OT: Tea Party effect
Mike Hendrix at dot
What effect has the Tea Party movement had on Washington?
I thought I heard a resounding message that things were going to
change then the announcement that we were continue the same old shit.
Damned, if the President and Republicans haven't just agreed to REDUCE
taxes while increasing spending (unemployment benefits).
When is it going to end?
What are some of you that were so giddy about the Tea Party thinking
about this agreement?
mike
--
Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/
will sill
> Damned, if the President and Republicans haven't just agreed to REDUCE
> taxes while increasing spending (unemployment benefits).
>
> When is it going to end?
>
> What are some of you that were so giddy about the Tea Party thinking
> about this agreement?
Speaking for myself, I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that the PRESENT
Congress remains so dimwitted that they'd extend unemployment benefits. As
far as I can see, the Tea Party has been unsuccessful in performing brain
transplants on the President, the present Congress, or even RINO
legislators.
--
Will Sill sez: "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his
level and beat
you with experience" Author Unk.
MR
wrote:
Do you suppose it's the water or air up there in DC that causes the
congress critters to fall into the rank and file?
MR
Lone Haranguer
>
> What effect has the Tea Party movement had on Washington?
Fear and loathing.
>
> I thought I heard a resounding message that things were going to
> change then the announcement that we were continue the same old shit.
The Tea Party is not in power. Only a few token representatives will be sworn in.
>
> Damned, if the President and Republicans haven't just agreed to REDUCE
> taxes while increasing spending (unemployment benefits).
Horse trading. A win-win for the Republicans. Even though the Repubs mostly
oppose further extension of unemployment benefits, the Democrats would have
had an entire arsenal of whines about those meanie Republicans cutting off
people's income at Christmas.
BTW, taxes were not reduced; they merely continue at the old rate for 2 more
years. Increasing taxes during a recession is STUPID.
>
> When is it going to end?
When Obama, Pelosi and Reid are put out to pasture.
>
> What are some of you that were so giddy about the Tea Party thinking
> about this agreement?
The Tea Party people are gritting their teeth but are smart enough to realize
they got more than they gave away.
It's the leftist lunatics who are shitting their shorts because Obama was
advised that he was cornered. The "tax-the-rich" faction would rather ruin
the economy further than give up their class warfare weapon. Obama has cut
them off at the knees.
LZ
Frank Howell
> What effect has the Tea Party movement had on Washington?
You might have to wait until the newly elected Congress takes their seats in
January to see if there is any real change.
>
> I thought I heard a resounding message that things were going to
> change then the announcement that we were continue the same old shit.
>
> Damned, if the President and Republicans haven't just agreed to REDUCE
> taxes while increasing spending (unemployment benefits).
>
> When is it going to end?
With a "Big Bang" as history keeps repeats itself and this is how the Big
Bang was created millions and billions of years ago. We keep repeating the
original sin. :-)
>
> What are some of you that were so giddy about the Tea Party thinking
> about this agreement?
>
> mike
I like that. Tea Party is kinda gettin' old 'n stale so maybe "The Giddies"
will resonate
with some of the people.
--
Frank Howell
Bruce S
> What effect has the Tea Party movement had on Washington?
>
> I thought I heard a resounding message that things were going to
> change then the announcement that we were continue the same old shit.
>
> Damned, if the President and Republicans haven't just agreed to REDUCE
> taxes while increasing spending (unemployment benefits).
NO THEY DID NOT AGREE TO REDUCE TAXES, THEY AGREED NOT TO RAISE TAXES. Just
how stupid and brainwashed are you, that you can't tell the difference.
> When is it going to end?
>
> What are some of you that were so giddy about the Tea Party thinking
> about this agreement?
>
> mike
You do realize that none of those people who were just elected have taken
office yet, don't you?
And, try to get the tax situation right (for a change), there are NO tax
cuts. They have simply agreed to keep the SAME tax rates we have had for
almost 10 years, rather than following 0bama's plan and raising taxes.
Since the main issue of the TEA party was that we are "Taxed Enough
Already", you should be able to figure out that this was exactly what the
TEA party wanted them to do. On the other hand, there should not have been
an extension of unemployment benefits, but since 0bama needs to sign the
final bill, the only way to keep the lower tax rates we have had these last
10 years was to compromise with him. Only an idiot would think that raising
taxes in a bad economy is a good idea.
Finally, try to remember that we do not have a tax problem, we have a
spending problem.
--
Bruce S.
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first
things to be bought and sold are legislators." - P. J. O'Rourke
bill horne
If we give them more money, they will spend it. If we don't give them
more money, they will spend it.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Just plain Dusty
Bruce S wrote:
> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> What effect has the Tea Party movement had on Washington?
>>
>> I thought I heard a resounding message that things were going to
>> change then the announcement that we were continue the same old shit.
>>
>> Damned, if the President and Republicans haven't just agreed to
>> REDUCE taxes while increasing spending (unemployment benefits).
>
> NO THEY DID NOT AGREE TO REDUCE TAXES, THEY AGREED NOT TO RAISE
> TAXES. Just how stupid and brainwashed are you, that you can't tell
> the difference.
Give 'em a break, Bruce. They're neo-socialist liberal retards and can't
tell the difference between their lies of real facts.
...
> You do realize that none of those people who were just elected have
> taken office yet, don't you?
You can bet that he hasn't. FTR; I'd like to see them change the
installation period to immediately after the elections. No more of this
"lame duck" horse shit (or should that be duck-shit?).
> And, try to get the tax situation right (for a change), there are NO
> tax cuts. They have simply agreed to keep the SAME tax rates we have
> had for almost 10 years, rather than following 0bama's plan and
> raising taxes. Since the main issue of the TEA party was that we are
> "Taxed Enough Already", you should be able to figure out that this
> was exactly what the TEA party wanted them to do. On the other hand,
> there should not have been an extension of unemployment benefits, but
> since 0bama needs to sign the final bill, the only way to keep the
> lower tax rates we have had these last 10 years was to compromise
> with him. Only an idiot would think that raising taxes in a bad
> economy is a good idea.
> Finally, try to remember that we do not have a tax problem, we have a
> spending problem.
Another concept that'll take a superhuman in order to get that into what
passes for consciousness in a neo-tard socialist.
Keep after 'da bastids' lord only knows they need gittin' after...
L8r all,
Dusty
-- "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual
ignorance." -- Henry Louis Mencken
Lone Haranguer
don't tax the high earners is nothing but class warfare bullshit. There is a
mental deficiency involved in those that actually believe that crap.
LZ
Bruce S
> G'day Bruce & all;
>
> Bruce S wrote:
>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>> What effect has the Tea Party movement had on Washington?
>>>
>>> I thought I heard a resounding message that things were going to
>>> change then the announcement that we were continue the same old
>>> shit. Damned, if the President and Republicans haven't just agreed to
>>> REDUCE taxes while increasing spending (unemployment benefits).
>>
>> NO THEY DID NOT AGREE TO REDUCE TAXES, THEY AGREED NOT TO RAISE
>> TAXES. Just how stupid and brainwashed are you, that you can't tell
>> the difference.
> Give 'em a break, Bruce. They're neo-socialist liberal retards and
> can't tell the difference between their lies of real facts.
Mike wants to believe he is a conservative, but his hatred of all things
Bush leaves him blind to the facts when the Democrats lie to him about what
Bush did. He would rather cut off his dick than admit that the Bush tax
cuts were a good thing, so when the Dems refer to not raising taxes as
giving tax cuts to the rich, Mike jumps on the bandwagon.
>> You do realize that none of those people who were just elected have
>> taken office yet, don't you?
> You can bet that he hasn't. FTR; I'd like to see them change the
> installation period to immediately after the elections. No more of
> this "lame duck" horse shit (or should that be duck-shit?).
I agree, since the election is in November, the new congresspersons should
be sworn in before Thanksgiving.
> Keep after 'da bastids' lord only knows they need gittin' after...
>
> L8r all,
> Dusty
Good to hear from you again - you've been missed.
Mike Hendrix at dot
------------------------------
Linus, I was really hoping to get some comments/opinions from the
"conservative" side of RORT.
It just seems to me that we are still INCREASING spending while
reducing TAXES.
Isn't that what we did under Bush?
Isn't that how we got into this mess?
Isn't that why the REPUBLICANS, were thrown out Washington when Bush
left?
What the HELL is different?
It still boils down to reducing taxes and increasing spending which is
exactly what Bush did.
Lone Haranguer
What degree of conservative?
>
> It just seems to me that we are still INCREASING spending while
> reducing TAXES.
That we are. In theory it's temporary.
>
> Isn't that what we did under Bush?
Pretty much.
>
> Isn't that how we got into this mess?
No. We started down the road to ruin with Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac and the CRA
crap. When the Fed started giving money away and the F&Ms started forcing
banks to make bad loans we were doomed. Clinton's appointee Franklin Raines
and his stooges Dodd and Frank drove the car into the ditch.
>
> Isn't that why the REPUBLICANS, were thrown out Washington when Bush
> left?
Nope. They were thrown out because the media assigned blame to Republicans
while covering up the crimes of Democrats.
>
> What the HELL is different?
Obama is fighting with his own party. Pelosi & Reid want the train wreck to
continue.
>
> It still boils down to reducing taxes and increasing spending which is
> exactly what Bush did.
Which is NOT what caused the economy to go bad. Fix the economy and tax
revenues go UP even at the old rate.
LZ
>
> mike
Bruce S
>
> It still boils down to reducing taxes and increasing spending which is
> exactly what Bush did.
>
> mike
NO, it is NOT reducing taxes - it is leaving taxes exactly as they have been
for almost 10 years. Only an idiot would believe that leaving things as
they have been is the same as reducing taxes.
Bob Hatch
> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>
>> It still boils down to reducing taxes and increasing spending which is
>> exactly what Bush did.
>>
>> mike
>
> NO, it is NOT reducing taxes - it is leaving taxes exactly as they have been
> for almost 10 years. Only an idiot would believe that leaving things as
> they have been is the same as reducing taxes.
>
Well, it is Mike.
--
"To announce that there must be no criticism
of the President, or that we are to stand by
the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
Theodore Roosevelt
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com
Lon VanOstran
I've long believed that. Now, there are experts who support that belief.
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/09/modern_liberali.php
Lon
nothermark
SSDD. I'm try8ing to figure out why giving the rich more money to
invest overseas is good. ;-)
JerryD(upstateNY)
entail if we don't tax the high earners is nothing but class warfare
bullshit.
There is a mental deficiency involved in those that actually believe that
crap.<<<<<<<<<<<
I never heard a word about spending and/or deficits when they were spending
trillions on the Stimulus Bill.
Funny how that works.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
Bruce S
One more time - How is letting someone keep what is already theirs the same
as giving them something? Are you people really that stupid?
Bob Hatch
> nothermark wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:13:11 -0600, Mike Hendrix<mike (at) travellogs
>> (dot) us> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What effect has the Tea Party movement had on Washington?
>>>
>>> I thought I heard a resounding message that things were going to
>>> change then the announcement that we were continue the same old shit.
>>>
>>> Damned, if the President and Republicans haven't just agreed to
>>> REDUCE taxes while increasing spending (unemployment benefits).
>>>
>>> When is it going to end?
>>>
>>> What are some of you that were so giddy about the Tea Party thinking
>>> about this agreement?
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>>
>> SSDD. I'm try8ing to figure out why giving the rich more money to
>> invest overseas is good. ;-)
>
> One more time - How is letting someone keep what is already theirs the same
> as giving them something? Are you people really that stupid?
>
Well, it is nothermark. :-)
Lone Haranguer
> On 12/8/2010 4:55 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>> Mike Hendrix wrote:
>>>
>>> It still boils down to reducing taxes and increasing spending which is
>>> exactly what Bush did.
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> NO, it is NOT reducing taxes - it is leaving taxes exactly as they
>> have been
>> for almost 10 years. Only an idiot would believe that leaving things as
>> they have been is the same as reducing taxes.
>>
>
> Well, it is Mike.
>
LZ
Lone Haranguer
that subject many years ago. Could not recall the title and never have found
it on the net.
LZ
Mike Hendrix at dot
wrote:
>
>Mike wants to believe he is a conservative, but his hatred of all things
>Bush leaves him blind to the facts when the Democrats lie to him about what
>Bush did. He would rather cut off his dick than admit that the Bush tax
>cuts were a good thing, so when the Dems refer to not raising taxes as
>giving tax cuts to the rich, Mike jumps on the bandwagon.
Bruce, no matter how you parse the verbiage...... the Republican
PURCHASED this legislation with more deficit spending.
Personally, I do not give a shit about the tax rate........They can
reduce it by 10% or 20% --------- so long as they cut spending to a
level less than what the taxes bring in.
Bush cut taxes, I was OK with that. Then he increased spending. I
was not and I am still not OK with that.
National News tonight was reporting that the Republicans are
appointing Kentucky Congressman Hal Rogers aka the 'Prince Of Pork,'
to be the GOP Chairman Of House Appropriations Committee.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/hal-rogers-appropriations-committee_n_793529.html
One has to wonder what FOX news is saying about this.
The symbolism is totally unbelievable----- The GOP is appointing the
"Prince of Pork" to the chairmanship of the House Appropriations
Committee.
It doesn't get any better than that.
Bruce S
> On 12/8/2010 5:59 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>> nothermark wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:13:11 -0600, Mike Hendrix<mike (at)
>>> travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What effect has the Tea Party movement had on Washington?
>>>>
>>>> I thought I heard a resounding message that things were going to
>>>> change then the announcement that we were continue the same old
>>>> shit. Damned, if the President and Republicans haven't just agreed to
>>>> REDUCE taxes while increasing spending (unemployment benefits).
>>>>
>>>> When is it going to end?
>>>>
>>>> What are some of you that were so giddy about the Tea Party
>>>> thinking about this agreement?
>>>>
>>>> mike
>>>
>>>
>>> SSDD. I'm try8ing to figure out why giving the rich more money to
>>> invest overseas is good. ;-)
>>
>> One more time - How is letting someone keep what is already theirs
>> the same as giving them something? Are you people really that
>> stupid?
>
> Well, it is nothermark. :-)
Reading this thread I'm growing to admire the Democrat propaganda machine -
it appears that every brain dead moron in the country believes that the rich
are getting a tax cut. Just more evidence of the failure of the public
education system.
Lon VanOstran
I'm trying to figure out how anyone could get stupid enough to believe
that letting someone KEEP more of the money he has earned equates to
_GIVING_ him money.
Liberalism really IS a mental defect.
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/09/modern_liberali.php
Lon
Lone Haranguer
> nothermark wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:13:11 -0600, Mike Hendrix<mike (at) travellogs
>> (dot) us> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What effect has the Tea Party movement had on Washington?
>>>
>>> I thought I heard a resounding message that things were going to
>>> change then the announcement that we were continue the same old shit.
>>>
>>> Damned, if the President and Republicans haven't just agreed to
>>> REDUCE taxes while increasing spending (unemployment benefits).
>>>
>>> When is it going to end?
>>>
>>> What are some of you that were so giddy about the Tea Party thinking
>>> about this agreement?
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>>
>> SSDD. I'm try8ing to figure out why giving the rich more money to
>> invest overseas is good. ;-)
>
> One more time - How is letting someone keep what is already theirs the same
> as giving them something? Are you people really that stupid?
>
funding our country's enemies? We have laws that cover that.
LZ
nothermark
It depends on what country's economy is supposed to be stimulated.
nothermark
Letting everybody keep their money makes sense if we were not in debt
up to our neck. If we are to try to get out the only folks with
significant money to tax is the rich. They control most of the money.
Lon VanOstran
It's really difficult to carry on an honest discussion with someone who
isn't honest.
If you took ALL of the money from everyone who makes more than $250,000
per year, 2 things would happen and 1 thing WOULDN'T happen.
1. You wouldn't get enough money to balance the budget once.
1. The economy would shrivel up like an old prune.
2. Dumb fucks like you would starve.
Now, is there ANY chance you would like to address the idiotic notion
you DUCKED with that post?
I thought not.
Lon, who expects dishonest assholes to keep acting like dishonest assholes.
Lon VanOstran
"Supposed to be stimulated" with what, and who gets to decide?
Ralph
..
> It doesn't get any better than that.
>
>
question, instead they changed the subject.
You are correct, the GOP is "ok" with the increase in debt, cause they
got something they wanted, just like the Demo's
The reality is, not one of the nuts in Congress (including the Tea
Party Types) appears to actually want to do anything other then
protect their own pork-barrels
Sad actually
Lone Haranguer
everyone brings their 1040 along and the highest earner gets stuck with the bill.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
> On Dec 8, 5:23 pm, Mike Hendrix<mike (at) travellogs (dot) us> wrote:
> ..
>> It doesn't get any better than that.
>>
>>
> Mike, I'm certain you noticed how the wing-nuts refused to answer the
> question, instead they changed the subject.
I answered his questions.
>
> You are correct, the GOP is "ok" with the increase in debt, cause they
> got something they wanted, just like the Demo's
Obama was briefed by his own economic experts that he better extend the tax
breaks or unemployment would hit 12%. IOW, suicide.
>
> The reality is, not one of the nuts in Congress (including the Tea
> Party Types) appears to actually want to do anything other then
> protect their own pork-barrels
What would your plan be to end the economic slump?
>
> Sad actually
What's sad is that the Democrats were so intent on their agenda that they
ignored the tax issue when it should have been resolved last summer.
Obamacare, don't ask, don't tell, and some way to push amnesty were all more
important than our economic well being.
Selfish bastards. The Democratic lemmings ran over the cliff because Obama
told them to and now they whine about losing power.
LZ
Frank Howell
Giving? I thought they wanted to take what someone else earned and give it
to someonewho didn't. Makes those Indian(feather not dot) givers look almost
respectable.
I just find it weird that a primary responsibility of a government is to
take earned income and give it to others, but I guess that's how the Earned
Income Credit is consummated and we know who is over the barrel in that act.
Does the IRS have a Robin Hood brigade? :-)
--
Frank Howell
Frank Howell
You just might get some flack on this one. The Treasury has printing
presses, although the newest run has had it's problems.
--
Frank Howell
Lone Haranguer
And if taxes go up, the politicians always have it earmarked for their special
project long before it is even collected. Usually buying votes to guarantee
reelection......forever.
If we are to try to get out the only folks with
>> significant money to tax is the rich.
Most criminals follow that rule. Steal from the rich; they've got stuff worth
stealing.
They control most of the money.
So get ambitious and move up. No one is holding you back.
LZ
Bruce S
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:56:40 -0800, "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Mike wants to believe he is a conservative, but his hatred of all
>> things Bush leaves him blind to the facts when the Democrats lie to
>> him about what Bush did. He would rather cut off his dick than
>> admit that the Bush tax cuts were a good thing, so when the Dems
>> refer to not raising taxes as giving tax cuts to the rich, Mike
>> jumps on the bandwagon.
>
>
> Bruce, no matter how you parse the verbiage...... the Republican
> PURCHASED this legislation with more deficit spending.
Well Mike, here is the choice that the congress is faced with:
A. Keep the current tax rates and extend the unemployment benefits for 13
months
OR
B. Raise taxes and fight about unemployment benefits.
Those are the only choices available - how would you tell your
congresspersons to vote? Or can you suggest a third choice that could pass
both houses and be signed into law. If you have nothing to add, quit
complaining.
Bruce S
OK, I'll pose the same question to you that I did to Mike. Here are the
choices faced by both Republicans and Democrats:
A. Keep the current tax rates and extend unemployment
B. Raise taxes and fight about unemployment.
Which would you have them do? Do you have another plan that could get by
both houses and still be signed by the Pres? If not, you have nothing to
add to this discussion.
Bruce S
And, of course, you ignored the real question: How is letting someone keep
what is already theirs (the money that would have been stolen by taxes) the
same as giving them something?
--
Bruce S
But it was YOU who said that not taxing them was GIVING them money. Do you
really not understand the difference? Are you really so stupid that you
think that letting them keep what is theirs is the same as giving them
something?
We do not have a problem of being under-taxed, we have a problem of over
spending. Our debt problem could be solved in one tax cycle without raising
taxes by so much as a dime, by simply stopping spending. But, as you have
continued to make clear, you are opposed to stopping spending.
Lon VanOstran
> Mike, I'm certain you noticed how the wing-nuts refused to answer the
> question, instead they changed the subject.
>
> You are correct, the GOP is "ok" with the increase in debt, cause they
> got something they wanted, just like the Demo's
Which "GOP" would that be? The newly elected ones who haven't taken
office yet?
The problem with left wing jackasses like Ralph is that they lie so
much, mislead so much, and make excuses for Socialists so much, that
they haven't the foggiest idea anymore which lie they should tell next.
Ralph seems not to understand that at the moment, the Dems control both
houses of Congress, and the White House. He seems not to remember that
the Dems can still pass ANY DAMN bill they like, without a single vote
from Republicans. So, people like Ralph tell lies about "wing-nuts" as
though the Republicans actually control Congress or even have the power
to influence any legislation that the Dems really want.
Right Ralph! The Republicans are responsble for everything Congress does
while Obama, Nancy, and Harry control everything.
Lon, who votes GOP, supports eliminating 95% of the Federal government,
and grows weary of left wing liars.
Lon VanOstran
Thinking? Nothermark? Surely you jest.
Lon
Lon VanOstran
>>>> SSDD. I'm try8ing to figure out why giving the rich more money to
>>>> >>> invest overseas is good.;-)
>>> >>
>>> >> I'm trying to figure out how anyone could get stupid enough to
>>> >> believe that letting someone KEEP more of the money he has earned
>>> >>
>>> >> Liberalism really IS a mental defect.
>>> >> http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/09/modern_liberali.php
>>> >>
>>> >> Lon
>> >
>> > Letting everybody keep their money makes sense if we were not in debt
>> > up to our neck. If we are to try to get out the only folks with
>> > significant money to tax is the rich. They control most of the money.
> But it was YOU who said that not taxing them was GIVING them money. Do you
> really not understand the difference? Are you really so stupid that you
> think that letting them keep what is theirs is the same as giving them
> something?
>
> We do not have a problem of being under-taxed, we have a problem of over
> spending. Our debt problem could be solved in one tax cycle without raising
> taxes by so much as a dime, by simply stopping spending. But, as you have
> continued to make clear, you are opposed to stopping spending.
>
> -- Bruce S.
I'm STILL trying to figure out how anyone could get stupid enough to
believe that letting someone KEEP more of the money he has earned
equates to _GIVING_ him money.
I'm pretty sure nothingmark didn't answer that question because he
really has no idea either way, and is simply spewing forth the dems
talking points without ever understanding any of it. He really IS that
stupid.
Mike Hendrix at dot
wrote:
>Mike Hendrix wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:56:40 -0800, "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Mike wants to believe he is a conservative, but his hatred of all
>>> things Bush leaves him blind to the facts when the Democrats lie to
>>> him about what Bush did. He would rather cut off his dick than
>>> admit that the Bush tax cuts were a good thing, so when the Dems
>>> refer to not raising taxes as giving tax cuts to the rich, Mike
>>> jumps on the bandwagon.
>>
>>
>> Bruce, no matter how you parse the verbiage...... the Republican
>> PURCHASED this legislation with more deficit spending.
>
>Well Mike, here is the choice that the congress is faced with:
>
>A. Keep the current tax rates and extend the unemployment benefits for 13
>months
>
>OR
>
>B. Raise taxes and fight about unemployment benefits.
>
>Those are the only choices available - how would you tell your
>congresspersons to vote? Or can you suggest a third choice that could pass
>both houses and be signed into law. If you have nothing to add, quit
>complaining.
--------------------------------
My answer to that is RAISE TAXES until the TAXES cover spending.
If they aren't going to cut spending they have to raise taxes.
To do otherwise is EXACTLY what Bush & the Republicans did during
their reign. And we all know where that got us.
We are doing the same thing now just trying to couch it in more
palatable terms.
I will tell you what "Christie" (New Jersey Governor) would do. He
would cut spending.
Bruce S
That just serves as evidence that you know absolutely NOTHING about
economics. Raising taxes in a bad economy will only REDUCE tax revenue.
This has been proven over and over, so there is no excuse for ignorance.
> If they aren't going to cut spending they have to raise taxes.
>
> To do otherwise is EXACTLY what Bush & the Republicans did during
> their reign. And we all know where that got us.
>
> We are doing the same thing now just trying to couch it in more
> palatable terms.
>
> I will tell you what "Christie" (New Jersey Governor) would do. He
> would cut spending.
>
> mike
Cutting spending is the only option, but any attempt at that will have to
wait until next year when the newly elected congress-critters take office.
And when the Republicans try to cut spending, you will be right there with
the rest of the liberals crying and whining about evil Conservatives forcing
grandma to eat cat food, closing down government, forcing the closing of
national parks, ending highway construction, and taking cops off the
streets.
Lon VanOstran
>>>> Mike wants to believe he is a conservative, but his hatred of all
>>>> things Bush leaves him blind to the facts when the Democrats lie to
>>>> him about what Bush did. He would rather cut off his dick than
>>>> admit that the Bush tax cuts were a good thing, so when the Dems
>>>> refer to not raising taxes as giving tax cuts to the rich, Mike
>>>> jumps on the bandwagon.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruce, no matter how you parse the verbiage...... the Republican
>>> PURCHASED this legislation with more deficit spending.
>>
>> Well Mike, here is the choice that the congress is faced with:
>>
>> A. Keep the current tax rates and extend the unemployment benefits for 13
>> months
>>
>> OR
>>
>> B. Raise taxes and fight about unemployment benefits.
>>
>> Those are the only choices available - how would you tell your
>> congresspersons to vote? Or can you suggest a third choice that could pass
>> both houses and be signed into law. If you have nothing to add, quit
>> complaining.
> --------------------------------
> My answer to that is RAISE TAXES until the TAXES cover spending.
>
> If they aren't going to cut spending they have to raise taxes.
>
> To do otherwise is EXACTLY what Bush& the Republicans did during
> their reign. And we all know where that got us.
Raising taxes does not necessarily bring in more money, as people's
behavior changes according to tax consequences. How many times do
dumb-ases need to learn that lesson?
It has been proven over and over again that raising taxes usually brings
in LESS TAX MONEY, and cutting taxes usually brings in MORE TAX MONEY,
because of human nature. Taxes are no different than any other prices.
When you raise the price of something, PEOPLE DON'T PARTAKE of it as
much, and when you lower the price of something, PEOPLE DO OR USE MORE
of it.
But then, you've seen the proof over, and over, and over, and over, and
over again, thus proving that you are either stupid, dishonest, or
downright EVIL.
Having met you in person and seen you posting here for many years, my
money is on EVIL.
Lon
Mike Hendrix at dot
wrote:
Bruce, I fully understand that "raising taxes" will reduce tax revenue
(to a certain extent).
What I am not willing to do is increase spending. We either cut
spending or BLEED TO DEATH with Taxes.
There ain't no free lunch.
>
>> If they aren't going to cut spending they have to raise taxes.
>>
>> To do otherwise is EXACTLY what Bush & the Republicans did during
>> their reign. And we all know where that got us.
>>
>> We are doing the same thing now just trying to couch it in more
>> palatable terms.
>>
>> I will tell you what "Christie" (New Jersey Governor) would do. He
>> would cut spending.
>>
>> mike
>
>Cutting spending is the only option,
Good God Almighty. We agree.
>but any attempt at that will have to
>wait until next year when the newly elected congress-critters take office.
Yea, when the Republicans put the "Prince of Pork" in charge of the
Appropriations Committee.
Now that is something to look forward to.
>And when the Republicans try to cut spending, you will be right there with
>the rest of the liberals crying and whining about evil Conservatives forcing
>grandma to eat cat food, closing down government, forcing the closing of
>national parks, ending highway construction, and taking cops off the
>streets.
Bruce, you let RORT know when I start howling about spending cuts. In
fact remind me on a daily basis.
You will hear howling from the Republicans (da "good-Conservatives) if
they cut farm subsidies, DOD or any of the things that fund major
construction like bridges & airports.
And the liberals will howl when social programs are cut.
I want to hear some howling.....
It will be music to my ears.
mike
Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/
Don Lampson
"Booby", and "Juicy Brucie", for his "closet liberalism"? He can fool
them none! Nosir! 8>)
Unless people who try to be their friends, are exactly the right
kind of "conservative", they are enemies of those true conservatives,
who want to keep things "pure" <snicker>
Lon even had to get after Booby Hatch because he wasn't thinking like
Lon thought he should? "Oh the horror, the horror!" HawHawHaw!
Of course, this is Lon's idea of fun, years of nasty feuding, with
anyone who might disagree with him, a draft dodging, disability
chiseller, who fancies himself as a "patriot"? <wink wink>
Edward R. Murrow
nothermark
The tax cuts were sold to stimulate the domestic economy and create
jobs here. That is one reason why I am glad there appears to be a
problem. I don't need to borrow money to stimulate jobs in China.
Bruce S
>
> You will hear howling from the Republicans (da "good-Conservatives) if
> they cut farm subsidies, DOD or any of the things that fund major
> construction like bridges & airports.
>
> And the liberals will howl when social programs are cut.
>
> I want to hear some howling.....
> It will be music to my ears.
And on that note we agree again.
Bruce S
> I wonder how Mark feels, being the "whipping boy", for Lon,
> "Booby", and "Juicy Brucie", for his "closet liberalism"? He can
> fool them none! Nosir! 8>)
> Unless people who try to be their friends, are exactly the right
> kind of "conservative", they are enemies of those true conservatives,
> who want to keep things "pure" <snicker>
Mark says he is a Republican, not a conservative.
nothermark
<Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote:
So I've noticed
>
>If you took ALL of the money from everyone who makes more than $250,000
>per year, 2 things would happen and 1 thing WOULDN'T happen.
>
>1. You wouldn't get enough money to balance the budget once.
>
>1. The economy would shrivel up like an old prune.
>2. Dumb fucks like you would starve.
>
>Now, is there ANY chance you would like to address the idiotic notion
>you DUCKED with that post?
>
>I thought not.
>
>Lon, who expects dishonest assholes to keep acting like dishonest assholes.
Interesting the way you pose the question and answer it. Are you by
any chance practicing to be the landfill troll?
The answer to your question is fairly obvious. Something like 80% of
the money supply is controlled by something like 5% of the people.
those numbers are not correct but they are close. Feel free to find
the right ones.
As you pointed out they do not have enough money to pay off all the
debt in one pass. That leaves two choices. We can either let the
country fail or we can push to get back on to a stable economic
footing. I have yet to see any plan to get stable without tapping
more money from the folks who have it. We also need to encourage
domestic investment over foreign.
Personally, I'm sick of the carrot approach and would like to see some
sticks instead. Say triple taxes on foreign investments. Giving yet
more tax breaks for investing here just results in less taxes
collected. As they say, YMMV and probably does.
Lon VanOstran
You still didn't answer the damn question. Not only that, but you didn't
read or understand what I wrote in that post, either.
Lon
Lon VanOstran
Bob Hatch is a very good friend of mine. One of the finest people I've
ever had the good fortune to meet. But I DO dare to disagree with him
from time to time, and certainly DON'T think less of him when he dares
to disagree with me. Friends are like that.
Lon
Owen McKenzie
>
> Lon, who votes GOP, supports eliminating 95% of the Federal government,
> and grows weary of left wing liars.
Interesting Q&A in today's St. Pete Times. I looked on their website but
couldn't find a link to it so I'll just summarize briefly.
The question was what was the difference between the Libertarian Party &
the Tea Party. After giving the obvious caveats that there is a range of
positions in both areas, the answer was summed up in that Libertarians
tended to be fiscally conservative & socially liberal in that they
didn't want the gov't involved in social issues such as gay marriage &
abortion like the Tea Party seems to. Libertarians were also much more
likely to want the military to be used for national defense & not as
world policemen.
What say you?
--
Owen McKenzie
Posting from Largo, FL
I always admired atheists. I think it takes a lot of faith.
Diane Frolov and Andrew Schneider, Northern Exposure, Seoul Mates, 1991
Owen McKenzie
>
> Raising taxes does not necessarily bring in more money, as people's
> behavior changes according to tax consequences. How many times do
> dumb-ases need to learn that lesson?
>
> It has been proven over and over again that raising taxes usually brings
> in LESS TAX MONEY, and cutting taxes usually brings in MORE TAX MONEY,
> because of human nature. Taxes are no different than any other prices.
> When you raise the price of something, PEOPLE DON'T PARTAKE of it as
> much, and when you lower the price of something, PEOPLE DO OR USE MORE
> of it.
>
> Lon
Didn't someone, Jerry?, just post about raising cigarette taxes in NY
cause a 37% decrease in sales, with a corresponding reduction in
revenue, as people went to Indian Reservations & other states for their
purchases?
Mike Hendrix at dot
<jomck...@escapees.com> wrote:
>Interesting Q&A in today's St. Pete Times. I looked on their website but
>couldn't find a link to it so I'll just summarize briefly.
>
>The question was what was the difference between the Libertarian Party &
>the Tea Party. After giving the obvious caveats that there is a range of
>positions in both areas, the answer was summed up in that Libertarians
>tended to be fiscally conservative & socially liberal in that they
>didn't want the gov't involved in social issues such as gay marriage &
>abortion like the Tea Party seems to.
That alone would make me Libertarian.
>Libertarians were also much more
>likely to want the military to be used for national defense & not as
>world policemen.
And that would cinch my Libertarian feelings.
Lon VanOstran
> Lon VanOstran wrote:
>
>>
>> Lon, who votes GOP, supports eliminating 95% of the Federal government,
>> and grows weary of left wing liars.
>
> Interesting Q&A in today's St. Pete Times. I looked on their website but
> couldn't find a link to it so I'll just summarize briefly.
>
> The question was what was the difference between the Libertarian Party &
> the Tea Party. After giving the obvious caveats that there is a range of
> positions in both areas, the answer was summed up in that Libertarians
> tended to be fiscally conservative & socially liberal in that they
> didn't want the gov't involved in social issues such as gay marriage &
> abortion like the Tea Party seems to. Libertarians were also much more
> likely to want the military to be used for national defense & not as
> world policemen.
>
> What say you?
>
I guess I must be a Libertarian, even though I won't waste a vote on
them, because I truly believe that morality should be left to the
church. Bureaucrats will screw that up just as badly as they screw up
the economy when they mess with it.
Government should be protecting us against all aggressors, foreign or
domestic, and damn little else.
I also believe that if the religious right spent half as much time
trying to change hearts, as they spend trying to change laws (to no
avail), then the abortion issue would be a non topic. That probably
applies to all of the other issues they hold dear. I have no idea why so
many people comprehend that government screws up everything economic,
yet believe they should be involved in morality, as if there is ANY
chance in hell they wouldn't screw that up too.
Why do otherwise intelligent people, given all of the evidence to the
contrary, keep turning to government as if they actually expect that
they could fix stuff?
Lon VanOstran
> Lon VanOstran wrote:
>>
>> Raising taxes does not necessarily bring in more money, as people's
>> behavior changes according to tax consequences. How many times do
>> dumb-ases need to learn that lesson?
>>
>> It has been proven over and over again that raising taxes usually brings
>> in LESS TAX MONEY, and cutting taxes usually brings in MORE TAX MONEY,
>> because of human nature. Taxes are no different than any other prices.
>> When you raise the price of something, PEOPLE DON'T PARTAKE of it as
>> much, and when you lower the price of something, PEOPLE DO OR USE MORE
>> of it.
>>
>
>> Lon
>
> Didn't someone, Jerry?, just post about raising cigarette taxes in NY
> cause a 37% decrease in sales, with a corresponding reduction in
> revenue, as people went to Indian Reservations & other states for their
> purchases?
>
Yes! We've also seen the results of taxes on luxury yachts, etc. etc.
etc.... There is so much evidence that no reasonably intelligent person
could misunderstand the issue. That means that our Washington D.C.
Liberals are either stupid, or evil. I stand by evil. As for the people
who vote for them? I'll stick with stupid.
Frank Howell
> Lon VanOstran wrote:
>
>>
>> Lon, who votes GOP, supports eliminating 95% of the Federal
>> government, and grows weary of left wing liars.
>
> Interesting Q&A in today's St. Pete Times. I looked on their website
> but couldn't find a link to it so I'll just summarize briefly.
>
> The question was what was the difference between the Libertarian
> Party & the Tea Party. After giving the obvious caveats that there is
> a range of positions in both areas, the answer was summed up in that
> Libertarians tended to be fiscally conservative & socially liberal in
> that they didn't want the gov't involved in social issues such as gay
> marriage & abortion like the Tea Party seems to. Libertarians were
> also much more likely to want the military to be used for national
> defense & not as world policemen.
>
> What say you?
As a 30 year Libertarian, that's how I see their philosophy. I see the Tea
Party more as a protest movement rather then a clearly defined political
organization.
--
Frank Howell
Bruce S
> Lon VanOstran wrote:
>
>>
>> Lon, who votes GOP, supports eliminating 95% of the Federal
>> government, and grows weary of left wing liars.
>
> Interesting Q&A in today's St. Pete Times. I looked on their website
> but couldn't find a link to it so I'll just summarize briefly.
>
> The question was what was the difference between the Libertarian
> Party & the Tea Party. After giving the obvious caveats that there is
> a range of positions in both areas, the answer was summed up in that
> Libertarians tended to be fiscally conservative & socially liberal in
> that they didn't want the gov't involved in social issues such as gay
> marriage & abortion like the Tea Party seems to. Libertarians were
> also much more likely to want the military to be used for national
> defense & not as world policemen.
>
> What say you?
I've been a Libertarian for almost 40 years, and that pretty much sums up
the differences, although among Libertarians there are differences of
opinions on the abortion issue - some see the fetus as a separate entity,
some see only the mother.
For me the Libertarian philosophy is best summed up as "The government that
governs best governs least." And by that we mean that government should not
be involved in any issue that is one of personal choice and personal
responsibility. Government should only get involved when your actions
directly impact others - and then only the least possible level. Think of
the example of your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Or,
to paraphrase what Jefferson said, If it neither breaks my bones, nor picks
my pockets, it means nothing to me.
Lone Haranguer
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:13:52 -0500, Owen McKenzie
> <jomck...@escapees.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Interesting Q&A in today's St. Pete Times. I looked on their website but
>> couldn't find a link to it so I'll just summarize briefly.
>>
>> The question was what was the difference between the Libertarian Party&
>> the Tea Party. After giving the obvious caveats that there is a range of
>> positions in both areas, the answer was summed up in that Libertarians
>> didn't want the gov't involved in social issues such as gay marriage&
>> abortion like the Tea Party seems to.
>
>
> That alone would make me Libertarian.
>
>> Libertarians were also much more
>> world policemen.
>
> And that would cinch my Libertarian feelings.
But you repeat a lot of liberal fibs.
LZ
Frank Howell
Howabout some howelling? :-)
I looked at the Federal budget the other day, until my eyes went numb, and
counted over 16,000 budget items. This to me is evidence that we have a
government that is too big to manage.
What I have seen so far concerning any deficit reforms mirrors the same
sharp stick that cities use when facing budget crunches. They reduce or
eliminate any service that can directly affect it's citizens such as Senior
services, libraries, parks, etc, but never are public employee jobs or the
bureaucracies they serve. Never a mention about firing trash collectors,
city bus drivers, etc, and privatizing them.
Same thing with current deficit commission. Do we need a Dept of Education,
Energy, Hud, etc. Are all those necessary? Do we need to have military posts
in 140 countries? Do we have to farm subsidies, etc. For whatever reason
those items are ignored and focus is on SS, home mortgage deduction,
dependent deduction, etc. Not that I am against eliminating those items
philosophically, but the point being that the commission has a makeup of
Statists who will protect the State at the expense of those who fund it.
--
Frank Howell
Janet Wilder
> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>> Lon VanOstran wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Lon, who votes GOP, supports eliminating 95% of the Federal
>>> government, and grows weary of left wing liars.
>>
>> Interesting Q&A in today's St. Pete Times. I looked on their website
>> but couldn't find a link to it so I'll just summarize briefly.
>>
>> The question was what was the difference between the Libertarian
>> a range of positions in both areas, the answer was summed up in that
>> that they didn't want the gov't involved in social issues such as gay
>> also much more likely to want the military to be used for national
>>
>> What say you?
>
> I've been a Libertarian for almost 40 years, and that pretty much sums up
> the differences, although among Libertarians there are differences of
> opinions on the abortion issue - some see the fetus as a separate entity,
> some see only the mother.
>
> For me the Libertarian philosophy is best summed up as "The government that
> governs best governs least." And by that we mean that government should not
> be involved in any issue that is one of personal choice and personal
> responsibility. Government should only get involved when your actions
> directly impact others - and then only the least possible level. Think of
> the example of your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Or,
> to paraphrase what Jefferson said, If it neither breaks my bones, nor picks
> my pockets, it means nothing to me.
>
The largest single employer in our country is government. I admit we
need some federal government, like the military, interstate commerce
regulation, and some form of treasury to fund them, but we don't need
the redundancy we now have.
There are agencies with identical purpose on the federal level, the
state level, the county level and the municipal level (I might have
missed a few others) Why can't we just pick one jurisdiction and get rid
of the others?
IMNSHO,the federal government needs to give the states back their rights
to govern themselves. Our founding fathers never envisioned such a
cumbersome and wastefully huge federal government.
That's my soap box position for the day.
--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.
Owen McKenzie
>
> I guess I must be a Libertarian, even though I won't waste a vote on
> them, because I truly believe that morality should be left to the
> church. Bureaucrats will screw that up just as badly as they screw up
> the economy when they mess with it.
>
I just had a wild thought. What if there were millions of people who
didn't vote Libertarian but thought their vote would be wasted?
Lon VanOstran
> Lon VanOstran wrote:
>>
>> I guess I must be a Libertarian, even though I won't waste a vote on
>> them, because I truly believe that morality should be left to the
>> church. Bureaucrats will screw that up just as badly as they screw up
>> the economy when they mess with it.
>>
>
> I just had a wild thought. What if there were millions of people who
> didn't vote Libertarian but thought their vote would be wasted?
>
There are. A few millions of Republican votes going to the Libertarians
would grant every seat in Congress to the Democrats, who would declare
it a mandate to move all the way left. The United States of America
would be no more.
For better or worse, we are a 2 party system. The vast majority of all
seats are going to be filled with Democrats and Republicans. If we want
change, we have to change either the Democrat, or the Republican party.
Sadly, Conservatives are wasting their efforts on the Libertarians and
the Tea Party, while Liberals unite to change the Democrat party into
their visions. Conservatives are constantly having their lunch eaten by
the more politically astute Liberals.
Reality is a real bitch, but she's consistent as hell. Sadly, so are
Conservatives. I wonder which party they will waste their efforts on
next while the Liberals keep taking us ever farther to the left?
Lon
bill horne
> Lon VanOstran wrote:
>>
>> I guess I must be a Libertarian, even though I won't waste a vote on
>> them, because I truly believe that morality should be left to the
>> church. Bureaucrats will screw that up just as badly as they screw up
>> the economy when they mess with it.
>>
>
> I just had a wild thought. What if there were millions of people who
> didn't vote Libertarian but thought their vote would be wasted?
Even if millions did, it'd probably still get 'em a Democrat.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
bill horne
> The largest single employer in our country is government. I admit we
> need some federal government, like the military, interstate commerce
> regulation, and some form of treasury to fund them, but we don't need
> the redundancy we now have.
We also need speed limit enforcement so that I'll still have the left
lane mostly to myself.
Bruce S
And you'll get no argument from me on this issue.
Bruce S
> Lon VanOstran wrote:
>>
>> I guess I must be a Libertarian, even though I won't waste a vote on
>> them, because I truly believe that morality should be left to the
>> church. Bureaucrats will screw that up just as badly as they screw up
>> the economy when they mess with it.
>>
>
> I just had a wild thought. What if there were millions of people who
> didn't vote Libertarian but thought their vote would be wasted?
Do you envision 40 million or so of those people - that's what it would take
to make a real difference.
Frank Howell
Agreed, but it won't happen 'til enough other citizens come to your same
conclusions.
--
Frank Howell
Don Lampson
Glad you're not sceert to admit liberals are winning. American
liberals have been winning, ever since the abolitionist movement
began! Our liberal notions have also changed the world beyond belief!
Maybe liberals won't get every law, & tax they want today, but some
of them will become laws, & taxes, surely as the turning of the earth!
I dislike lots of what I see going on in politics, but unless there's
a military junta, or revolution, I see nothing but more liberal
notions for the US in the future!
All I can do is wish my kids, and grandkids, best of luck! I'm sure
the world they inherit will be a lot harder place that the one I was
raised in!
peace & love
Larry
wrote:
Snip
>
>There are agencies with identical purpose on the federal level, the
>state level, the county level and the municipal level (I might have
>missed a few others) Why can't we just pick one jurisdiction and get rid
>of the others?
Janet, that is so true. I recently had a new dock put in behind my house.
It was replacing an older dock, same position on the lake and shore. It is
an inland lake with no access to anything except a small chain of lakes. No
connection to anything that could be used for commerce. I had to have the
County, the EPA, the South West Florida Water Management District, and the
Army Corps of Engineers ALL approve and permit it. They each had to have a
professionally drawn plan by an "approved" (expensive) company, and a check,
sent to them prior to issuing the permission to go ahead. No refund if the
plan is not approved. But only the county came for inspection. The
inspection lasted for about 15 seconds. Just long enough for the inspector
to sign the permit.
--
Larry
Citrus Co. Fl.
Lon VanOstran
> Lon
> Glad you're not sceert to admit liberals are winning. American
> liberals have been winning, ever since the abolitionist movement
> began! Our liberal notions have also changed the world beyond belief!
> of them will become laws,& taxes, surely as the turning of the earth!
> I dislike lots of what I see going on in politics, but unless there's
> a military junta, or revolution, I see nothing but more liberal
> notions for the US in the future!
> All I can do is wish my kids, and grandkids, best of luck! I'm sure
> the world they inherit will be a lot harder place that the one I was
> raised in!
>
> peace& love
>
> http://www.donlampson.com
>
The abolitionist movement was advanced by Republicans. Voting rights for
freed slaves were advanced by Republicans. Equal rights for women were
advanced by Republicans. Most of what destroyed the southern "Plantation
mentality" was advanced by Republicans. The modern move to the left
really shifted into high gear with Teddy Roosevelt. Almost nothing has
slowed it since, except the Reagan administration, which moved us
WAAAAAAAAAAY to the right, but not nearly far enough. If Reagan has not
stopped the cyclone of inflation, the United States of America would
today be yet another state of the USSR, and Communism would control the
world. Instead, Reagan beat the USSR with the arms race that destroyed
them financially.
So, today, we are trying to destroy the USA the same way Reagan helped
Gorby the Great destroy the USSR. It's working.
Lone Haranguer
> Lon Glad you're not sceert to admit liberals are winning. American
> liberals have been winning, ever since the abolitionist movement began!
>
Lincoln's ability to win the Civil War.
> The Copperheads were a vocal group of Democrats in the Northern United
> States (see also Union (American Civil War)) who opposed the American Civil
> War, wanting an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates.
> Republicans started calling anti-war Democrats "Copperheads", likening them
> to the poisonous snake.
>
The most famous Copperhead was Ohio's Clement L. Vallandigham, a
> Congressman and leader of the Democratic Party. Republican prosecutors
> accused some leaders of treason in a series of trials in 1864.[2]
>
> Copperheadism was a highly contentious grassroots movement, strongest in
> the area just north of the Ohio River, as well as some urban ethnic wards.
> Historians have argued that it represent a traditionalistic element alarmed
> at the rapid modernization of society sponsored by the Republican Party,
> and looked back to Jacksonian Democracy for inspiration. Weber (2006)
> argues that the Copperheads damaged the Union war effort by fighting the
> draft, encouraging desertion, and forming conspiracies, but other
> historians say the draft was in disrepute and the conspiracies were greatly
> exaggerated by the Republicans for partisan reasons. Historians agree that
> the Copperheads' goal of negotiating a peace and restoring the Union with
> slavery was naive and impractical, for the Confederates refused to consider
> giving up their independence. Copperheadism was a major issue in the 1864
> presidential election; its strength waxed when Union armies were doing
> poorly, and waned when they won great victories. After the fall of Atlanta
> in September 1864 military success seemed assured, and Copperheadism
> collapsed.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperheads_(politics)
*****************
Liberals are known for treasonous activity in a number of wars. Liberals gave
the A-bomb secrets to the Russians. Liberals sabotaged our efforts in Vietnam
and liberal groups like Code Pink have been active in undercutting our goals
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's obvious that liberals place their dogma above the welfare of the USA.
Obama and his cohort are current examples.
LZ
nothermark
<Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote:
You are right, I am still wondering what you are asking me.
If you want me to defend this:
"I'm trying to figure out how anyone could get stupid enough to
believe that letting someone KEEP more of the money he has earned
equates to _GIVING_ him money."
Forget me defending it. I did not say it and do not understand the
reasoning either.
My positions are simple:
One taxes the wealthy more because they are the folks that have the
money.
The purpose of any society is to set up a legal framework to protect
it's members. Part of being a member of the society is to pay one's
dues commensurate with one's ability to do so. In some societies it
is producing food and acting as a defense force. In more modern
societies that has largely been reduced to paying taxes.
In that vein I don't support all the tax breaks and social engineering
via tax code.
I also think protecting folks from perils foreign and domestic entails
more than maintaining a military and police forces. Our society is
much more complex than hunting food, picking watever plants are
available, and constructing shelters out of available material. More
complex societies need more complex answers.
Owen McKenzie
> You are right, I am still wondering what you are asking me.
>
> If you want me to defend this:
>
> "I'm trying to figure out how anyone could get stupid enough to
> believe that letting someone KEEP more of the money he has earned
> equates to _GIVING_ him money."
>
> Forget me defending it. I did not say it and do not understand the
> reasoning either.
>
But you did say it. Here is the relevant quote: I'm try8ing to figure
out why giving the rich more money to
invest overseas is good. ;-)
nothermark
<jomck...@escapees.com> wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
>
>> You are right, I am still wondering what you are asking me.
>>
>> If you want me to defend this:
>>
>> "I'm trying to figure out how anyone could get stupid enough to
>> believe that letting someone KEEP more of the money he has earned
>> equates to _GIVING_ him money."
>>
>> Forget me defending it. I did not say it and do not understand the
>> reasoning either.
>>
>
>But you did say it. Here is the relevant quote: I'm try8ing to figure
>out why giving the rich more money to
>invest overseas is good. ;-)
Ah, I did not make the connection. Thank You!
I wrote it in answer to the question "What are some of you that were
so giddy about the Tea Party thinking about this agreement?" A lot
of the Tea party folks have got to be thinking "business as usual".
In terms of extending the tax cut I do not consider that as "taking
more" in that it was a temporary cut in the take as opposed to a new
tax increase.
I am also disturbed about foreign investment of money intended to help
create domestic jobs no matter how it is done.
nothermark
<Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bruce S wrote:
>>>>> SSDD. I'm try8ing to figure out why giving the rich more money to
>>>>> >>> invest overseas is good.;-)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'm trying to figure out how anyone could get stupid enough to
>>>> >> believe that letting someone KEEP more of the money he has earned
>>>> >> equates to_GIVING_ him money.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Liberalism really IS a mental defect.
>>>> >> http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/09/modern_liberali.php
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Lon
>>> >
>>> > Letting everybody keep their money makes sense if we were not in debt
>>> > up to our neck. If we are to try to get out the only folks with
>>> > significant money to tax is the rich. They control most of the money.
>> But it was YOU who said that not taxing them was GIVING them money. Do you
>> really not understand the difference? Are you really so stupid that you
>> think that letting them keep what is theirs is the same as giving them
>> something?
>>
>> We do not have a problem of being under-taxed, we have a problem of over
>> spending. Our debt problem could be solved in one tax cycle without raising
>> taxes by so much as a dime, by simply stopping spending. But, as you have
>> continued to make clear, you are opposed to stopping spending.
>>
>> -- Bruce S.
>
>I'm STILL trying to figure out how anyone could get stupid enough to
>believe that letting someone KEEP more of the money he has earned
>equates to _GIVING_ him money.
>
>I'm pretty sure nothingmark didn't answer that question because he
>really has no idea either way, and is simply spewing forth the dems
>talking points without ever understanding any of it. He really IS that
>stupid.
>
If you think I am spewing Democrats talking points you ar the stupid
one.
nothermark
<fpho...@usermail.com> wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:13:11 -0600, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>> (dot) us> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What effect has the Tea Party movement had on Washington?
>>>
>>> I thought I heard a resounding message that things were going to
>>> change then the announcement that we were continue the same old shit.
>>>
>>> Damned, if the President and Republicans haven't just agreed to
>>> REDUCE taxes while increasing spending (unemployment benefits).
>>>
>>> When is it going to end?
>>>
>>> What are some of you that were so giddy about the Tea Party thinking
>>> about this agreement?
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>>
>> SSDD. I'm try8ing to figure out why giving the rich more money to
>> invest overseas is good. ;-)
>
>Giving? I thought they wanted to take what someone else earned and give it
>to someonewho didn't. Makes those Indian(feather not dot) givers look almost
>respectable.
>I just find it weird that a primary responsibility of a government is to
>take earned income and give it to others, but I guess that's how the Earned
>Income Credit is consummated and we know who is over the barrel in that act.
>
>Does the IRS have a Robin Hood brigade? :-)
From what I can tell, the answer is yes.
;-)
Bruce S
Referring to extending the current tax rates as "giving money to the rich"
IS a Democrat talking point - it is also a lie.
Lon VanOstran
>
> Forget me defending it. I did not say it and do not understand the
> reasoning either.
>
The hell you didn't!!!
From above:
> SSDD. I'm try8ing to figure out why giving the rich more money to
> >>>>>> invest overseas is good. ;-)
Defend it or retract it.
Lon VanOstran
You spewed it. You later claim you didn't spew it. Then you dance around
it when you are asked to defend it. It's one of the Dems "talking
points". Clearly you don't understand, or CAN'T understand the dem
talking point you spewed. What else are we to conclude except that you
are so damn stupid that you post Dem talking points that you don't
understand?
Explain it if you know what you meant. I hold that you haven't a clue
what it means. You simply spewed it.
nothermark
If you would have quoted it in the first place I would have known what
you were talking about. As I pointed out in another post I was
answering the question of what I thought the Tea Party folks were
thinking, SSDD. Same Shit, different day. Borrow and spend.
As an addon thought I was pointing out I was not worried about the
business as usual. I was looking at the way we keep trying to
stimulate the economy by giving more tax breaks to the rich who then
either save it or invest it in foreign economies.
If you want a defense of the deal it's this. I don't regard extending
a tax cut as giving more money to anybody. It is a failure of the
government to take their cut of the deal not a new grab for wealth. In
other words it is not your money, it's the government's but they chose
not to take it in the hopes you would do something beneficial to
society with it. Stupid them.
nothermark
<Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote:
Read the other post. You skewed what I wrote into what probably is a
Democratic talking point. I don't know as I don't glue myself to the
garbage they spew any more than I do to the Republican excrement. Both
politivcal parties disgust me as I think both have gotten too focused
on loitics and lost interest in the contry.
Lon VanOstran
So, once again you dodge the question and refuse to explain what you
obviously don't understand. Good dance.
Lon
Lon VanOstran
You dumb-ass. It's quoted above, and had been quoted in this thread ever
since you wrote it.
As I pointed out in another post I was
> answering the question of what I thought the Tea Party folks were
> thinking, SSDD. Same Shit, different day. Borrow and spend.
>
> As an addon thought I was pointing out I was not worried about the
> business as usual. I was looking at the way we keep trying to
> stimulate the economy by giving more tax breaks to the rich who then
> either save it or invest it in foreign economies.
>
> If you want a defense of the deal it's this. I don't regard extending
> a tax cut as giving more money to anybody.
Then why did you write?: ">>> SSDD. I'm try8ing to figure out why
giving the rich more money to
>>>>>>>>> invest overseas is good."
You wrote it. Explain it.
It is a failure of the
> government to take their cut of the deal not a new grab for wealth. In
> other words it is not your money, it's the government's but they chose
> not to take it in the hopes you would do something beneficial to
> society with it. Stupid them.
Stupid you.
Bruce S
>
> If you want a defense of the deal it's this. I don't regard extending
> a tax cut as giving more money to anybody. It is a failure of the
> government to take their cut of the deal not a new grab for wealth. In
> other words it is not your money, it's the government's but they chose
> not to take it in the hopes you would do something beneficial to
> society with it. Stupid them.
So your position is that it all belongs to the government, and they get to
decide what you keep. You have defined yourself as a slave and a communist.
nothermark
<Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote:
Clearly anything I say youwill warp into something else so you can
whine about it.
You talk about the poor whining about needing help, it's nothing
compared to listening to you whine about maybe giving it.
Bruce S
When the money is stolen from one person, it is a lie to talk about giving
it.
nothermark
<Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote:
Here was the original question:
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:13:11 -0600, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
(dot) us> wrote:
>
>What effect has the Tea Party movement had on Washington?
>
>I thought I heard a resounding message that things were going to
>change then the announcement that we were continue the same old shit.
>
>Damned, if the President and Republicans haven't just agreed to REDUCE
>taxes while increasing spending (unemployment benefits).
>
>When is it going to end?
>
>What are some of you that were so giddy about the Tea Party thinking
>about this agreement?
>
>mike
Here is my answer:
> SSDD. I'm try8ing to figure out why giving the rich more money to
> invest overseas is good. ;-)
The answer to the T party question is SSDD. THey are thinking
nothing changes once the legislators get to Wonderland on the Patomac.
The **Comment** was that I am not paying much attention to it as I am
trying to figure out how all the stimulus packages to the rich is good
when they just use it to invest overseas.
I am still strying to see why a tax break for the very wealthy is a
good thing as everything I see with numbers attached says they do not
use it to create new jobs here.
As far as I am concerned Bush II was as dumb as Bush I over tax
policy.
I also think the reason you made your money was the support of the
social structure you now want to welsh out of supporting so the next
generation can not have your breaks.
I know, nobody gave you any breaks and you walked 5 miles theough the
snow uphill both ways when you were a kid.
Lon VanOstran
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> SSDD. I'm try8ing to figure out why giving the rich more money to
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> invest overseas is good.;-)
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to figure out how anyone could get stupid enough to
>> >>>>>>>>>> believe that letting someone KEEP more of the money he has earned
>> >>>>>>>>>> equates to_GIVING_ him money.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
This is the original exchange. All those arrows at the left represent
the number of post during which the dimwit has danced about what he
wrote, pretending that he wasn't spewing DNC talking points without
understanding a word of it.
I'm not fooled. Nothermark spewed DNC talking point without
understanding a word of it.
Lon VanOstran
> THey are thinking
> nothing changes once the legislators get to Wonderland on the Patomac.
It's "Disneyland on the Potomac", and it's a line I've been using since
at least 1994, and maybe as many as 10 years before that. The least you
could do it get it right. Oh.....that's right. You never get ANYTHING right.
Lon
BJ
>If you want a defense of the deal it's this. I don't regard extending
>a tax cut as giving more money to anybody. It is a failure of the
>government to take their cut of the deal not a new grab for wealth. In
>other words it is not your money, it's the government's but they chose
>not to take it in the hopes you would do something beneficial to
>society with it. Stupid them.
Stupid them????? Wrong! Stupid YOU.
It is not the governments money. It is money they want to steal from the
people who have worked for it. And give it to people like YOU who think that
they deserve to live as well as the guy that busted his ass to earn that
money.
BJ
Just plain Dusty
> My positions are simple:
Indeed!
> One taxes the wealthy more because they are the folks that have the
> money.
True enough, as far as that goes. However, by what right, duty, or
privilege do put yourself or your servant-at-action into the position to do
that for you? What right did you find that permitted you to take from
another the work-product of their own efforts? When did you get the right
to take the time of another? And if you can't do that, then why would a
government, "... instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed..." be able to do that in your stead?
> The purpose of any society is to set up a legal framework to protect
> it's members.
True enough. But is that equally true for all members? Or is a selected
sub-set given greater privilage? I suspect that the words, "Bill of
attainder" (Art. 1, sec. 9, US Const.) don't mean much to you, do they?
> Part of being a member of the society is to pay one's
> dues commensurate with one's ability to do so.
Really? Where is that written? I've been through the Declaration of
Independence, Constitution of these several states, and a ton of the
Federalist papers. Nowhere therein did I find such a statement. Can you
source it for us? (NB: You should probably avoid using the Marx's "The
Communist Manifesto" as your source.)
> In some societies it
> is producing food and acting as a defense force. In more modern
> societies that has largely been reduced to paying taxes.
Why is that, I wonder... Could it be that eating their food or being cared
for and defended isn't as easy to accomplish?
> In that vein I don't support all the tax breaks and social engineering
> via tax code.
We agree again...but you apparently think that it's okay to fleece the
successful or harder-working more for your own ends. Where does that stop?
Can I get a higher speed limit implemented because I drive a modern, sound,
well-maintained, well-insured vehicle and have been through and taught at a
variety of street and closed-course driving schools? Why not? I'm better
by definition, why can't those of us so certified drive safely as fast as
we'd like? I mean, after all, wouldn't that only be "fair"?
> I also think protecting folks from perils foreign and domestic entails
> more than maintaining a military and police forces. Our society is
Also true enough. So, how's our border protection working out for you?
> much more complex than hunting food, picking watever plants are
> available, and constructing shelters out of available material. More
> complex societies need more complex answers.
I'd submit that they only seem more complex because the intelligence of the
observer has decreased in inverse proportion to the amount of commons sense
required to say that.
I've seen enough dumb-ass being brewed on the various cable news channels
these days to start a new brewery. Sad, that...
L8r all,
Dusty
--
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual
ignorance."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
nothermark
Actually I have heard both and use both interchangeably. Either one
gets the message across for most folks. Either is fair game. Google
it if you don't believe me. I assume you know it comes from Alice in
Wonderland.
nothermark
wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
>>
>> If you want a defense of the deal it's this. I don't regard extending
>> a tax cut as giving more money to anybody. It is a failure of the
>> government to take their cut of the deal not a new grab for wealth. In
>> other words it is not your money, it's the government's but they chose
>> not to take it in the hopes you would do something beneficial to
>> society with it. Stupid them.
>
>So your position is that it all belongs to the government, and they get to
>decide what you keep. You have defined yourself as a slave and a communist.
No, my position is that the tax rate was set but W got it temporarily
rolled back. The key was it was sold as a temporary move. The only
money I am talking about in this case is the difference between the
official tax rate and the temporary rate.
nothermark
The society that provided the infrastructure that let you make the
money you have is not free. TANSTAAFL. Taxes are how you pay for the
privledge.
nothermark
<RV-dr...@OneAmeriREMOVETHIScanPatriot.com> wrote:
>nothermark wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:52:05 -0500, Lon VanOstran
>> <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>> My positions are simple:
>Indeed!
>
>> One taxes the wealthy more because they are the folks that have the
>> money.
>True enough, as far as that goes. However, by what right, duty, or
>privilege do put yourself or your servant-at-action into the position to do
>that for you? What right did you find that permitted you to take from
>another the work-product of their own efforts? When did you get the right
>to take the time of another? And if you can't do that, then why would a
>government, "... instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
>consent of the governed..." be able to do that in your stead?
Sorry, I never claimed any right. You will need to find somebody else
to argue that one. I was stating a rather obvious observation.
>
>> The purpose of any society is to set up a legal framework to protect
>> it's members.
>True enough. But is that equally true for all members? Or is a selected
>sub-set given greater privilage? I suspect that the words, "Bill of
>attainder" (Art. 1, sec. 9, US Const.) don't mean much to you, do they?
>
>> Part of being a member of the society is to pay one's
>> dues commensurate with one's ability to do so.
>Really? Where is that written? I've been through the Declaration of
>Independence, Constitution of these several states, and a ton of the
>Federalist papers. Nowhere therein did I find such a statement. Can you
>source it for us? (NB: You should probably avoid using the Marx's "The
>Communist Manifesto" as your source.)
Equality depends on the society. If I was going to look for a basis
of what I said it would be in scientific papers on how civilizations
work not on any particular political work. Try social anthropology if
you are interested.
>
>> In some societies it
>> is producing food and acting as a defense force. In more modern
>> societies that has largely been reduced to paying taxes.
>Why is that, I wonder... Could it be that eating their food or being cared
>for and defended isn't as easy to accomplish?
>
>> In that vein I don't support all the tax breaks and social engineering
>> via tax code.
>We agree again...but you apparently think that it's okay to fleece the
>successful or harder-working more for your own ends. Where does that stop?
>Can I get a higher speed limit implemented because I drive a modern, sound,
>well-maintained, well-insured vehicle and have been through and taught at a
>variety of street and closed-course driving schools? Why not? I'm better
>by definition, why can't those of us so certified drive safely as fast as
>we'd like? I mean, after all, wouldn't that only be "fair"?
If you are asking if I agree witht he graduated tax idea, I do. If
you want me to explain how political decisions are derived I would
rather explain the female mind. Neither is simple but women are more
interesting than politics. ;-)
>
>> I also think protecting folks from perils foreign and domestic entails
>> more than maintaining a military and police forces. Our society is
>Also true enough. So, how's our border protection working out for you?
>
>> much more complex than hunting food, picking watever plants are
>> available, and constructing shelters out of available material. More
>> complex societies need more complex answers.
>I'd submit that they only seem more complex because the intelligence of the
>observer has decreased in inverse proportion to the amount of commons sense
>required to say that.
Really? Saying it is simple. Getting some folks to really understand
it is not. There are a few folks here that think nothng has
materially changed in over 200 years.
>
>I've seen enough dumb-ass being brewed on the various cable news channels
>these days to start a new brewery. Sad, that...
>
>
>L8r all,
>Dusty
Good reason to avoid television. ;-)
nothermark
I wonder who you are preaching to. Anybody who followed this knows
what was said and when. Some will damn me no matter what and the rest
will do the same to you. I guess you enjoy that.
Bruce S
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:26:42 -0800, "Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> nothermark wrote:
>>>
>>> If you want a defense of the deal it's this. I don't regard
>>> extending a tax cut as giving more money to anybody. It is a
>>> failure of the government to take their cut of the deal not a new
>>> grab for wealth. In other words it is not your money, it's the
>>> government's but they chose not to take it in the hopes you would
>>> do something beneficial to society with it. Stupid them.
>>
>> So your position is that it all belongs to the government, and they
>> get to decide what you keep. You have defined yourself as a slave
>> and a communist.
>
>
> No, my position is that the tax rate was set but W got it temporarily
> rolled back.
What a totally moronic position - what on earth would cause you to believe
that the tax rates implemented by Clinton were any more permanent than the
tax rates implemented by Reagan? Why aren't you arguing for a return to
28%.
> The key was it was sold as a temporary move. The only
> money I am talking about in this case is the difference between the
> official tax rate and the temporary rate.
That position gets stupider every time I hear it.