rant, remember: the Southern Strategy is fact.)

      RE “They were Senators all when the GOP was considering making the same changes because of what the Dems were doing.”
      What changes do you refer to? Surely not the 1975 change, but you did mention Senator Byrd.

      RE “Keynesian economics has never worked and has always prolonged downturns.”
      But the downturns seem to be caused by classical economics. And if Keynesian economics didn’t work, they wouldn’t reverse downturns at all. Over ten years of record low taxes, Bush’s magnificent recession and the overall sorry state of America’s transportation and utility infrastructure are– what? A glowing validation of tinkle-down economics?

      • Big Dog
        Tuesday Nov 27th, 2012

        Those business owners who work all the hours and put up their money are not slouches. Minimum wage is not a life aspiration. If you are still at MW after a few years you need to get a skill or some motivation.

        No, you did not pay for my education, I did. As for the assertion that you are owed something for the training people in the military receive, you are owed nothing. They paid their debt with their service. Until you ruck up you have no say.

        Keep up, the GOP was proposing changing the filibuster rules and the Dems went nuts. The reference to Byrd was that he mad ethe original change to the process.

        The thing you lefties always miss when discussing tax cuts and trickle down is that the money to the government increases but spending always goes higher. Instead of taking the increased revenue and paying our debt they spend it on more and more social programs and on studies to see if cow farts stink.

        Spending money we do not have (borrowing to pay the bills) does not work in your home and it does not work at the government level. Ask Greece how it worked out. We will soon see as we approach the point of no return.

      • AlphaCat
        Tuesday Nov 27th, 2012

        RE “Those business owners who work all the hours and put up their money are not slouches.”
        I never said they are.

        RE “Minimum wage is not a life aspiration”
        No, it’s an impediment to business. If only they could pay less….

        RE “If you are still at MW after a few years you need to get a skill or some motivation.”
        And how do you propose that a minimum-wage earner do that?

        RE “No, you did not pay for my education, I did.”
        Assuming you went straight into the military from high school (which was paid for in part by taxpayers other than your parents), any education you received beyond high school was paid for at least in part by the GI Bill– unless you are so “principled” that you would refuse a benefit you earned, which doesn’t seem fiscally responsible. Any training and experience you gained in the military was paid for by the public. This is not to say that you didn’t earn it, for I’m sure you did. It’s always funny when a military person says that the government cannot create jobs, or that socialism is inevitably evil, or whatever other quaint thing.

        RE ” As for the assertion that you are owed something for the training people in the military receive”
        I asserted no such thing; I simply pointed out the fact that you haven’t thanked me for my willing support of one of the world’s largest socialist undertakings: the U.S. military. Again, you need to read more carefully– you keep saying that I have asserted things.

        RE “Keep up, the GOP was proposing changing the filibuster rules and the Dems went nuts. The reference to Byrd was that he mad ethe original change to the process.”
        It would be easier to keep up if your writing were less garbled. There’s plenty of room on the Internet for you to write more carefully. But the minority party always complains when the majority proposes changing the filibuster rule.

        RE “The thing you lefties always miss when discussing tax cuts and trickle down is that the money to the government increases but spending always goes higher.”
        That deficit chart I posted a few comments ago separates Bush’s unfunded wars, Medicare Part D, the Bush tax cuts, and other spending. Show how a reduced level of spending would have had much of an effect. Also note that Obama has reduced the deficit:
        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-has-doubled-deficit/
        In other words, spending doesn’t “always” go higher.

        RE “Spending money we do not have (borrowing to pay the bills) does not work in your home”
        Did you pay cash for your home and car? (I’ve paid cash for every car I’ve ever bought, and for one house I bought.)

        RE “Ask Greece how it worked out.”
        Irrelevant. See:
        http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/06/14/u-s-vs-greece-is-debt-situation-even-comparable/

        RE “We will soon see as we approach the point of no return.”
        You wish. When it doesn’t happen, post a photo of your face. I’d like to see it.

      • Big Dog
        Wednesday Nov 28th, 2012

        There is a difference between short term financing of items such as a house or car as there is with some government spending and spending more money than is ever going to be available. Financing a war or the cost of a disaster clean up that is paid for in a few years is certainly different than having 100 trillion dollars in unfunded mandates. In order to be comparable one would have to finance his house and then take out loans against the house without paying for them and then taking out more loans to pay off the obligations originally incurred. That is what government is doing. If government made obligations and then paid them off it would be one thing. To continue to borrow when there is no money and for items that are unconstitutional or not in government perview is wrong and fiscally irresponsible.

        The big difference is that a household will eventually be stopped by the financial system that will refuse to continue lending based on risk. Government faces no such restrictions. The only real restriction is the people and as soon as they try to enforce those restrictions people like you complain.

        The military is not a socialized organization and while I did not use the GI Bill many have. That wasnot a gift from the public. It was compensation for service. Military members earned that by working for it. It is part of the compensation package that in part makes up for very low wages for very dangerous work. In case you are still wondering, I paid for some of my education and some of it was employer reimbursed as part of a contract to provide services for a period of time after the reimbursement. I worked for it. In any event, the members of the military work for and earn the benefits they receive. Unless you are much older it is very unlikely that you had anything to do with paying for any of the military training I received. However, you have never thanked me for keeping you safe so you could work and pursue your dreams. You are welcome…

        If having skin in the game is not about money why did Obama and Biden (both of whom used it prior to 2012 – Obama in the month of his immaculation) use it to discuss raising taxes. Taxes are money paid in and paying that money is skin in the game according to the POTUS and VP. Their words, not mine. It was picked up after their use and repeated (like throwing [insert name here] under the bus). If you want to hear an echo chamber listen to the liberal media. They all repeat the same phrases and those phrases usually contain words the regime or Jay Carney have spoken.

        Minimum wage is a bad thing. Your claim is that not having it would allow business to pay less. Sure, it would. That would be how you pay people with no experience and then you pay them more as they get better. The lack of an MW would allow businesses to compete for workers. If business X pays $5 and hour for table waiters and business Y wants those waiters he will pay more than $5 or add some benefits to entice them to work for him. Making people pay a MW sets a price that government thinks you are worth so why go above that? It also pushes businesses to hire illegals who can be paid a really low wage because they will not complain. The free market is much better. Socialized labor unions are no longer necessary but they often have the same effects as an MW, artificial inflation of a wage compared to a skill that forces business to scale down or end up owing a lot in union benefits.

      • AlphaCat
        Wednesday Nov 28th, 2012

        RE “There is a difference between short term financing of items such as a house or car”
        Given the average lifespan of Americans, a thirty-year mortgage (the most common type)– even a fifteen-year mortgage– isn’t short-term financing. As for the relatively short-term financing of a new car (average a little over five years), you’re looking at paying off a piece of personal property that loses 6 to 9 percent of its value when you drive it off the lot, and is worth, at 15% depreciation per year, only about 44% of its original value when you’ve finished paying for it in about five years (61% after three years). Most government borrowing is for more durable things, and so is not so foolish.

        RE “spending more money than is ever going to be available.”
        That is an assumption, and there is far more of hysteria than validity to it. Nobody has ever suggested that we will continue to spend money at the rate Bush did.

        RE “Financing a war”
        Bush didn’t “finance” his wars– he spent the money without creating revenue to cover the expense.

        RE “having 100 trillion dollars in unfunded mandates.”
        Who has $100 trillion in unfunded mandates? More hysteria. The horizon changes almost daily; you’re worried about a 70-year horizon. You might as well say that Clinton created an $8 trillion surplus.

        RE “In order to be comparable one would have to finance his house…”
        Except that lenders wouldn’t allow that. It’s probably best to avoid household or business management as analogies for government because they don’t work the same way.

        RE “That is what government is doing.”
        The government is the lender as well as the borrower.

        RE “If government made obligations and then paid them off it would be one thing.”
        The government has paid off every obligation that has come due.

        RE “To continue to borrow when there is no money”
        Not only is there plenty of money to borrow, the world still has great faith in our obligations. Some people have actually paid us to borrow their money. It’s a great time to borrow, and there are good reasons to do so– the failure of the “job creators” being a big one.

        RE ” items that are unconstitutional or not in government perview”
        Such as…?

        RE “The big difference is that a household will eventually be stopped by the financial system that will refuse to continue lending based on risk. Government faces no such restrictions.”
        Exactly. Again, the comparison is irrelevant anyway.

        RE “The only real restriction is the people and as soon as they try to enforce those restrictions people like you complain.”
        But “the people” haven’t tried to enforce those restrictions. A majority of them agree with me. And people like you complain.

        RE “The military is not a socialized organization”
        Explain. Your mere assertion (and it is actually an assertion) is not enough.

        RE “That wasnot a gift from the public…. It is part of the compensation package that in part makes up for very low wages for very dangerous work.”
        As I have already said.

        RE “However, you have never thanked me for keeping you safe”
        By golly, you’re right. Thank you for your service. (I did note, however, that I am happy to support our socialized military by paying taxes.)

        RE “If having skin in the game is not about money why did Obama and Biden (both of whom used it prior to 2012 – Obama in the month of his immaculation) use it to discuss raising taxes.”
        Because it is a metaphor that people accept as relevant without thinking. Regardless, if you are going to talk about “skin”, you should acknowledge the value of actual skin. Neither Obama nor Biden suggested that actual minimum-wage work has no value to society.

        RE “you pay them more as they get better.”
        That’s an interesting theory. How does the minimum wage prevent this?

        RE “If business X pays $5 and hour for table waiters and business Y wants those waiters he will pay more than $5 or add some benefits to entice them to work for him.”
        That competition exists even with the minimum wage. Henry Ford created a minimum wage. What’s the difference?

        RE “It also pushes businesses to hire illegals who can be paid a really low wage because they will not complain.”
        But that won’t stop you from demonizing illegals, will it? Fortunately, there are liberal organizations that will complain for illegals, so that isn’t really a problem. On the other hand, you are claiming that businesses cannot be trusted to obey the law, so regulation is necessary. Remember the housing bust that occurred because of lax regulatory scrutiny under the Bush administration? Nobody forced those financial institutions to overleverage those instruments built of low-end loans, and nobody forces business owners to hire illegals.

        RE “Socialized labor unions are no longer necessary”
        Labor unions are a form of worker participation in the market. They are not socialized because they are not government entities. (You need to bone up on what socialism is.) Labor unions had a great part in creating the middle class, and the decline of the middle class is, not coincidentally, concurrent with the decline of unions. Do you think that the middle class is no longer necessary?

        RE “artificial inflation of a wage compared to a skill that forces business to scale down or end up owing a lot in union benefits.”
        The minimum wage is an entirely different matter from unions. Don’t be so hasty.
        ______________________________

        Here’s a worthwhile article. Enjoy.
        http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/

      • Big Dog
        Thursday Nov 29th, 2012

        While most people have a 30 or 15 year loan many do not keep their homes that long. In instances of the price vs cost of a car or home there is a requirement top put money down or buy GAP insurance to protect the lender and the buyer. However, when government does not interfere, lending institutions ensure people who can’t afford something do not buy it. People buy homes and live in them. They derive a value while paying for their property. In most cases (when government does not interfere) people borrow as a percentage of income and can’t exceed that. they are not borrowing money every month to pay for their homes. It is a cost they can afford to pay over time in order to own something. It is in a budget and it is an expense that is accounted for.

        Government incurs debt and borrows money each month in order to pay the bills. It does not take in enough money to pay the bills so it continues to borrow. Those debts affect the short term (recession) and they affect long term. While we might not be here in 70 years our children and grandchildren will. It is wrong to leave them with debt like that.

        Clinton would have to have had a surplus to extrapolate it out over the years. Since he never had one it is moot. There was debt each year and the only surplus was an accounting trick of manipulating numbers on paper. It never happened in reality. You see, the surplus was predicated on Congress not spending more than a certain amount which is exceeded and it was based on moving some items off budget so they were no longer counted. We still owed the money we just stopped reporting it. I can understand how you would be confused since you seem to think trillions in unfunded mandates is OK.

        Social Security and Medicare are underfunded, in part, because Congress took the money, spent it and issued IOUs. They taxed us to pay for it, spent the money and now want to tax us to pay back the money. Poor way to run anything. In fact, if a business ran like that Congress would get involved and demand people go to jail.

        Still blaming Bush? Get over it. his rate of spending was nowhere near Oblama’s and Oblama has spent more money in 4 years than Bush did in 8.

        You should take your own advice and learn what Socialism is. Government does not need to be involved. It is an economic system involving the community. Labor unions are Socialist in nature, unlike the military which is not an economic system (labor unions are money and benefit (a form of barter) based. The military is not about equality of labor or pay and has a caste system of ranks with which certain benefits come. It is not a means of producing or distributing goods. It is an arm of the government designed to protect us from enemies abroad and a tyrannical government at home. With regard to labor unions, if we were to assume an entity needed to be government to be Socialist then they surely qualify as part of the Democrat Party. No, I am afraid that labor unions are socialist by design and by goals and actions. They fit the definition whereas the military does not.

        A majority of people do not agree with you. Many of the ignorant ones do. The ones getting stuff from Baracly Claus agree but most folks do not agree. You would be more accurate to claim that most who voted in the last election agree but I think if they ever investigated the fraud and got rid of all the illegal votes the result would show otherwise.

        Keep trying and you might get it one day.

      • Big Dog
        Thursday Nov 29th, 2012

        If most people agree with me is the standard upon which we base something as worthy and to decide whether or not it should be done please explain how 60-70% of people oppose Obamacare and yet we have it and people are happy to force it upon us? Most do not like it. By your standard we whould get rid of it.

      • AlphaCat
        Thursday Nov 29th, 2012

        RE “While most people have a 30 or 15 year loan many do not keep their homes that long.”
        It’s still a thirty- or fifteen-year note. The obligation is there unless the note is paid off early. That’s long-term financing, no matter how you use it.

        RE “However, when government does not interfere, lending institutions ensure people who can’t afford something do not buy it.”
        Remember how all those people lost homes and land, and banks failed, during the Great Depression? That was before the government “interference” you appear to dislike.

        RE “It is a cost they can afford to pay over time in order to own something. It is in a budget and it is an expense that is accounted for.”
        Just like the government. Also be aware that lenders require only a one- or two-year income projection in order to qualify a borrower for a thirty-year mortgage. A lot of people who lost their homes in the Bush recession lost them because they lost jobs years after they bought homes, not because they couldn’t really qualify for mortgages. So far, the government has managed to afford everything it has undertaken to pay for, and we are in good shape for the future– because as a nation we have lots of resources, and we have, believe it or not, good sense. (I do not disagree that spending needs to be cut, by the way. We could easily cut a goodly chunk of the military budget, and stop spending on subsidies to wealthy corporations, for example.)

        RE ” It does not take in enough money to pay the bills so it continues to borrow.”
        And people lend us money– even at negative interest– because they know we’re good for it.

        RE “Those debts affect the short term (recession)”
        I hope you’re not implying that the government caused the recession. Of course we could have used more stimulus, and I do blame part of the government for that failure.

        RE “While we might not be here in 70 years our children and grandchildren will.”
        It is not likely that the $100 trillion you’re so brown about will be there, either.

        RE “Clinton would have to have had a surplus to extrapolate it out over the years.”
        According to “a 2002 report from the Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, that reported the 2000 federal budget ended with a $236 billion surplus.”
        See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/15/david-axelrod/axelrod-claims-bush-saddled-obama-big-deficit/

        RE “There was debt each year and the only surplus was an accounting trick of manipulating numbers on paper. It never happened in reality.”
        So you dismiss the year-to-year figures as “accounting tricks”, and have a brown hemorrhage about a 70-year projection that is based on accounting tricks? I’m not LOL, but I’m SWRL.

        RE ” You see, the surplus was predicated on Congress not spending more than a certain amount which is exceeded”
        It was apparently not exceeded in 2000. You’re welcome to show how the accounting has been jiggered from year to year to make that surplus appear, but that surplus seems to show up using the same “accounting tricks” that show a big deficit now.

        RE “Social Security and Medicare are underfunded, in part, because Congress took the money, spent it and issued IOUs.”
        That’s why it’s bone stupid to complain about so many people not paying federal income taxes, when most of them pay payroll tax (a federal income tax). The payroll tax gets spent. As I told you before.

        RE “Still blaming Bush? Get over it.”
        I’ll get over it when the country gets over it. Still refuse to believe that the Republican Party was kicked in the pants for sticking to failed policy? Get over it.

        RE “You should take your own advice and learn what Socialism is.”
        You should make up your mind what you hate about socialism.

        RE “Government does not need to be involved.”
        But you (conservatives) keep complaining about how the government is socialist. Now you’re suddenly complaining about NGOs.

        RE “It is an economic system involving the community.”
        I’m sure all those anarcho-capitalists who advocate a tax-dodging barter system will be surprised to know that they are socialists. Sounds like government underreach to me. Note that the economic system you mention includes owning the means of production.

        RE “Labor unions are Socialist in nature”
        How so? They do not have a separate economic system, and they don’t own the means of production.

        RE “unlike the military which is not an economic system”
        Given the exalted status of the military in the budgeting process, it is arguable that it is an economic entity that is somewhat separate from the economics of the rest of the government. It’s a much stronger argument than your contention that a labor union is somehow an economic system.

        The military is a public benefit encompassing characteristics of public infrastructure and public utility. It is paid for by non-voluntary taxes; it protects even those who pay no taxes. If you want to go further into the roots of its socialist nature, note that its product is protection. The means of production of this product is owned by the government. The government exerts rigid control over its subcontractors. Even the National Guard– the closest thing we have to a (non-socialized) militia– is controlled by the government.

        RE “labor unions are money and benefit (a form of barter) based”
        Yet still operating within the general economy, just like any other business-related interest group. Isn’t all commerce based on money and benefits? Is the Chamber of Commerce socialist? Friends of the Library? Your bank? Wall Street?

        RE “However, if we were to assume they needed to be government then they surely qualify as part of the Democrat Party.”
        Isn’t freedom great? You do like freedom, don’t you?

        RE “A majority of people do not agree with you.”
        To the extent that there are very few complex combinations of opinion upon which a majority will agree (over 30,000 variations of Christianity!), you are correct. However, if the recent election was the watershed it is supposed to have been, a majority of people can be said to have agreed with me.

        RE “The ones getting stuff from Baracly Claus”
        Who?

        RE “most folks do not agree”
        Assuming you know what my opinions are, please do provide a list of particulars upon which this majority does not agree with me.

        RE “I think if they ever investigated the fraud and got rid of all the illegal votes the result would show otherwise.”
        There have been, and are, plenty of investigations into vote fraud and illegal voting. So far you are wrong, and you will be wrong. Or maybe the fraud will just balance out:
        http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2012/11/06/reddit-user-captures-video-of-2012-voting-machines-altering-votes/

        RE “If most people agree with me is the standard upon which we base something as worthy”
        It’s how elections work.

        RE “explain how 60-70% of people oppose Obamacare”
        They don’t. You cherry-picked a bad issue for your point. Most of the opposition is specifically to the individual mandate, and the Supreme Court has shown that opposition to be moot. And a lot of the opposition is actually opposition to “socialism”, which a lot of people are clearly confused about. And, perhaps most notably, support for repealing Obamacare has dropped, as even Republicans have figured out that their obstructionism isn’t helping anything, and other things are more important. Polls generally show overall support for Obamacare at about 48%, leaving about 52% opposed. Here’s a word from small-business owners:
        http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/small-business-research/healthcare/small-business-owners-views-on-aca.php

        Although single-payer or full two-tier would be better, I accept Obamacare as an adequate camel for now.

        RE “Keep trying and you might get it one day.”
        You should write that on a Post-It and stick it on your bathroom mirror.

      • Big Dog
        Thursday Nov 29th, 2012

        All you have to do is look at the treasury numbers. We did not have a surplus. The 70 trillion is real, if we were good for it nations would not want to move from the dollar and our credit rating would not have been downgraded.

        Our Founders knew the wisdom of paying bills and avoiding debt.

        The reality is that some folks fail at financing a house or car. This is due to many factors even irresponsible behavior and government rules that ease terms.

        When they fail it affects them and their families. When government fails it affects 300 million people.

        We are not in good shape regardless of how you see it.

      • AlphaCat
        Friday Nov 30th, 2012

        RE “We did not have a surplus.”
        Clearly you do not know the difference between the budget deficit (or surplus) and the debt. Using budget figures to talk about budget surpluses is not an “accounting trick”. The deficit (or surplus) is an annual phenomenon, as opposed to the debt, which is cumulative. Clinton had budget surpluses because he raised more revenue than was spent. His surpluses applied to the debt, and slowed its growth. The fact that Clinton didn’t raise enough money to stop the growth of the debt does not prove that Clinton did not have budget surpluses– it proves that he was not able to raise enough revenue and cut enough spending to also pay off Reagan’s and G.H.W. Bush’s interest (or his own, for that matter).

        Also note that the national debt continued to go up because surplus funds were reissued as government-issued debt, as required by Federal law.

        Year-to-year increases in the debt — Notes — Official/On-budget figures
        1989-90 — 375,882,491,589.93
        1990-91 — 431,989,899,919.78
        1991-92 — 399,317,303,824.63
        1992-93 — 346,868,227,617.72
        1993-94 — 281,261,026,873.94
        — (1994: First Clinton budget)
        1994-95 — 282,232,990,696.07
        1995-96 — 250,828,038,426.34
        1996-97 — 188,335,072,261.61
        1997-98 — 113,046,997,500.28
        — (1998– $69.3B surplus/$29.9B deficit
        1998-99 — 130,077,892,717.81
        — (1999– $125.6B/1.9B surplus)
        99-2000 — 17,907,308,271.43
        — (2000– $236.2B/86.4B surplus)
        2000-01 — 133,285,202,313.20
        — (2001– $128.2B surplus/$32.4B deficit)
        2001-02 — 420,772,553,397.10
        — (2002: First George W. Bush budget)
        2002-03 — 554,995,097,146.46
        2003-04 — 595,821,633,586.70
        2004-05 — 553,656,965,393.18
        …and so on.

        Never mind budget surpluses, though– note how growth in the debt slowed during the Clinton years.

        Here’s a straightforward explanation that covers the Clinton surpluses under two accounting methods (as I show above): http://www.davemanuel.com/2012/09/06/why-did-the-national-debt-go-up-during-the-clinton-surplus-years/

        This page also shows that if you must insist that Clinton had no budget surplus, then you must also acknowledge that George W. Bush dug an even deeper abyss for Obama to get us out of than is commonly acknowledged.

        RE “The 70 trillion is real, if we were good for it nations would not want to move from the dollar”
        Yet they keep lending us money because they know we’ll pay it back, and because they know the dollar is more secure than their own currency. The trillions of dollars you believe are real are no more real than Clinton’s $70 trillion surplus. They are both projections.

        RE “We are not in good shape regardless of how you see it.”
        We’re in much better shape than we were in four years ago. We are certainly in no condition that warrants your jaundiced and apocalyptic view of the situation. I’ll bet you had to come out of a bunker to vote in 2008.

        Have you put that Post-It on your mirror yet?

      • Big Dog
        Saturday Dec 1st, 2012

        I know the difference quite well. The accounting trick is to move some spending off the budget and then claim we saved money and that there was a surplus when we clearly had to pay for the items removed. It is also a trick to say there is a surplus because on paper we spent less than we took in when in actuality we did not do that.

        But if you insist that we had a surplus then remember it was the Republican Congress that gave it to us.

      • Big Dog
        Saturday Dec 1st, 2012

        You would do better to read this:

        http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

        They keep lending us money because they think we will pay it back but when we can’t they will be in a position to bankrupt us as a nation and then take us over. Debt is a national security problem.

      • Big Dog
        Saturday Dec 1st, 2012

        It is easy to see that Clinton (and Congress) used money from other places, like Social Security, to pay down and add to thus making it look like we had a surplus. The reality is they used fund from, among other things, Social Security, to pay bills and create the illusion of a surplus when they actually moved the debt and now we are in deeper because of it.

        However, if your claim is that the Clinton years were wonderful then we have to take them in their entirety. We can’t just raise the taxes on the wealthy and say those tax rates alone were responsible for the alleged feat you admire.

        In order to replicate that “success” we need to raise EVERYONE’s taxes to the rates they were and we need to reduce spending to what it was.

        It is all or nothing and letting the tax cuts expire IN THEIR ENTIRETY and decreasing spending to the same level will put us back to the good ole Clinton years…

      • AlphaCat
        Saturday Dec 1st, 2012

        RE ” The accounting trick is to move some spending off the budget”
        Do you even read my posts? Note that the figures I used (from Dave Manuel) accounted for that. Clinton still had budget surpluses in two years. At least you admit your “accounting trick” argument is out the window. That’s a start.

        RE “But if you insist that we had a surplus”
        I insist that we did, because it is true. Even you are beginning to see that.

        RE ” then remember it was the Republican Congress that gave it to us.”
        One thing that made the surpluses possible was increasing revenue. Remember the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993? It raised taxes, restrained spending and required a balanced budget. Every Republican in Congress (and a number of Democrats) voted against it. Spending reductions were also enabled in part by the fact that Clinton submitted relatively small budgets. Was he a closet Republican? (That would explain his sexual appetite– except that he is straight.)

        I like the way you concede the argument, then try to deflect it.

        RE “You would do better to read this:..”
        I already had. It is based on faulty understanding and analysis. He tries to apply different rules to the Clinton administration than to every other administration. Again, using his logic just makes Bush’s magnificent recession an even deeper abyss.

        RE “They keep lending us money because they think we will pay it back”
        Good for them. That’s how lending works.

        RE “but when we can’t they will be in a position to bankrupt us as a nation and then take us over.”
        That must be why conservatives want to pump even more socialism into our grotesquely bloated military. Thanks for explaining, Mr. Apocalypse. Never mind the fact that we can kick the world’s butt with our nuclear arsenal tied behind our back. Just one question: where do the zombies fit into your scenario?

        RE “Debt is a national security problem.”
        So are the people who have hoarded money for ten years instead of creating the jobs we were promised, but you don’t see me wetting myself over it.

        RE “It is easy to see that Clinton (and Congress) used money from other places, like Social Security, to pay down and add to thus making it look like we had a surplus.”
        Only if you tip your head, squint hard and stick your tongue out just so. The Clinton budgets didn’t take money from Social Security– they added money, because payroll taxes went up. That’s one reason the debt increased: the Social Security trust fund is part of the debt. On top of that: as required by law, all of those surplus funds (part of the revenue/expenditure makeup of the annual budget, remember) were converted into obligations that pay interest. If Playskool ever makes a federal budget toy, I’ll get you one for Christmas. You apparently need remedial training at a very basic level.

        RE “The reality is they used fund from, among other things, Social Security, to pay bills”
        No, they used the Social Security surplus funds to issue securities, on which interest must be paid. It’s the law. Clinton still took in more revenue than he spent, which is what a surplus is.

        RE “now we are in deeper because of it.”
        Look at how growth in the debt slowed under Clinton– more evidence that he is not a closet Republican.

        RE “However, if your claim is that the Clinton years were wonderful”
        It isn’t; that is not the topic of discussion. Do you have ADD?

        RE “We can’t just raise the taxes on the wealthy and say those tax rates alone were responsible for the alleged feat you admire.”
        I have pointed out multiple times that reduced spending was part of the reason for the Clinton surpluses. Do you even read my posts? But we can raise tax rates on just the wealthy. Wealth disparity is now so great that they are in a great position to pay for the blessings they have received from feudalizing the economy.

        RE “In order to replicate that ‘success’ we need to raise EVERYONE’s taxes to the rates they were and we need to reduce spending to what it was.”
        No, we don’t. But you’re welcome to try to prove your assertion. (It really is an assertion.)

        RE “It is all or nothing…”
        Says who? That’s why conservatives have a hard time dealing with reality: their brains are wired in a way that fosters all-or-nothing, black-and-white thinking. It’s primitive, but oh well.

        RE “and letting the tax cuts expire IN THEIR ENTIRETY and decreasing spending to the same level will put us back to the good ole Clinton years…”
        You’re welcome to try to prove your assertion. (It really is an assertion.) But why should we return to the Clinton years? That’s your faulty logic, not mine.

        I have stated multiple times that we need to cut spending. Do you even read my posts?

        Have you put that Post-It on your mirror yet?

      • Big Dog
        Sunday Dec 2nd, 2012

        It appears you and another poster who was banned from here are using nearly identical IP addresses and your locations are the same. I will be further investigating and if, as I suspect, you are Darrell impersonating another you will be gone as well.

        I know how budgets work. There is no SS trust fund. The money that was excess was never put away to pay for SS, it was used to pay the bills, as Clinton did. The money is gone and now we have to borrow to repay that which workers paid for their retirement.

        The wealthy pay most of the federal income taxes and your arguments look very much the same (nearly word for word) as Darrel’s which peaks my suspicion further. Couple that with the comment by Darrel (thanks D, it gave e the IP info I have been looking for) and I am close to banning you as well.

        Until I look into it more I cautiously allow you to continue posting.

      • Big Dog
        Sunday Dec 2nd, 2012

        I know it bother Darrel not to post here. He has an obsession with me and continues to post about me on a BB at some lost site int he woods of AK. Man crush…

      • AlphaCat
        Sunday Dec 2nd, 2012

        RE “It appears you and another poster who was banned from here are using nearly identical IP addresses and your locations are the same.”
        Small world.

        RE ” I will be further investigating”
        If only you would look into the facts before you post your opinions.

        RE “and if, as I suspect, you are Darrell impersonating another you will be gone as well.”
        Since I am not this “Darrell” you speak of, I guess you’ll have to find another excuse.

        RE “There is no SS trust fund.”
        Wrong again. There are actually more than one trust fund under Social Security– Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, and Disability Insurance; they are often referred to collectively as the Social Security trust fund. See
        http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/funds.html
        which mentions all of these things by name.
        Here’s a chart:
        http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns-the-us-national-debt-2011-1
        Note the 17.9% chunk of debt that is called “Social Security Trust Fund”.
        Here’s another chart:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holders_of_the_National_Debt_of_the_United_States.gif
        Note the dark blue and aubergine chunks of debt labeled “Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund” and “Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund”.
        You’d think the Treasury Department would know what it’s talking about.

        RE “The money that was excess was never put away to pay for SS, it was used to pay the bills, as Clinton did.”
        As I have pointed out twice, surplus Social Security revenue must be issued as government debt. It’s a federal law. The funds that would normally accrue to the Social Security trust fund– that is, the “pay-as-you-go” funding– add to the debt as well.

        RE “Until I look into it more I cautiously allow you to continue posting.”
        Discretion is the better part of valor. I guess that makes you the better part of a brave man.

      • Big Dog
        Monday Dec 3rd, 2012

        I made the errors on purpose. Darrel has a unique way of pointing them out and you share it.

        A trust fund has to have money in it or it is just an empty vessel named a fund. SS and all the others you mention are just that, empty items. They took the money and purchased government T Bills with it. LBJ changed the law and allowed that money to be put in the general fund and it was spent. Since it was spent it no longer exists and there is no trust fund with the money in it. The government needs to borrow money to pay back the money it confiscated from us for our own good. It would certainly have been better if people were allowed to invest their own money and save it because then they would have it and it would not be held to their heads like a gun.

        Clinton used the excess SS money that came in during the dot com bubble to pay down debt and he moved some items off budget. SS is not surplus money, it has a defined function. It is treated as surplus by government and spent for things it is not supposed to be spent on. The SCOTUS has ruled that this is a benefit and government can stop it at any time. SS is not a benefit. We paid OUR money into it. What right do they have to means test it, deny it, or end it?

        I am getting very tired of your insults just as I grew tired of Darrel’s insults and his lies. Yes, he lied about me in one of his circle jerk posts (where he copies my stuff and uses it without permission). He is part of a group of people who sit around pleasuring each other and doing obscene things to goats.

        I know where Fayetteville is. I guess you never have problems typing on a mobile device and hitting the wrong keys without realizing. Yes, the same correctins that Darrel took pride in and you ask the questions the same way.

        Darrel you are.

        Bye.

      • AlphaCat
        Sunday Dec 2nd, 2012

        RE “I know it bother Darrel not to post here. He has an obsession with me and continues to post about me”
        I Googled “darrell freethinkers goats” (not in quotation marks) and found the Fayetteville Freethinkers site. I then Googled “darrel freethinkers goats big dog” (not in quotation marks) and found the thread that archives not just his dealings with your site but mine as well. Darrel (correct spelling makes things easier, doesn’t it?) doesn’t appear to be obsessed with you per se; he appears to be obsessed with providing correct information and a model of proper debate to you and your readers– and to others as well.

        Having scanned that thread, I’m not surprised to see that your obstinate uneducability is a long-standing character trait. It would be very peculiar for you to play a troll on your own site.

        RE ” on a BB at some lost site int he woods of AK.”
        His Fayetteville is in AR, not AK.

        “Man crush…”
        A cute guy like you? Who can blame him? (Actually, it was probably the argument that intrigued him.)

  14. Big Dog
    Monday Nov 26th, 2012

    Obama buddy Warren Buffet coined the phrase skin in the game. Obama said it in January of 2009

    On “This Week,” Obama said that for a long-term economic fix, all Americans will have to sacrifice. “Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game,” Obama said.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2009/01/strategy_memo_skin_in_the_game.html

    Biden said it as early as June of 2009.
    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/transportation/article/Biden-High-speed-rail-money-on-the-way-1304309.php

  15. AlphaCat
    Tuesday Nov 27th, 2012

    RE “Obama buddy Warren Buffet coined the phrase skin in the game.”
    That Warren Buffett– what a traitor to the wealthy. Him and his self-actualization. The phrase predates Buffett’s use. Here’s an interesting essay:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/magazine/17wwln_safire.html
    Buffett denies coining it, though his use was likely the first to be widely cited.

    RE “Obama said it in January of 2009″
    I didn’t say that it had never been used by Obama, Biden or anybody else. I said that it was suddenly picked up and widely used by conservatives in mid-to-late 2011. My impression may well be anecdotal, but it’s a pretty solid anecdote, and it’s not just mine.
    “The new GOP/Fox News (but I repeat myself) catchphrase is ‘skin in the game’.” (8/20/2011)
    http://alexandraerin.livejournal.com/304279.html
    “A hot phrase these days regarding middle class taxes, particularly coming from pundits and guests on conservative TV like Fox News, is ‘skin in the game’” (8/23/11)
    http://agreetodisagree.me/economy/middle-class-taxes-economy/
    As I said, it didn’t suddenly burgeon just in the news; it also did so in personal and online comments from conservatives.

    • Big Dog
      Tuesday Nov 27th, 2012

      Your assertion was that Biden used it after the GOP. I showed he did not. Yes, it was used a lot in reference to biden’s claim about needing skin in the game. his claim was him parroting Obama who said it the month he was immaculated. Yes, Obama started it and then it was picked up. Why not throw it in their face?

      The wealthy and other producers have lots of skin in the game. The only skin the welfare crowd has is the palms of their hands held out for more Obamabucks…

      • AlphaCat
        Tuesday Nov 27th, 2012

        RE “Your assertion was that Biden used it after the GOP.”
        What I said:
        “Ah– another phrase from the conservative echo chamber.”
        “The phrase was popular among conservatives and gained wide use in mid-2011.,,,Mr. Biden didn’t get around to making a splash with the phrase until July 2012.”
        I didn’t say that Biden hadn’t used it before; I said that his use of it in 2012 made a splash. (I write carefully; you need to read more carefully.) Most of the coverage of Mr. Biden’s use of the phrase seems to be from his use in 2012, and he doesn’t seem to have used it between 2009 snd 2012. In any case, Mr. Biden’s use of the phrase in no way contradicts the fact that “skin in the game” became clutter in the conservative echo chamber. The knuckle-dragging congressional chucklehead from my district used the phrase four times in one town hall meeting in September 2011.

        RE “The wealthy and other producers have lots of skin in the game.”
        Again, money is not skin. What does that phrase really mean, anyway? If actual work is so important and valuable that the very concept of it must be rewarded even if there is no actuality, why doesn’t work count as societal equity?

        RE “The only skin the welfare crowd has is the palms of their hands held out for more Obamabucks…”
        Most working poor people literally have skin in the game– and what they have in it is more to them than the “skin” of the wealthy is to the wealthy. Also note that most non-taxpaying American earners are not on welfare. Ask a wealthy person whether he would rather lose his right arm or lose, say, $20,000.

        You never did thank me for paying for your socialized military education and training.

Back to top
mobile desktop