Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How many times does Romney have to say he doesn’t care about poor people?

Posted 1 year ago on Sept. 18, 2012, 4:59 a.m. EST by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This man who depends on special tax treatment for all his 20 million dollars, who was born rich, whose children were born rich, this is what he think of Americans who aren’t born rich. People making less than $20,000 pay more in tax than he does, then he says this shit, because it is what they think of the rest of us. Those born to wealth think they own it all, they think that anybody who wants a decent wage is just greedy remember these are the same people who are trying to bust unions everywhere. They are a bunch of spoiled rich babies and if you vote Republican, you are selling your families future down the river so rich brats like the Romney boys can have it all.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser

UPDATE, the full tape has been made available:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/watch-full-secret-video-private-romney-fundraiser

606 Comments

606 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by gsw (2727) 1 year ago

Romney is making good case

For why 1 percent corporate clueless candidates

Should not be in charge of things,

Any more than the currently are,

Which is almost absolutely in charge.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/biil-moyers-exposes-c4-tax-free-unlimited-anonymou/#comment-841114

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

I guess we should be thankful that he is such a perfect illustration of what's wrong with the 1%.

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Does anyone have some good links as to what percentage of Americans actually receive "entitlements"? Including TANF, food-stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, VA benefits, whatever. I have seen the quote "49% of Americans LIVE IN A HOUSEHOLD where someone is receiving benefits", and that sneaky statistic was quoted from a Repelican think tank, so I was just looking for some solid stats from a reliable source. Thanks in advance.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/snap-frequently-asked-questions/

SNAP is the new name for the Food Stamp program. I have traced back the budget on food stamps/nutrician program. Link shows As of August 2011, 45.8 million persons were participating in SNAP.

Looks like an official Website to me. I see people quoting USDA on the real numbers. So USDA or Department of Agriculture is the agency.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

OK that's interesting. The thing is that you can't just add all of these statistics together because there is overlap. For instance, if 46 million people are on SNAP, and 30 million ore on TANF, it would be incorrect to say "76 million people are on TANF and SNAP", because this doesn't account for the fact that many people are probably on both.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Normally to qualify for SNAP you traditionally were eligible becuase of another program such as TANF, SSI, or GA.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm

FOR SNAP Program:

Households may have $2,000 in countable resources, such as a bank account, or $3250 in countable resources if at least one person is age 60 or older, or is disabled. However, certain resources are NOT counted, such as a home and lot, the resources of people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the resources of people who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, formerly AFDC), and most retirement (pension) plans.

TANF, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant program replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) ...

Here is a PDF from FAS:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42054.pdf

"In April 2012, there were 46 million persons in 22 million households benefitting from SNAP". (first paragraph of Summary)

And from the thrid paragraph of Summary:

"In its traditional form, categorical eligibility conveys SNAP eligibility through the receipt of cash assistance from Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, or state-run General Assistance (GA) programs. However, since the 1996 welfare reform law, states have been able to expand categorical eligibility beyond its traditional bounds."

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Romney received over 4 million in "entitled" tax breaks just in 2010, enough to pay for his food stamps till the year 4870 or something like that, the con think tanks start from the premise the the rich should have it all and pay no tax, so to them everybody is a moocher

[-] 1 points by DCUnited (1) 1 year ago

The problem with Romnies reasoning is that Romeny uses money from the government to make his money. All these guy Bush, Romney, Cheney and yes the Dems too, get rich of government programs for banks, the olympics, oil ,stadium owners,donations to libraries...etc They just mooch off the government at a much higher level...that makes them better than us..

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

they want you to think of government as "them" when it is just another tool, to those with wealth have more access to that tool because of the way we fund elections,we should get the money out of politics so we can restore the concept of one person one vote all with equal say, the wealthy know that if we all had equal say we would on whole would want more money either wages or "hand outs" either way the money would come from the wealthy because they got it all so they oppose this, the thing with the Ds is if we got rid of ALL the Rs the Ds would give us public funding for public elections and we would be a little bit closer to making it a little bit better...

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

we live with the elderly . they own the property

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

So, if I live with my grandmother, and she gets some Medicare for her prescriptions, now I'm a welfare mooch?! Sorry but fuck that logic pal.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

we all live off the good earth

[-] 3 points by Shubee (119) 1 year ago

I reject Mitt Romney's insinuation that 47% of Americans are leeches and useless eaters.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

the Royals always think it is they who carry the peasants...

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

The "Royals" are a classist hangover from medievel times. Can't believe that they're anything more than a tourist attraction, to see what stolen wealth can achieve. The vatican is another example of stolen wealth ostentaciously on display.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

oh how cute, you're stuck in the box let me help you out, Royals derive their wealth and power from birth, therefore any who derive their position by being born to a good family is a Royal, the Royals, like the Romney boys feel that they are naturally born to rule and others should get to work so they can pile up more wealth for their offspring and grow their Knigdoms

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Dirty peasants eating all the food!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

I believe he said it. Flat out. No insinuation or buts. And he has said it in several ways to several audiences in several locations. I think he means it.

His ER health program for the poor says it a way that is totally unambiguous.

[-] 3 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

the problem is obama is not a better choice. Mitt romney is right in that 47% of the people NEED to rely upon the government due to the cost of living being higher than the amount of money that comes in to support their families, and government hidden triple taxation built into the system. We got rampant laws that rape the people, and no government agency that represents the people anymore unless they have money to buy back their rights like in the courts.

To conjure up some incorrect implication with romneys statement that these 47% do not want to be financially responsible for themselves, fails to include one important fact. Its nearly impossible for them to do so. If this is the best "anti romney" campaigning people can conjure up, they got alot more trench digging to do. I myself do not plan on voting for either obama or romney however, because Just as it is sensless to build up the cost of our homes again to an already failed pyramid scheme, so is it also sensless to continue to vote for a corrupt 2 party system and expect a different result. MARK MY WORDS, NO MATTER REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, THE RESULTS WILL BE THE SAME. Our leaders wisdom has fled them. They are the blind trying to lead the blind, and this country cannot perceive what is right anymore, as long as they measure success as how much money is in ones bank account, giving no thought to the measures at how their wealth was obtained, and throwing out integrity.

Think about it, can success be measured by obtaing wealth through fraudelent means? Not as evidenced by the people going to jail on the tv show American Greed. The country is in the state its in because they made their bed and now they have to lie in it. People thought they could lie and cheat eachother, bait and switch sales tactics, here today and gone tomorrow from job to job chasing the dollar at every turn and now we are supposed to feel sorry for them? HA I dont. Im successful and richly blessed, yet I never stiffed people the way they have stiffed me. If People think prosperity is best obtained by defrauding each other, they have alot more to learn, and a lot more to suffer. One of the best teachers of facts and truth, of things as they REALLY ARE is what one learns by the things that they suffer. Wickedness never leads to happiness, and it never will.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

In 1993 the Ds balanced the budget all by themselves without a single Republican vote, we were on track to pay the whole debt off before we went back to Republican polices, things won't be perfect with the Ds in charge but every Republican that can be defeated is a step in the right direction.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

you know after seeing what mitt romney said about the 47% Im starting to agree with you that Obama is the lesser of two evils, and not for the apparant reason do I say it, It is not a matter of pride on behalf of the 47% that those on gov assistance dont want to support themselves, but it is the lack of wisdom shown by mitt romney who didnt address the fact that these people have no alternative choice. His ignorance is greater than obama to me at this time in the juncture.

His lack of concern for these 47% shows that he is only interested in the title of presidency, and is highly suspect that he has no plan to hellp anyone other than himself, (as is the way of most rich people) again a bible scripture fulfilled, the rich shall hardly enter the kingdom of heaven, it might as way say it is impossible, which jesus did imply with his camel squeezing thru the eye of a needle comment.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

you should watch the full version, see how he starts off talking about his will and how he plans to take care of the grand kids, these people live in a different world and they will own it all if we don't do something....

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2044) 1 year ago

Doesn't Romney know that welfare money goes back into corporate coffers when it is spent? Yes pull that 47 percent out of wall streets pockets ... yank it all out today we'll see who the real beneficiaries of welfare are (Wall Street). So long Wall Street. I'm with you all the way Mitt let's pull all that welfare money out right now. Maybe we should let that financial cliff go (ps social security and medicare are actually entitlements - that money has been pulled from out paychecks our whole WORKING lives) So let's not lump ssi and medicare into welfare. The AARP needs to get on that propaganda ASAP with some ads: Yes we are actually entitled to our own money and we paid more than 14 percent out as well. This little secretary paid a higher percentage of my income than Mitt Romney for the last 20 years. He didn't create jobs with his wealth either, he downsized, laid off and sent them overseas. I helped build companies with my labor. He helped break them down with his savings. I just kept paying in. This is how he made his money "investing" and earned capital gains on money that wasn't used to create jobs, but to make himself a very wealthy man ruining working lives and rewarding the ruthless fat cats who mainly did inherit their wealth even if he didn't or so he says. Perhaps some of those people he laid off (some of the very people who still can't get jobs in this downsize, streamlined, out-source economy) are part of that 47 percent he loves to disdain. "Tax em, Lay em off, Steal/ Privatize their tax investments in retirement and health, Break em, Berate em, and finally ...Starve em, then laugh all the way to the bank and the White House!" That should be the real slogan of his campaign - Soup Lines.

Also if you don't pay tax due to write-offs, I guess Romney still considers this as paying tax? I'm a bit unclear on that...

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The only use people like Romney has for the rest of us is how much he can make off our labor. I wonder how the rich folk would think about us calling their interest payments and government bonds "entitlements" we just can't afford...

[-] 2 points by thesungiveslife (41) 1 year ago

well, because the corporate agenda is for Obama to get re-elected. And since they want obama so bad (not that it matters, Romney would do the same as Obama, but Obama is a better way to keep people tricked that he actually can make things right), they will have Mitt do and say things that will make him look bad. You know...Obama represented the working people, with his sleeves roleld up and all. Honestly when are you people gonna wake up to this bullshit? When? Until everything has decayed and we're all out on the streets without anything? Its a two headed one party system! Get it? The big banks and corporations own the news, the media, television, radio, and the papers. Its all a setup. Politics is a sick freakshow made to give people the false illusion that change can actually come through voting. it never has, never will, please don vote, Im not voting because I refuse to take part in a criminal operation. They call it republicans and democrats, I call them the gambinos and the bananos.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

and then they all rode off on a unicorn....

[-] 1 points by thesungiveslife (41) 1 year ago

well yea, as long as we buy into this BS, NOTHING will change. You think their gonna let someone who we want get exposure on TV and the Media? Hell no! Their little children who want more and more for themselves. They've got all the mainstream media companies in their backpockets and their not about to let it up. But overall, politics is a shit show, it cant and wont fix anything. What we need is technicians, engineers, ecologists, and the like in office to figure out how to create a sustainable and efficient system that maximizes potential and minimizes waste and pollution, as well as crime and corruption. Money is the most corrupting element in history, and we need to surpass money and create a world of abundance, not one of scarcity which is what we got now

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

things will change when we kill the GOP, not until then..

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

What are the real facts about total taxes paid by various income groups? The poorest 20% pay about 17%, more than Romney paid. Even the middle class pay just 3-5 percent less than the wealthy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-taxes-americans-really-pay-in-two-graphs/2012/04/16/gIQA6o4yLT_blog.html

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I think Romney's 13.9% (and that was one of his highest years, some years he paid nothing) is lower than just about anybody. Romney made his fortune by avoiding taxes.

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Not even close to right they may of paid a higher % but no where near actual dollars

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Only percentages were compared. Dollar amounts were never mentioned.

[-] 2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

It just kinda comes across as disingenuous is all

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

When the fact that 47% of people don't pay any federal income tax is used to lead people to think that 47% of people don't pay any taxes, that is disingenuous.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

2disingenuouses don't make a right (that losses a lot in translation)

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

As often as can be caught on camera and displayed to the public.

[-] 1 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

I don't think it could be any more obvious what this guy is about. Duh. Does provide some entertainment value though.

[-] 1 points by charlietime7777 (1) from Newark, NJ 11 months ago

Seriously, I bet he never had to do a <a href="https://www.getezmoney.com/livesite/index.asp">payday loan</a> in his life! He served a lot of poor people as a Stake President, but I really don't think he'll ever be able to understand them. I'm glad he didn't make it as the President.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 11 months ago

Good to see the link to the full video is still working.

[-] 0 points by Nationwide (-93) 11 months ago

He is smart, why would he or anybody do a payday loan. It's kind of like going to Vegas; you are going to lose. Wake-up!!!

[-] 1 points by Mike122333 (102) 1 year ago

Romney is a great business man and the worst politician. The republicans can't figure out why he has lost the working white voters -- they are supposed to be and have been the easiest to bait. Apparently, a 4 yr taste of hard times has cured them of their gullibility.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I hope so....

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

I think he should repeat until people start listening.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (2044) 1 year ago

what I want to know is where are the flip flop ads? - you can catch him saying the exact opposite of what he said yesterday on any given day - repeat, lie steamroll, ignore questions, repeat some more. It's like dealing with Comcast. Do you enjoy being abused, berated, cheated, and ignored as well as lied to? Well then, Romney is your man.

Oh yes - in Massachusetts Romney wanted health insurance to work like car insurance where the more claims you have the more your rate goes up to discourage you from seeing the doctor. The senate at the time wanted universal coverage which Romney promised to veto - in order to compromise, Romney agreed to universal coverage if the citizenry would be mandated to buy a "private plan" at which point the insurance industry and hospitals wet themselves with glee. Now if you have any lag in coverage for example (you are downsized, laid off or outsourced and lose your insurance... or you want to start a business or change jobs) you are fined via the department of revenue who will then garnish your wages if you don't pay up. Yes fined for not being able to afford health coverage (this makes sense?) Immediately what happened is insurance companies started having huge deductibles in the thousands of dollars and added the low cost plans required by law (200.00) a month or there-around, but unless you can come up with the thousands per year to actually use it via the deductible, you are basically forced to buy a plan you will never use. A win win for insurance all around and for the working man or woman - well... not so much. Even worse the local senate agreeing this seemed like a good idea (since they too are bought off by the insurance industry) even worse than all of this (Obama adopting this plan and the supreme court upholding it) proving that no one is representing the people well unless you are a person with stocks in or who works in the insurance industry. So pay up my little buttercups - pay you will or you'll get garnished, fined or since it's a tax maybe even jailed for evasion. But they don't really want you using it so they will give you low cost plans with huge huge deductibles that aren't so low cost. You will never use your insurance, you will just pay for it. The American public just bought an insurance payment.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

I don't know if it's fair to place all blame on Romney because this is the political environment that the very liberal left of Massachusetts has created, which, over the past two generations, my family after almost 400 years has chosen to remove from. It seems the working class of Massachusetts are no better off for their liberal governmental policies.

I think Obamacare is going to be a disaster for the working class that has traditionally (or at least, post-war, since the '40s) sought the benefit compensation packages freely provided through employers.

The question becomes, can Obama bucks win the next election? Maybe, but he will not be looked upon favorably in 2016 if it does.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2044) 1 year ago

I chastised both parties in there if you didn't notice ...? I don't like either of them - my personal view is that the election is like choosing between AT&T or Verizon - which one will screw me less? It's the illusion of choice. But from my own stand-point I fear both parties but I fear Romney more than Obama - not that the presidents make law - but they do choose justices for the Supreme Court who do, and will also have the power to veto law and influence policies.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

That's precisely the reason I'm voting for Romney; I did not like at all the liberal response to Obamacare which trounces on rights in ways never before attempted; in fact the only decision I liked was that of Scalia.

What is it that you plan to put before the court in the future that conservatives will not like? It's reaching a point where liberal issues cannot possibly proceed too much further; we're done for example on gun control - it cannot and will not advance any further.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

people must decide do they want to believe the bullshit and serve the King or do they want to be a free people and run the country one person one vote.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Contemptuous Conservative, more honest than Bush? (Compassionate?)

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

From a certain perspective Bush was being very honest, from his point of view every paycheck is an act of compassion, those born into the Royal class often view the peasants as wards of the state, one must show them compassion and provide them useful work so their lives will have meaning.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Yep, you got it.

[-] 1 points by UntilUKnow (35) 1 year ago

It goes WAY beyond that. Take a look at the faces of the "real" One Percent: http://occupywallst.org/forum/these-are-the-faces-of-the-one-percent/

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

good post..thanks for stopping by

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/09/note-trustee-brad-malt

Romney Campaign Announcement-

" Also posted will be a notarized letter from the Romneys’ tax preparer, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (PWC), giving a summary of tax rates from the Romneys’ tax returns for the 20-year period of 1990-2009."

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

when he files the 20 years of actual taxes, not a note from mother, then we will see what's he's been trying to hide, can you believe this guy says "vote for me cause of my business sense" but you can't know anything about that experience, just take my word it, it's good really....just like my plan for medicare, trust me....

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Max Kaiser was saying, Romney comment is 14% of reported Income, but Romney only pays 2% of all of his income. David Kay Johnston book Free Lunch or Perfectly Legal lays out this concept of Differed Wages that go into a Trust. We know Romeny has Trusts out his ying yang.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Good points, and thank you for that info, I think if we saw the actual returns we would see many ways the rich avoid taxes and all this crap about how cap gains "has already paid taxes" is crap, these guys never pay taxes on tons of their incomes, I say SS tax on all forms of income first dollar to last, that would take care of entitlements and get these guys to at least pay what their waiters do.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yeah, David Kay Johnston was big on payroll tax and how the first dollar went to pay payroll taxes when you are a wage earner. But if you are an executive or wealthy, you don't follow the same set of rules. Executives can differ taxes for 20 years or more in a trust to earn interest or grow untill they decide to take some of it out of the trust.

But if you work for wages, your first dollar actually goes to payroll taxes.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It's all about squeezing everything you can from working people so people like Romney can be successful.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

More than half of his supporters are poor people (huge mooching, lazy, welfare kings), and they hate poor people, too! Inconvenienced Billionaires!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Romney himself is dependent on government aid, in the form of lower taxes for him than others.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Mitt is just pandering to the average American.You know the one who thinks that they are the only one's who have ever worked hard.The same people that feel it is better to buy a tank than pay a teacher /cop etc.a living wage.He is not anything like the vast majority of idiots that will vote for him.But he does speak their language.And that caters to insecure people.Hope a dope is not much better.If you feel that you have to hold your nose be careful or you might find yourself knee deep in Sh-t.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Why do so many rich people always seem to hate on the working poor and the elderly?

The elderly make up such a large portion of that 47%.

Romney never seems to question the billion dollar banks getting billions of dollars from the government and the Federal Reserve.

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

ya good point, the banks who are the richest in the country got the biggest handout what about that romney? oh ya, he only cares about his title, highly suspect he has no plan to help anyone other than himself. Mind you those 47% have no alternative choice, and the fact that he showed ignorance to this, I just flip flopped and feel Obama is the lesser of two evils now. (of course Ill probably keep with tradition and vote ron paul)

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Ron Paul isn't running for president anymore.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

ha, thats what the media wants you to believe, fact is he is in court over voter fraud. He does still want to be president, as evidenced by his several attempts at running. the election hasnt been held yet. I hope his name will be right next to mitt romney or else Ill write it in. Im not going to be a dummy and vote for the other 2 worthless bums.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The wealthy feel they are entitled to everything so anything that anybody else gets wither it be wages or retirement, they feel like it's all coming from them. It's really funny when you consider that most of these people never did a damn days worth of real work their whole lives.

[+] -4 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Where did Romney say he hated the working poor and elderly? WHERE?

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (270) 1 year ago

He says it with every smirk, every look, every uncomfortable comment about cookies, corps are people, I like firing people. etc. You are kidding yourself. I guess you support Mitt Romney, but I bet you aren't the 1%. Vote your own interests, but know that Mitt Romney is not for anyone but the 1%.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Mittens is for no one but Mittens. And as soon as he could figure out how to make it work for him he would just as quickly add the 1% to those he would stab in the back.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (270) 1 year ago

Maybe. he does seem to want the presidency just because it's there. As if he is entitled.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OH - He wants it all right - He wants it for what he figures he could do with it and gain from it.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (270) 1 year ago

Nothing good I'm sure. but also just for the prestige of saying he is President.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OH - I think he would enjoy stomping his boots and grinding people with them.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

And yet his history of helping people without any fanfare or press says otherwise. You don't get to ASSUME to know what other people think or feel. It's arrogant, stupid, beyond sane, and most often....wrong.

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (270) 1 year ago

We are all allowed to make judgments about people. 3/4 ths of the people have decided he is a bad person. You don't great! Enjoy him. Maybe he will help you with no fanfare. Ha!

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

3/4ths of who? Are we all allowed to make up numbers too? Oh goodie!

You and I get to make all the judgements we want-we do not, however, get to be right about those judgements simply because we want to be-or because 3/4ths of something agrees with us.

"he is a bad person"???? What makes someone a "bad person" in YOUR definition? (Hint-make sure you and your candidate aren't guilty of any of the things you list ok? Being a hypocrite is something MOST people consider to be "bad". )

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (270) 1 year ago

How we treat other people is the measure of good & bad.

He treats people like crap! No?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

3/4ths of WHO? Who are this 3/4ths of people who "have decided he is a bad person". Still unanswered....

How you THINK he treats other people isn't the same thing as how he actually DOES treat people. I thought that progressives believed that "good and bad" are relative and not static anyway.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Ah yes. Vulture capitalists, er I mean, 'private equity investors' are known for being oh so helpful. Heads I win, tails you lose! Real helpful.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You mean it's NOT HELPFUL for people who give their money to high risk companies who don't qualify for bank loans (from those big bad banks) because they are too small or too new and therefore wouldn't exist if someone didn't step in and offer to help them become successful? Are ANY of the following companies you and I use every day UNHELPFUL?

Amazon, Apple, Boston Scientific, Cephalon, Cisco, Costco, eBay, Facebook, FedEx, First Solar, Genentech, Genzyme, Google, Home Depot, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Staples, Starbucks, Tesla, and Twitter.

You mean it's UNHELPFUL for people who are rich to help generate income and JOBS in the private sector?

From the National Venture Capital Association data reports: (It's almost like the media, and democrats, are afraid to even talk about how many JOBS and SUCCESS have been generated by VC!!!)

*21 percent of 2010 GDP came from VC-backed companies
*11 percent of 2010 private sector employees worked for VC-backed companies
*17,000+ IT companies have been VC-funded
*4,800+ healthcare companies have been VC-funded
*900+ clean technology companies have been VC-funded
*90 percent of software jobs were created by companies funded by VC 
*74 percent of biotechnology jobs were created by companies funded by VC
*72 percent of semiconductor/electronics jobs were created by companies funded by VC
*54 percent of computer jobs were created by companies funded by VC
*48 percent of telecommunications jobs were created by companies funded by VC
*88 percent of the sales from the semiconductor/electronics industry comes from companies funded by VC
*80 percent of the sales from the biotechnology industry comes from companies funded by VC
*46 percent of the sales from the computer industry comes from companies funded by VC
*40 percent of the sales from the software industry comes from companies funded by VC
*39 percent of the sales from the IT services industry comes from companies funded by VC.

www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=786

(GREEN TECH COMPANIES?????NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!)

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

There's a big difference between legitimate and productive venture capital and LBO's heads I win, tails you lose, wealth extraction.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155689/how_the_corporate_media_obscure_the_truth_about_mitt_romney%27s_%27vulture_capitalism%27_at_bain?page=0%2C0

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You and I are obviously talking about different people. If you really cared to know who the man is, and what he's done with his life and for others, you'd already have done your own homework. You'd rather believe what you're fed.

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Pure bullshit. The financialization of the economy, the heads I win, tails you lose business model that it is based on is part of the problem. He was a master of it. Oh so successful! He was a deal maker, a fucking number cruncher! He was no great business person. Any imbicile with half a brain could make money with that business model. He was just smart enough to recognize there was no downside. Any other feel good stuff he may have done, good for him. That doesn't qualify him to be President. When he spews hatred and contempt for the government. As well as disdain for 47% of the population. And how about how he saved those Olympics. Government spending! He's a real piece of work your Loverboy is!

[+] -5 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

"Any imbicile with half a brain could make money with that business model."

You spelled imbecile wrong.

Keep talking. Your continued spewing of hatred and contempt just reveals how little you understand about the economy, business, and what this country needs. He's far more qualified than Obama could ever be.

Your disdain for 46% of the population (economic conservatives) is showing. http://www.gallup.com/poll/154889/nearly-half-identify-economically-conservative.aspx

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Thanks for the correction. I absolutely don't hate conservatives. I feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for them because the batshit crazies are driving the Republican bus. The billionaires are supplying the gas. But the crazies are driving the bus. The traditional conservatives have been shoved to the back of the bus. And sit quietly by for some reason. While the crazies run the bus off a cliff. I don't believe the majority of conservatives are batshit crazy. I think it's a relatively small minority.

Mitt Romney's only solution to our economic problems is to cut taxes for the wealthy and raise military spending. He thinks he'll be able to pull 12 or 20 million jobs out of his ass and pay for his right wing fuckshitup-onomics on the backs of the poor and working poor. His plan has been destroyed by every serious economist on the fucking planet.

And he thinks the economy will improve just because he's him. That he won't have to do anything!

'if we win on November 6th there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back, and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy'

This tells me this man has no idea the deep structural problems of the economy. No clue whatsoever.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I feel sorry for you since you obviously feel obligated to "read into" or make assumptions about everything anyone ever says...unless it's a liberal and then what they say is actually what they mean. BIAS.

Obama KEPT the tax cuts for the wealthy. And if you haven't noticed, the middle east is on FIRE because Obama's policies were to pull out troops and send in contractors who F'd the situation up big time. The entire reason that the "Ambassador" was in Libya that day was because he was sent in to recover the intel and weapons that the OBAMA administration had sold to the revolutionaries in the first place.

The "boost" in the economy is a naturally occurring bump that happens with the citizens of this country are optimistic or feel positive about something. Obama points it out every time it happens and takes the credit for it as if HE or HIS ACTIONS somehow just magically improved the economy. Give me a break.

As far as Obama's policies have "saved us"....please....do a little reading of actual reports and facts and then tell me why it is that so many of them are either NOW hitting, or will hit, the "backs of the working poor" in the near future. Liberals either don't know about such things or HIDE them for a reason.

Obama knew NOTHING about the "deep structural problems" of the economy when he was elected-which is why he's blown so many campaign promises and done so much more damage. The man couldn't even tell Letterman the other night what the National Debt currently IS for crying out loud.

Maybe instead of pointing fingers, you ought take a good hard look at the idiots you continue to defend. You might realize that it's YOU that has no clue whatsoever.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

What's to read into about Romney's comments. He said what he said. He said 47% of the population doesn't want to take responsibility for their lives. Feeding the sickening right wing narrative that underpriveledged people, people in difficult circumstances, as a result of a difficult economy, and need help - are in that position of their own choosing and like it. Or at least content to be there.

'The "boost" in the economy'. You mean consumer confidence? You think - he thinks - he's going to increase consumer confidence? When 65% of the country doesn't even like him. And he runs even with Pres. Obama on jobs and the deficit. Why on earth would he think his own self, doing nothing, would increase consumer confidence? Or will it just be the wealthy who will get a 'boost'? Since he's going to give millionaires a $265M tax break. Because they're the so-called 'job creators'! Now give me break. : )

'Obama KEPT the tax cuts for the wealthy'. That was part of a deal to get long-term unemployment benefits.

'Obama's policies have "saved us"'. I never said or implied this. But here's what I know. The Pres. stimulus plan worked. The CBO says so and the vast majority of expert economists say so.

'why it is that so many of them are either NOW hitting, or will hit, the "backs of the working poor" in the near future' I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. Can you give me an example or be more specific.

'Obama knew NOTHING about the "deep structural problems"' - of course he did. So has every President. Clinton knew that NAFTA and MFN status for China would lead to a structural shift in the economy. From a manufacturing based economy to a knowledge based economy. Clinton and Bush Jr. both knew that education would be extremely important. And they both did things to try to strengthen education (but Clinton takes big issues with the Bush Jr. approach and results - just as an aside). So does Pres. Obama and so has Pres. Obama strengthened it as much as he can. Knowing that increasing college graduation rates is more important now than ever.

But when Romney says something so brazen as 47% of the population doesn't want to take responsibility for their lives. I don't think he gets it. When college grad rates have been stagnant for 20 years and the cost of advanced education has sextupled in that time, and Romney says just get a loan from your parents if you want to go to college. When middle class wages have been stagnant for 30 years due to globalization and the structural changes in the economy, and we've gone through the worst recession in history. I don't think he gets it at all. Not one little bit.

No Pres. is perfect. I'm disappointed about some things. But his stimulus plan worked. He passed healthcare. He's ended the war in Iraq.

What I believe is that tax cuts for millionaires is just wrong. Increasing military spending is wrong. And paying for these things - and trying to reduce the debt, doing so on the backs of the poor is wrong. That's the Ryan/Romney plan. If this is ok with you. Fine. We simply disagree.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Here's what Obamacare is going to do TO THE POOR, to FAMILIES, to the middle class worker etc-

http://www.atr.org/days-taxmageddon-a7203

Clearly a plan filled with love and concern for the poor....

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Lies and propaganda. Health care is now a RIGHT! that's a big fuckin' deal!

Now we have to create the public option and put the criminal private health insurance corps out of business!

One more step. We can do it if we keep up the pressure.

[-] -1 points by CitizenofAmerika (-71) 1 year ago

A "RIGHT" according to who?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

ACA!

[+] -4 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Yes, you now have the "right" to either pay for healthcare yourself or pay the government a FINE because you choose not to. Yeehaw! Low income families who don't qualify for Medicare/Medicaid currently and whose employers don't offer healthcare benefits will have to PURCHASE healthcare or pay a fee for NOT being able to afford it....how does that make sense?

Lies and propaganda? Here's more links describing the exact same new taxes that got rolled into your precious Obamacare!

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/obamacare-21-new-or-higher-taxes.html

http://jeffduncan.house.gov/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47790

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/taxes-going-pay-pay-obamacare-145413745.html

Just google "list of Obamacare taxes" for yourself.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Protest, pressure for the public option that the greedy, selfish republicans killed and these taxes can all go away!

Done!

[-] 5 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

I'm not going to address every item of minutia from Grover Norquist's list. And if you are implying that the ACA is the biggest tax increase in history you are so far off it's not even funny. Do a quick fact check. You'll see it's not even close. No matter what drivel comes from Grover Norquist.

Do some research about what Alan Simpson, David Stockman, Bruce Bartlett - all Republican's - have to say about Grover Norquist, the Ryan/Romney plan and taxes. He's like the least respected person on the planet. Except for the interests that he serves. The wealthy. And others that he has managed to con. Even current Republican's are starting to distance themselves from him. Not renewing their 'pledges'. He's turning into the plague the poor guy. The only pity is that it didn't happen sooner.

And do some research on the history of tax rates. We are paying the lowest tax rates in over 100 years. The top marginal rate was 90% from the 1930's through most of 60's. The effective rate for the period was roughly 70%. Now it's 15% for the wealthy, who make most of their money on capital. Reconcile that. The tax rate only got reduced drastically by Reagan. At the same time, income and wealth inequality began to rise. And is now risen to it's highest levels since the Gilded Age.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2008/07/13/income-gap-and-marginal-tax-rate-1917-2006/

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1

I have little patience and zero respect for anything Grover Norquist has to say on the matter.

[-] 2 points by flip (5058) 1 year ago

betsy is a wacko - A return to Eisenhower-era 90% top tax rates helps fix our economy in several ways

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20500) 1 year ago

You go, April. Good comment.

[+] -6 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Fine. Don't read the Grover Norquist list. Read the OTHER hundreds of sites that outline the list of taxes Obamacare will (and has to) introduce to pay for itself that DO NOT just affect "the rich".

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

Personal income tax rates will rise on January 1, 2013 as follows: -The 10% bracket rises to a new and expanded 15% -The 25% bracket rises to 28% -The 28% bracket rises to 31% -The 33% bracket rises to 36% -The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

(HELLO....do you not see the lowest tax bracket increases by 5%? That's HIGHER than any other increase in tax rates anywhere else)

Higher taxes on marriage and family coming on January 1, 2013.

Middle Class Death Tax returns on January 1, 2013.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors on January 1, 2013. .

Second Wave: 20 new Obamacare Tax Hikes including: --The Obamacare Medical Device Tax begins to be assessed on January 1, 2013. . --The Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike takes effect on January 1, 2013. --The Obamacare “Special Needs Kids Tax” comes online on January 1, 2013.
--The Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deductions goes into force on January 1, 2013.

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes which include: --The AMT will ensnare over 31 million families, up from 4 million last year. --Full business expensing will disappear --Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. --Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. --Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed.

Bring on the taxes!!!!!

[-] 8 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

First wave - uhhh yeah. These are the Clinton era tax rates. The Bush tax cuts were meant to be temporary. This has nothing to do with the ACA or Pres. Obama. Although, Pres. Obama and Congressional Democrats have said repeatedly that they are in favor of maintaining the lower tax rates for incomes under $250k. And increase the capital gains tax rate to 23.8%. Most of that is the revert back to the ending Clinton era level 20% (through the 80's and most of the 90's the cap gains rate was 28%). The added 3.8% increase set to take affect, no matter what, is based on the ACA. So even if the cap gains rate goes up to 23.8% as Pres. Obama favors, it is still 15% lower than the Reagan and Clinton era levels. And the earth didn't spin off it's axis. Seriously, get a grip.

Excise tax on medical devices - explained

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3684

Medicare Payroll tax increase - this only applies to incomes over $200k.

The "special needs kids tax" - you mean the $2,500 cap on spending from Flex Spend Accounts - laughable if it weren't so pathetic. The undisputed fact is that the vast majority of people don't go over this cap anyway and few people will notice any difference. This is nothing but Grover Norquist perversely using special needs children as cover for his own agenda of instilling a fevered paranoia of higher tax rates and an effort to imply that Congressional Democrats are targeting special needs children. Truly pathetic.

The Alternative Minimum Tax always gets adjusted. There's no reason to believe that this won't get adjusted as it always does. This has nothing to do with Pres. Obama. This has been going on for years because it hasn't been indexed to inflation. This is nothing new. In fact, all of Pres. Obama's budget plans assume an AMT adjustment, and even proposes indexing it for inflation. In the mean time there is no reason to believe that Congress won't act to adjust for this for TY 2012, as it always has in the past, with bipartisan support. Just another Grover Norquist scare tactic. Yawn. So there is absolutely no reason to believe Congress won't act as it always does to adjust this.

The other things you mention are relatively small tax credits and renewed regularly by Congress thru 'tax extender' legislation. Just like the AMT. And there's no reason to believe this won't happen again. And I see no evidence that Pres. Obama or Congressional Democrats are opposed to adjusting the AMT, or extending these other credits that are regularly renewed.

Wow. Seriously. Are you Grover's wife or something?

Here try this. It's pretty simple.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/02/no-obamacare-isnt-the-largest-tax-increase-in-the-history-of-the-world-in-one-chart/

[-] 2 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Thanks for all the reality.

[-] 1 points by flip (5058) 1 year ago

tax the rich! A return to Eisenhower-era 90% top tax rates helps fix our economy in several ways

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

your right about stevens purpose in libya.

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I know. The question is-can the Obama administration keep it covered up and just keep changing their explanation of "why" it happened and "who" did it until the election is over?

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

hillary and obama are in an ad playing in pakistan , STILL apologizing for the video. go to http://theulstermanreport.com/ scroll down a bit and read the story by the WHI ( white house insider)

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

The White House's position on the event has changed multiple times.

It was the video. It was just a protest gone wrong. It was an attack...but a spontaneous one. It might have been an organized attack. It was the video.

The gymnastics are incredible.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think they've been pretty consistent in stating that the film was used to incite protests, and the protests were used as cover to launch terrorist attacks against decent American diplomats working hard with moderate muslims to create moderate democratic govts.

What is important to recognize is that this is an attempt to derail these hard working American diplomats to create moderate states.

We ought to set aside the politics and honor the most recent American victims of terrorist attacks.

We were attacked again on 9/11.! Didn't you learn from your candidate Romney's mistake that the campaign and politics ends at the shoreline. Can't you find some decency and support America.!

You disgrace your chosen login name. You have no honor!

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

you mean the lies. when you get a chance , visit the site http://theulstermanreport.com/
scroll down , read the WHI ( white house insider) story that pertains to this mess.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

in second grade, I wrote valentines to all the girls . i wrote "form" instead of "from" 15 times over. Not one response #dyslexia

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Come on. If you were really dyslexic you would have written "ttam morf".

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Are you saying that Buttercup has dyslexia or the grammar skills of a 2nd grader....I'm confused. :-)

My point was how ironic it was that he/she misspelled that specific word. Imbecile.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Seems like you like to get your "factual content" from opinion pieces and hard left organizations. Good to know.

Then there's the truth- http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/aug/11/gail-collins/gail-collins-says-texas-gop-platform-calls-schools/

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

Paul Begala is a Research Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University Public Policy Institute. He's a recognized acedemic expert. And the article was originally published in Newsweek, where he's a regular contributor. I only posted this article as an aside. Not so much as factual evidence of anything in particular. But more as an expression of my own opinions in general about the Republican Party.

And the 'critical thinking' is 'Half-true'. And was more legit than Politfact reported. What Politifact described as simply a misunderstanding about teaching methods, was actually a mistake of including the words 'critical thinking'. Which was in addition to the teaching method they object to. They 'say' critical thinking was a mistake. I can't help but wonder. From the same people who want to take us back like 50 or 80 years and ban abortions even in cases of rape and incest. They bring this on themselves. A government so small as to own a woman's uterus.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/texas_gops_2012_platform_accidentally_opposes_teaching_of_critical_thinking_skills.php

I believe everything else in the Begala article is pretty spot on. Oh I admit freely it's an opinion piece and he's poking fun. The Republican Platform deserves ridicule. They invite it upon themselves and are proud of it. The more they are ridiculed the firmer the resolve for their batshit crazy.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

First-thank you for clarifying that your statement was an "opinion" and an "aside"-too bad you didn't do that when you posted the link in the first place.

Second, not ALL Republicans think or feel the same way on every issue-just like Democrats don't. The Dems changed their own platform and when the public caught wind of it and screamed, they hastily changed it back with an "iffy" vote called during the conventions. Don't tell me that Dems don't make their own share of mistakes regarding their platform. Please.

You don't want the government in your bedroom or uterus...EXCEPT when you demand that they provide free birth control and abortions! It's hypocrisy. You simply cannot HAVE it both ways. Don't ask me to pay for the killing of an innocent child who had no say in the circumstances under which it is conceived, and then scream about your tax dollars being used to execute a serial murderer who is completely responsible for the circumstances that resulted in his imprisonment. Your platforms get ridiculed for the same damn reasons you poke fun at theirs-batshit craziness.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Romney directly said he doesn't care about the poor.

I said rich people always seem to hate on the working poor and elderly. Yet Romney never seems to question the billion dollar banks getting billions of dollars from the government and the Federal Reserve.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

I don't think Romney said he doesn't care about the poor. I think his comment about not being concerned about the poor was taken out of context.

"I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/does-santorum-care-about-unemployment/

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

"I'm not concerned about the very poor." - Mitt Romney

While the quote does unravel... he makes his sentiment clear in this quote and in the new video.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72297.html

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Romney directly said he doesn't care about trying to secure votes from people who are already in the bag for Obama. If you listen to the entire tape (which even Mother Jones is admitting is mysteriously "incomplete") and understand he was talking about VOTERS, you have to stretch to make it mean he doesn't CARE about the poor in the way you want to imply.

But go ahead. Keep on hating while pointing the finger at others.

[-] 1 points by JustinDM (251) from Atascadero, CA 1 year ago

VOTERS? Do you have statistics on 47% of VOTERS being the leaches he's referring to?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Listen to the entire video or read a transcript yourself.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Romney said he would never be able to convice those people to take personal reasponiblity for their lives, was that "love"?

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Sometimes the truth hurts. It is loving to LIE about such things?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I do believe that Romney believes that 47% are lazy moochers that take no personal responsibility, now I know you feel that way too. For the record I KNOW you're full of shit.

[-] -3 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Here's what Obama, the lover of the poor, the self employed, families and small businesses does to those people-

100 Days Until Taxmageddon

Sunday will mark the start of the 100-day countdown to “Taxmageddon” – the date the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect.

Read more: http://atr.org/days-taxmageddon-a7203#ixzz277nNZdLV

I can just FEEL the love can't you????

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I hope they are bigger than Clinton's (but I doubt they will be) we really need some that 1990's economy.

About time we raise taxes and got this ecomnony going the way Clinton did in 1993, that led to this, remember those day?

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.

At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”

“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us. Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan Current fiscal issues Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives March 2, 2001

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You seem to be forgetting (or don't know) that the President doesn't control the US Budget, the House and Senate do. The midterm elections of 1994 led to a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House until the end of 2000. (There was a 50-50 split Dem/Rep for a while after that-then Repubs regained control until 2006 at which point Democrats took over both the Senate and the House)

So, everything Greenspan said in 2001 about the "current policies" in place, were either put there originally, or fully supported by, Republican representatives. Anything budgetary signed by Clinton during those years had to have been presented to him by a Republican dominated Congress and Senate.

In fact, as this reporter for the Daily Beast states: "Clinton never would have been able to sign welfare reform if the Democrats controlled Congress, and the same is true of the balanced budget that Clinton achieved in '97."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/02/18/the-barack-bill-parallels.html

Second, Greenspans testimony involves the following words and terms:

"Projections", "admittedly uncertain" "baseline assumptions" "such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion....such a distortion could be quite costly....[to the] "impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate." "All else being equal"

Certainly what happened just 6 months later on September 11th, drastically affected those "baseline assumptions" didn't it? And how many of those "current policies" in 2001 remained in place after the Democrats regained control of both the House and the Senate in 2006?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

and Clinton fought the bastards off every day you know how many vetoes he did?

not a damn one of the Republicans have talked about what they did wrong back in 2001 when we had a balanced budget they would all do it all over again no matter how much spending we cut.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Ok...stay with me. I'll type slowly-

The balanced budget that Clinton achieved in 1997-was a product of.....a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AND SENATE.

Please show me-with evidence links-what you are referring to when you say the "republicans did wrong back in 2001"?????

Tell me...did these Republicans-who fought so long and hard to BALANCE THE BUDGET-which Clinton repeatedly vetoed until the government actually SHUT DOWN-suddenly turn around and start spending money willy nilly?

What year did the "crash" happen? How long was it after the Democrats regained control over both houses? What "laws" changed between the balanced budget laws and now? Who sponsored those laws? Who voted for them?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I know as a con it is required that you give credit to the GOP for what was done by the Democrats and then blame the Ds for what the GOP does, I've been watching this for many years, the fact is not a single Republican voted for the omnibus bill that led to the balanced budget and all you lies will never change that!

Were you alive in 2001 don't you remember all the "Washington is taking in too much money"? clearly selective memory lioke your is central to our problems I'll do you one better here's a whole thread complete with links:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-do-we-stop-this-from-happening-again/

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

I'm sorry-I don't see any facts supporting your claim that "republicans did wrong back in 2001". Please provide them.

But I like how you accuse me of doing something while engaged in that exact thing yourself. You want to give credit to the Dems-Clinton for what was done by the Republicans (in congress during his presidency) while blaming the Republlicans (Bush) for what the Dems (in congress during his presidency) did.

Here's a politifact check demonstrating that while Clinton's tax cuts helped improve the economy, SO DID the spending cuts he was forced to include in the bill. Many of the policies Clinton instigated also affected the economy adversely. But surely you don't want to talk about that...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-takes-credit-flowering-economy-1990s/

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The fact is as soon as we were starting to pay down on the debt the GOP couldn't cut taxes fast enough to stop us from doing that, I think that was wrong, i think we should of not change fiscal policy as Greenspan point out and paid the debt off in the ten years, the GOP change policy and reestablished the debt I think that was wrong, maybe you don't. Nice try at changing the subject with the politco lionk now go get one that talks about the 1993 bill and nowq it balance the budget, since it is the debt we are discussing here I'll bring the articles here for you:

http://www.economist.com/node/568512

and this

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sjEqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SjAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6699,7850359&dq=budget&hl=en

and this

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,166926,00.html

and this

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2001-08-17/news/18359613_1_budget-surplus-social-security-congressional-budget-office

then this

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/25/budget.battle/index.html

Before we fix it this time tell me how we don’t just do this again?

All these articles tell the tale of the great GOP tax cut and re-establishment of deficit spending.

[-] 0 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

All I can feel is a front group for the (R)epelican't party.

What else is there to feel there?

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Do the facts actually bother you or just who published them? It's going to hurt a lot of people-especially the poor and working families a whole hell of a lot. But at least you can't blame all THAT "love" on Republicans. If Obama gets re-elected, and Obamacare stands, I hope you and OWS and everyone else takes the time to personally thank him for increasing taxes....for all of us!

[-] 2 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

Your mistake lies in believing a (R)epelican't front group is interested in doing anything other than appealing to certain emotions.

That they would even bother to give you useful "facts".

They won't.

Can you explain to me why teabagge(R)s raised my taxes, to fund a corporate tax break?

Why it was a good thing?

No one has managed to do so yet.

I don't think you will either.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Please explain how teabaggers raised your taxes to fund a corporate tax break? On a state level? Please give me the useful facts on that situation so I don't accuse you of appealing to certain emotions.

Republicans have only been the majority in the House on a Federal level since 2010 and in order to pass anything raising your Federal Taxes-the Democrats in the Senate and the President would have had to sign off on it as well.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

Yep, State level, and they got our very conse(R)vative court to go along with ignoring language that prevented it.

They are nothing but scumbags. That's all they are.

They'll piss on any constitution anywhere it's profitable to their benefactors.

Lying scumbags...F'n teabagge(R)s

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Your "say so" doesn't qualify as "facts". Which state? Which taxes? Property? Sales? Income? Which corporate tax break did it fund? Can you prove the increase funded the decrease?

How did the "teabaggers" actually DO this?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

Do your own research.

Yes they did do this to me. I'm not going to gather up all the info again.

Teabagge(R)s were liars at their inception and remain so to this day.

Sorry you missed that part, but miss it you did.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

He never said it but fact and truth are things that ows and dems dont deal in.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

so your point is that Romney likes people who take no personal responsibility for their lives? well I guess he would have to given that his own sons never took any responsibility for their lives they got hand outs their whole lives.

[-] -2 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

what hand outs? be specific?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

As far as his sons goes they have each received a 20 million dollar hand out from dad, if Romney believed hand outs make you lazy why is he doing it to his sons?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Paying less tax than somebody else just because of how you make your money, is a hand out, The Wall Mart family gets more in hand outs that all the poor people in America put together.

[-] -2 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

untilizing the tax , as is written is not illegal.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It is not illegal to cash your government check either, what's your point?

Does that mean the tax breaks and the welfare checks aren't "hand-outs"?

[-] -2 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

both obama and his wife gave each of their daughters $13,000, that equals $52,000 that they did not have to pay taxes on.nothing illegal about that, they took tax breaks that they entitled to do under the existing tax code.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The difference being Obama never called helping people out a "hand out" he never said it was bad for people to help people, Romney thinks it is, so why does he hurt his sons with a 20 million dollar hand out each?

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

if romney gaver his children money it was his own money, permanent welfare uses other peoples( taxpayers) money.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

What difference does it make where it comes from to the person receiving it?

It is Romney's position that helping people hurts them and make them dependent, well 20 million is a lot of help, why does he want his children dependent?

Or do you think maybe he doesn't really believe that?

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

romenys kids are not dependent on him. tagg , managing partner in a private equity firm,Matt, real estate, Josh, real estate, Ben, medical school, Craig, music production. giving you kids your money is a lot different than having people as permanent wards of the govt, being supported with taxpayers money.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

what he does with his money doesn't bother me, having one stabdard for His Family and another for everyone else is the problem, he says "hand out" hurt and yet gives hand outs to his kids, that lets us know that when he claims to think helping people actually hurts them is a lie, I have a problem with liars.

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

you have no idea what you babbling about

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Are you saying even a 20 million dollar "hand out" didn't make them "dependent" do you think the GOP is totally wrong about this helping people out thing? You mean free collage didn't make them dependent? Maybe we could do that for everybody then.

[-] -3 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

why does it bother you what a private citizen does with their money? it bothers me what barry does with taxpayer money.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

you just had your ass kicked so now you run away....

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

you're delusional.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You got your ass kick is that specific enough? you never addressed why if hand outs are so bad does he give them to his sons? well well?

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

my kids worked part time while they were in college, i paid for what their earning didnt. so i guess , according to you, i gave my kids a " handout". NO , i was their parent and was resposible for taking care of my kids the best i could, to the best of my ability. to think that you kicked my ass is pure fantasy on your part. what families do to help each other is a private matter, when the govt wastes taxpayer $ to create an entitlement society its national fiscal suicide.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

the point that Romney makes is that helping people out hurts them, you have said nothing about why families hurt each other by helping them out, maybe the whole thing is just such a stupid lie that you can't get your arms around it, yeah you can say hey I don't want my taxes to go up to help you cause I want to keep what i got for me and mine, that's honest but to say it's because i don't want you to be dependent is bullshit and all you got to do is look at how he treats his own kids to see that....

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

Giving away everything takes away a persons incentive to work. Why bother when the govt provides you with everything?your taxes are paying for free cell phones for welfare recipents. free air time is incluced and if they can sign somone else up for a " free" phone, that person gets more " free "minutes.nothing is free, the taxpayers pay for it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Romney's kids each got 20 million, did it take away their incentive?

What "takes away incentive" or crushes spirit depending on how you look at it, is working 60 hours a week year after year and still not being able to take your kids to Disneyland, thanks to "outsourcing" by Bain.

[-] 0 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

7 out of 10 gm cars are made in china. Outsourcing?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I don't thin Bain ever built cars....and I don't think GM cars are built in China either.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 1 year ago

They are. Surprisingly, to me at least, the mainstream car that is most American made is the Toyota Camry according to cars.com. I also know that my Acura MDX had a big chunk of the manufacturing done here in the US.

I would say that the US should give Toyota bailout money but they make plenty of money on their own haha.

[-] 0 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

7 out of 10 gm cars are built in china.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

So is it that you don't like the TRUTH when you hear it or is it that you think it IS his job to try to convince people who want to continue receiving the entitlements they get from the government due to Obama's/progressive policies, to vote for him/a conservative instead?

People making less than $20,000 in WORD RELATED INCOME/SALARY pay 10-15% in income tax rates but get almost all of it back as a Federal Tax Return.

Millionaires making 20 million dollars in WORK RELATED INCOME/SALARY pay a whole lot more than that-35%. (Which is what Mitt Romney paid when his income/salary was WORK RELATED)

Taxes paid on capital gains-which everyone knows is not considered work related income/salary (they even gave it a different name) through 2012 is 0% for those people in the 10%-15% tax bracket (those making less than $20,000) ZERO percent. Taxes paid on capital gains is 15% for those in Mitt Romney's tax bracket.

BOTH demonstrate that people "making less than $20,000" do NOT "pay more in taxes than he does" and that are lying.

You can spin it any way you wish to factsrfun, but the truth is that Romney's tax dollars pay for the benefits thousands of people receive from the government every year, not to mention all of the other programs paid for by actual tax payers. How much of all of those things have YOUR tax dollars paid for factsrfun???

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Please provide the sources for your supposed facts. All that really counts is total taxes paid. The poor pay 17% overall. Try living on that after being paid $7.25 an hour. The middle class pay about 25-28% overall, the rich about 30%. Really not a very big difference in tax rates when comparing one person making $26,000 a year, the U.S. median wage, and a person making millions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-taxes-americans-really-pay-in-two-graphs/2012/04/16/gIQA6o4yLT_blog.html

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Your sources prove my point, and that is that saying "People making less than $20,000 pay more in tax than he does" is a LIE. They do not pay a greater percentage of their income, and they do not pay more in total dollar amount.

Note-when I speak of taxes I usually include the TYPE of taxes I'm talking about-Federal Income Tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax etc.

Capital gains information- http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Important-Facts-About-Capital-Gains-and-Losses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Even the poor pay 17% tax overall. If Romney only paid 14-15% tax overall, than he paid a smaller percentage. 15 is still less than 17.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

IF. Your graph shows that "the rich" pay more in taxes "overall"-30 is more than 17.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Did you notice I was referring to Romney's taxes?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Did you notice I said "IF"?

The only number I can find stating Romney's tax rate being 15% is his "effective Federal Tax" rate. http://media.talkingpointsmemo.com/slideshow/mitt-romney-taxes

You'll note that for people making less than $20k a year, their "effective Federal Tax rate" is 1.9%

If you want to compare tax rates-you have to use the same TAX brackets/criteria across the board. You don't get to compare everyone else's overall tax rates to JUST Romney's Federal Income tax rates.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Supply his local and state taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, Etc. and then we can come up with an accurate percentage.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Have factsrfun provide them. He's the one making the claim that "People making less than $20,000 pay more in tax than he does"

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Bullshit lair, (yes I remember what a lair you are) when you speak of "entitlements" you know damn well they are paid from Social Security taxes and people making %20,000 pay over 15% SS tax, Romney pay like .1% so you don't get to talk about "income tax" and entitlements in the same sentence.

How much of his own money did Romney invest to "earn" that money, how about none, because as a hedge manger he paid dividend rates on his salary thanks to loophole he pushed for.

even considing his whole tax bill he paid less tha 14 %, working people pay over 15% just in SS tax.

But there is a difference between the two and the "income tax payers" have been subsidized by SS taxes for decades and now the bill is coming due and the wealthy which have been paying far less than they should in the interest of pumping up the economy don't want to pay back the money they took.

and there have been years when Romney paid no tax at all, remember that....

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/09/note-trustee-brad-malt

Romney Campaign releases 2011 tax information AND a tax summary of the last 20 years of tax returns. Also posted will be a notarized letter from the Romneys’ tax preparer, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (PWC), giving a summary of tax rates from the Romneys’ tax returns for the 20-year period of 1990-2009.

    *In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.

"During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed."

    *The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.

    *The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

    *The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions.

    *The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

*Additionally, the Romney campaign is releasing a summary of 20 years of taxes, between 1990-2009, detailing their tax expenditures during those years:

    *In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.

    *Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.

    *Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.

    *Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.

    *Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.
[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

What's he hiding in those tax returns, must be pretty bad given the heat he's taking for not releasing them, we should know if Romney always pays more than he has too or maybe the 2011 are just an election year gimmick.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

So forget the fact that it was an outright LIE to say that "Romney pays no taxes and hasn't paid taxes for ten years". No apologies for being wrong or accusing a man falsely of a crime. Nope. No justice or fairness here.

NOW the disturbing injustice being placed on him is "Romney paid more taxes than he had to in 2011 in order to comply with the earlier guess/estimate he made publicly about what he THOUGHT his tax rate was"!!!!! HOW DARE HE!!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

still no proof he has paid taxes in each of the past ten years, he has the proof but won't provide it....a note from mommy don't cut it sorry.....

as far as his disqualifying action of paying too much tax, it was Romney himself that said that would disqualify him to be President, or are we never suppose to listen to anything he says?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You still have no proof that he did not pay taxes and you don't even have a note from your mommy to support that argument.

That you attempt to paint an internationally known and recognized tax firm whose reputation is at stake as his "mommy" only proves what I keep saying about you.

How about a note from the former IRS Commissioner? Would that a note from his daddy?

"I have reviewed Governor and Mrs. Romney’s joint tax return for 2011, including returns for the Ann and Mitt Romney Family Trust, the Ann D. Romney Blind Trust, and the W. Mitt Romney Blind Trust.

My reaction following this review is the same as my reaction after reviewing the 2010 returns. As I said then:

'These returns reflect the complexity of our tax laws and the types of investment activity that I would anticipate for persons in their circumstances. There is no indication or suggestion of any tax-motivated or aggressive tax planning activities. In my judgment, they have fully satisfied their responsibilities as taxpayers. They have done so by relying on a highly reputable return preparer and other advisors, who have in turn relied primarily on information provided by third parties to them and to the IRS. The end result of that process has been returns that include a multitude of schedules, IRS forms and accompanying statements that provide appropriate transparency and the proper payment of taxes that Governor and Mrs. Romney owe under current law.'

Fred Goldberg Former IRS Commissioner September 21, 2012"

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You the two years he was "running for office for Pete's sake" he kept his nose clean, that must of been hard on him....now let's take a look at now he did business before then, oh we can't, what's he hiding?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The proof is his refusal to do what everyone else since his father ran for office has done, the proof that he did bad embarrassing things is in his refusal. People worked closely with him says he paid no taxes some years, and that the best info we have on the subject since Romney is hiding.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Workers and employers pay for Social Security. (HINT-People who don't work don't pay into the SS Program and neither do their non-existent employers) http://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/who-pays

SS tax rates are much different-AND LOWER-than Federal INCOME tax rates AND Federal Income Tax RETURNS do not return your SS taxes to you no matter how much/little you earn!!!

****From the 2012 Social Security website-http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/2012-social-security-tax-rate-and-maximum-taxable-earnings

"For 2012, the maximum taxable earnings amount for Social Security (OASDI) taxes is $110,100. There is no limitation on taxable earnings for Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) taxes."

Employee/Employer

The Social Security tax rate for employees is 4.2 percent through the end of the year.

The Social Security tax rate for employers is 6.2 percent

The Medicare tax rate is 1.45 percent for employees and employers

Self-Employment

The Social Security tax rate for self-employed is 10.4 percent through the end of the year. The Medicare tax rate is 2.9 percent for self-employed." ****

CLUE-"working people" do NOT "pay over 15% just in SS tax". YOU are the liar.

PLEASE NOTE that employers pay MORE towards SS than employees do and they SHARE the cost of Medicare taxes.

Also-Romney was NOT a "hedge fund manager" and never has been. You clearly don't have any more of a clue about financial careers than you do about taxes. Educate yourself.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2012/may/23/mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-what-liberals-still-d/

Please provide EVIDENCE that "there have been years when Romney paid no tax at all"....And no, Harry Reid saying he got a phone call does not constitute evidence to any sane person. Even Obama's campaign manager will tell you that they have no proof that the accusations are true or that Romney did anything illegal.

The only people who SHOULD be offended by Romney's comments are the ones he actually referenced "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them,".

I don't see anywhere where he speaks of actual victims and people who have legitimate claims to THEIR OWN BENEFITS-paid for out of their own paychecks throughout their lives-who did all in their power to care for themselves when they had the ability to do so. Do you?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You can't get to 47% without including people who paid for their retirement from their wages.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Romney refuses to release his taxes, that's the proof.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

A lot of working people are self employed they pay the full SS amount of over 15% which is more than Romney has ever paid in tax.

They pay sales tax which is getting close to 10% a lot of places and people like Romney pay much less in sales tax.

But the really important part is working people get no deduction for the time they invest, which is bull shit. The rich claim they should not have to pay tax on the money their money makes, but in reality that's the only money that should be paying income tax.

As far as living off the government every person Romney was talking to in that room takes more from the government than the poor ever could. According to Romney these rich bastards are getting so much in loophole that we could cut taxes and still balance the budget by just closing the loopholes these rich bastards are getting.

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Keep lying.

"The Social Security tax rate for self-employed is 10.4 percent"

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/2012-social-security-tax-rate-and-maximum-taxable-earnings

Romney pays the sale amount in sales tax as every other citizen does for items he purchases for his personal use.

The rich DO Pay tax on the "money their money makes". Investment income is taxed at a lower rate, but the money they INVESTED was taxed at a higher rate when they earned it. Your argument makes no sense AND isn't true.

Funny....why aren't you (and the media) talking about what ELSE Romney said in that room that night? The part about the FED and how Obama is allowing it to KILL our economy? Naw...you'd rather attack what he said about the 47%! It's like watching a clown circus I swear.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

and the sales tax is 10% where I live that adds up to over 20% and Romney paid less than 14% talk about a lazy moocher not taking responsibility, if I get taxed on money I make by giving my life, Romney can pay tax on the money his money makes, Romney has made a fortune creating tax dodging schemes then he talks about people not paying their fair share what bullshit, the bottom line is Romney looks at the world and says the rich have too little and the poor have too much, remember he led the way on outsourceing jobs if you dared to try to get a decent wage from any company he took over, then he smirks at people who weren't born rich, I wonder if Romney worries what giving 20 million dollars to them has done to his own sons work ethic? until the government has given every American 20 million, it has done no more harm than Romney did to his own sons.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Good news! Congress just passed a law making it SIMPLE for millionaires and billionaires to PAY EXTRA on their taxes with all the money going towards the National Debt!! Just like Warren Buffet wanted! (we'll see if the Democratic Senate passes it)

I cannot WAIT to see how many RICH liberals and progressives and Democrats pour their good fortune out upon this country and put their money where they say their morals are! It will be SO refreshing....or telling.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Romney paid more than he had to in 2011, making him unqualified to be president according to his own words, I can't wait till we get the top rate back to 90% which is what it should always be when we have troops in harm's way.

[-] -2 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

You're a spin idiot.

He didn't pay more than he had to. He didn't take ALL of the deductions he COULD have-that would LOWER the amount that he owed. Do you even know how taxes work? Have you ever filled out a tax form?

Amount of income=X Tax liability (what you owe based on X)= Y Deductions are things you are allowed to claim in order to REDUCE your tax liability=A

Romney owed Y. Romney didn't use all of his "A" to make his Y lower. Romney did NOT "pay more than Y".

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

LOL you're a hoot, he did pay more than he had too so it wouldn't look so bad, not taking a deduction is the method he used to accomplish this, are you really that stupid, oh no you're not stupid, you're a liar, now I remember....

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

If he had paid a lower rate you'd be screaming that he "LIED" about his tax rate being higher.

You've already made up your mind about this man and you will use what he does or says against him to further your own agenda anyway. So it really makes no difference does it?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It was Romney himself that said he wasn't qualified, i didn't make him say that.

So I take it this comment is your way of saying "shit getting my ass kicked better quit"

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Will be interesting to see what the RINO's do - Wait a minute - No It Won't - As the Rinos have been obstructing for 3 & 9/12th's years now.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

No one has been "obstructing" the rich from paying MORE in taxes whenever they want to. It was simply a complicated paperwork process. Now it's simple-check a box on your taxes and include an additional amount paid directly towards the National Debt.

You already think that Republicans are mean, greedy, evil, selfish tyrants so if they do nothing, so what? I want to see all those Democrats and millionaires who signed Buffet's list who keep saying they should be paying more taxes ante up and start taking care of this country like they profess that they want to!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

No one has been standing in the way of closing loopholes and ending unneeded tax credits for the wealthy - OH - Wait - That would be wrong - The RINO's have - for 3 & 9/12ths years now.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 1 year ago

Are you referring to the ones upheld and extended by Obama and the Dems?

And the Republicans ONLY had the ability to "stand in the way" starting in 2011 after the 2010 mid-term elections. Why didn't the Dems CLOSE all those loopholes and tax credits AND pass a budget (which they haven't done in how many years????) while they HAD CONTROL? No one was standing in their way then....and yet...nothing

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You mean the one that the dems gave in on due to the blackmail by the RINO's of letting tax breaks for the needy to expire? Because the RINO's refused to allow the Unneeded tax breaks for the wealthy to expire? Those tax breaks that will expire for every one due to the fact that RINO's will not let the tax breaks expire for the wealthy to this very day?

BTW - they ( the RINO's ) had help - the help of some DINO's.

That is why all corpoRATists need to be booted from office.

[-] 1 points by throaway (57) 1 year ago

Meanwhile, Obama has given up on the white middle class...

'All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment... and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic,' longtime political reporter Thomas B. Edsall wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times.

'The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort,' he writes later

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067223/President-Obamas-2012-campaign-abandons-white-working-class-voters-favor-minorities-educated.html#ixzz26qq4gFyH

[-] 2 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 1 year ago

That's old news. Racial politics is the reality.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You got tape of Obama saying "those people" will never take personal responsibility ?

[-] 1 points by throaway (57) 1 year ago

Of course not. That would be a lie and we all know how transaparent and truthful our Potemkin President is.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

the next President will be Hilary (after Obama's second term) I wonder if the days of old white guys has passed.....

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

"People making less than $20,000 pay more in tax than he does"

funny

"Those born to wealth think they own it all"

especially the guilt-ridden who become left-wingers (well, they say they are) to feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel better but still live like elitist assholes. why do you buy the lies from those elitist assholes?

"they think that anybody who wants a decent wage is just greedy"

did you take a poll to learn this?

"They are a bunch of spoiled rich babies and if you vote Republican, you are selling your families future down the river..."

ha! and some people still don't think ows has morphed into a DNC asskiss-fest, astroturfed for the DNC and the reelection of a corrupt, lying, crony capitalist fraud.

look at how you've disgraced ows. you might as well be a 9/11 truther.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Save Yourself Kill the Republican Party!!

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 1 year ago

I have yet to hear Romney say anything about not helping everyone become "wealthy". However I have heard Obama continually spew vile about the rich and wealthy and how they should pay their fair share.

10'% of the wealthy in this country pay 40% of the taxes. Now, if everyone becomes wealthy as Romney would like to see - not jut being middle class as Obama wants everyone to be, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Obama wants everyone in this country to become "middle class" he never ever mentions anything about anyone becoming wealthy - just middle class.

His tactic of "divide and conquer" is the same tactic Hitler used to conquer Germany.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So you are comparing Pres Obama to Hitler? Wow. Extreme. Harsh, Untrue I think we have rules against that kind of ridiculousness on this forum

Romney doesn't care about anyone except the 1%. He has no interest in making anyone become wealthy. Thats nonsense.

Pres Obama HAS of course discussed middle class becoming wealthy.

He also wants to help the middle class & poor who have been victimized by the 1%.

I don't think Pres Obama is talkin about class war. I mean we have been in a class war for all of human history, but we only hear about it when the the 1% who are waging that war on the middle/working class thinks they might get hit.

Don't worry. What we have planned in the end will benefit the wealthy. In fact it will benefit everyone.

We believe money does not naturally trickle down. (the 1% just hoard ir), we believe that if we get money to the middle/working class the wealthy will see that and their natural greedy mechanism will lead them to suck it up.

As always. Then once they take all the wealth in sight we will have to take it back again. Those greedy bastards.

Peace

[-] 2 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 1 year ago

Tell me where Obama has made one comment about businesses or the middle class becoming "wealthy"?

Romney wants small businesses, the middle class and anyone else who wants to to become wealthy. He includes all methods for making wealth in his statements. Obama only includes small businesses that make $250,000 income along with the middle class.

He never once mentioned about anyone in the middle class nor small businesses becoming wealthy.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You are mistaken. But your anti Obama partisanship is clearly the root of that.

I think todays news shows that your boy Romney doesn't care about 47% of the country.

I submit Romney only cares about the wealthiest. And Pres Obama cares about all Americans.

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

are you done carrying Obamas water yet?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I believe in protesting all pols for the change that benefits the 99%.

My comment regarding Pres Obama was in response to partisan anti Obama attacks., but Pres Obama doesn't need me to carry his water.

So in answer to your question. I ain't started & don't have to carry Pres Obamas water.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

i see lots of people rail about change you are not going to get it with the two parties we have now.........you can fool your self if you want but i have to look at it logically.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It would be illogical to assume that by opting out of taking action that you could affect a positive change to anything.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

It's also illogical to assue you can chage the two parties, it hasn't happened after all these years.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

With millions of people opting out - My My My - what a startling coincidence.

[-] -2 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

There has to be other choices, thinking you can chage either party is great for fiction books

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You need to look in the right place to make change - and 1 - is getting the people involved - 2 is getting the people to recognize issues and not personalities - 3 is to get people working to address issues - 4 is choosing the issues that need to be addressed - 5 is acting on those needs - 6 this opens the government back up to the people - as 7 the people act together to make the changes - 1 of which is money out of politics - 2 is corpoRATions are not people - 3 is the elected work for the people - 4 is they are out of office at the peoples will - 5 this government of the people will - WILL - direct it's efforts to making a clean and healthy and prosperous and peaceful society for all of it's citizens - 6 this government of the people will work to extending the same to the world.

If you do not have dreams - you have nothing to live for - if you do not have dreams - you have nothing to strive for - the thing is to have good dreams - then make plans on what needs to be done to bring you the next step closer - and then the next step - and the next etc etc etc to infinity - constant process improvement.

Live the dream.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

I like what you said but this forum really trashes anyone who is rich or what they think is rich. You are only going to make change when people stand together. There are lots of hateful words and phrases used on this forum about other people and the fact is we have to live with those people and that is not going to happen with out respect.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Different tangent? No not at all - it is all part of the same issues - a failing society due to greed corruption and mismanagement. I just added more of the total picture to the conversation.


[-] 1 points by podman73 (33) 0 minutes ago

The only thing that stays the same is change, you have to learn to evolve. Hard times never last hard people do and anyone promising to take care you is probably lie'n. Jobs will always come and go you can't stop that you kinda went off on a diff. Tangent there ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

I ment the env. Part was a bit off the direction we were traveling. I think certain things that are said a lot on this form are the main things that keep real numbers of people away, most of it sounds like a 60' s communist manifesto through back. That's just my opinion and I know those are like assholes lol

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The ones who are doing OK in this society as it is today - are dwindling in number - as more and more work is off-shored more and more people will fall into the not needed category - the unemployed soon to be homeless or needing government aid category - as those numbers increase so do the burdens on those who still are employed. So the whole thing picks up more speed and the crumbling more noticeable - then add on to that the destruction of our environment ( needless destruction ) and you add more burdens onto the structure and operation of society as it deals with the environmental complications - the natural disasters created by the ruined environment.

This society - this world - is not far from collapse from abuse.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

The only thing that stays the same is change, you have to learn to evolve. Hard times never last hard people do and anyone promising to take care you is probably lie'n. Jobs will always come and go you can't stop that you kinda went off on a diff. Tangent there

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Respect is earned. The thing is to push issues - don't pull party or leanings into it - that does not belong - the issues are what matters - show the good in issues for all people and show the bad in issues for all people. No one that I know of is against all rich people - no the people I see are against a failing society that is being brought to destruction by the very few - Dead/fake/artificial people being at the top of the list as being societies and the worlds worst enemies.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

But it's not failing for everyone, there are lots of people doing ok and those people will never help effect change when they see angry hateful crap spewed out. Like it or not you have to live people you don't agree with and the way things have gone make reconciliation impossible.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You think I am speaking down to you? I asked a series of questions based on your prior comment. Trying to gauge your understanding of what was all involved. If I felt the need to speak down to you I would try to use less complicated words and concepts and shorter sentences.


[-] 1 points by podman73 (33) 3 minutes ago

Try and keep in mind no one likes a condascending dick, speak to people not down or at them ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Ummm no not this convo. Ones in general man see this is what Im Talking about Everything is not a attack onor t you man breath , relax

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

But what I am saying that it is not shifting gears or changing topics - it is being more inclusive of the full issue that faces us. It is all related.


[-] 1 points by podman73 (33) 0 minutes ago

Easy, I am kinda one track person I shift topics/gears slowly that is all I'm saying ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

For me it was just trying to let you know not get you fluffed up

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You don't see the ruining of the environment as an economic hardship? You don't see industry as ruining the atmosphere or polluting the soil or water or food chain? You don't see the chaotic storms caused by the changing climate as destructive and costly?

I think you need to take a better all encompassing look around you at the world in which we live.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Try and keep in mind no one likes a condascending dick, speak to people not down or at them

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Easy, I am kinda one track person I shift topics/gears slowly that is all I'm saying

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Exactly the reason why things haven't changed. What percentage of people agree with you, more than 50%? This false belief defeats you by preventing the very action that would force change.

[-] -3 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Well I refuse ti vote for the same old crap (dem an rep) not voting has not helped other than making me feel good, no strong 3rd party (yet) sooo...

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

There are third party and independent candidates out there. Not voting or voting for the lesser of two evils lets evil prevail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

You took the words right out of mouth...... Sorry if they have candy all over them just wipe them off they'll be good

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We MUST force change from what we have to what we want. We're not gonna magically make the duopoly disappear.

Protest, pressure, agitate for progressive change that helps the 99%

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 1 year ago

You still didn't answer the challange - tell me where Obama has used the term "making middle class wealthy" or small business wealthy?

You can't so you divert you reply to news that has been out for several months now about the 47% not paying into the system and receiving government dole - do you remember that discussion?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

NO!. I will not provide evidence. Did you? No! you didn't. , You are a romney boy and you have your opinion.

Good luck. We disagree.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Obama doesnt care anymore about poor people than rom. does the only difference Rom will tell he doesnt. Obama panders lies and then steals at least you know Rom is going to.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I disagree. But who cares. It's up to us to create change that benefits the 99%. Not 1 Politician.

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

obama allows you to have the crumbs from his table......forgive me if i dont jump up and down with glee over that.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Then don't vote for Pres Obama if you don't like crumbs! What state are you in?

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Sadly there hasn't been a cand. That deserves my vote in a long time

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh well then don't vote. no biggie. A no consent vote. write in Love! I saw that somewhere. Or write in no war. Or none stay home. Protest! or don't! Find blogs you can attack people you disagree with.

state?

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

I wish there was a decent 3rd choice

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But there ain't so that makes it easy. Just don't vote! Pain in the ass anyway. Waitin' on line, gotta produce an id, gotta read the ballot there is always some long winded referendum. Who needs those headaches.

It's a lot easier to rage at the moon, call people you disagree with names, and hide behind a laptop in moms basement.

America!

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Those mirrors are a bitch aren't they :)

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I don't rage at the moon. I don't call people names I don't agree with. I am 99% civil, & respectful. I own my own home (moms dead), & live in the penthouse apt.

HA! No mirrors involved.

Peace, good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

"What we have planned"??

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

wealth equity. Heres a subject you claim to wanna discuss.

Tax the wealthy up the ass. 90% tax rate over a million bucks income. A 1% wealth tax for all that money just sittin in the bank, 1% on every fin transaction.

cap gains increase for profit over 1/2 a million. increase social security tax on wealthy (remove the payroll cap) cut the SS payroll tax for lower income. Cut taxes on income under $80k. Cut the cr card debt of middle/working class.

penalize outsourceing, tax benefits for insourcing. Any corp that wants to do business here must hire some % of Americans.

There are other plans but basically soak the rich who have been redistributing wealth from the 99% to the 1% for 30 years.

Time to get our money back.

Once the middle/working class has real fin reliefe and real economic equity then consuming will return, hiring will rerurn, the deficit/debt will melt away, and the wealthy will sense all that middle/working class money again to suck up (or steal again).

Hows that for wealth equity.? Whats your plan?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I was just curious who you meant by "we". If the plan that you were talking about came from the Obama campaign or if you were talking about Occupy, or what.

You have all of these agenda goals but no candidates to make them happen. How do you think that's going to work out?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Hard work. Growing the movement, protesting all pols for change. fighting the selfish greedy, heartless, tea party right wing wacko corp 1% plutocrats.

Right? You don't support them right?

Whats your plan?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I've been very detailed about my opinions in this post and this one.

What I want to know is: how do you think that you're going to accomplish any of those changes to our government if you reject the idea of participating in it? If you don't elect candidates to advance your agenda, then how are you going to enact a wealth tax on the 1%?

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

You blindly hate all Republicans and that makes you a bigot.

it isn't blind at all. I'm sure you've been paying attention - therefore you are simply lying - must be to yourself because it must be obvious I'm not buying it.

I saw how the Vermont repeliccan party vilified Jim Jeffords for leaving the party - as a matter of conscience.

All for our team, never mind what is good for either the state or the nation.

fuck them

[-] 3 points by gsw (2727) 1 year ago

yea the republican party has a lot of sick f*ckers in it, as evidenced by all the people cheering for the guy to dye in the GOP primary debates, when RP said let the guy who didn't buy insurance dye.

Still, it is an awful large segment of the population who are in GOP, some moderate republican, such as the ex governor of Florida http://leftcall.com/former-florida-governor-charlie-crist-backs-obama-for-president/ who is turning his back on GOP for obama this cycle, calls them out.

I think there are a bunch who see the right wingers leading the GOP to oblivion. Especially with Romney/Ryan as their captains.

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Ugh. Let's try again: in generalized, blanket terms, you hate all Republicans. That's bigotry.

I can't bring to mind any conservative who hates liberals with your kind of passion.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I'm sure you simply aren't trying.

that's alright.

I don't care

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I've been thinking about it for the last 18 minutes and I haven't been able to come up with any examples. You're the Archie Bunker of political ideologies. I can't think of a single person who is more hate-filled for people with different political affiliations.

[-] 3 points by gsw (2727) 1 year ago

Rush Limbaugh; and all those who listen to that.

Faux News Channel

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] 2 points by MaryS (678) 1 year ago

TJ- re: can't think of a single example- You can't be serious. You would have to be living in a cave.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I'm probably at a significant disadvantage since I don't watch television.

I used to be forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh when I used to be a firefighter, and he made fun of liberals a lot but he didn't seem to spew the same kind of hatred that I see in this guy here.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

There are candidates in this cycle who have adopted the rhetoric of taxing the 1%. More are coming. OWS WILL endorse candidates perhaps next cycle.

Even if OWS does not we will continue to set the national dialogue and the agenda for progress.

Because our issues will be popular and progressive.

Whats your plan for wealth equity.? Gut the pgms of the 99% cut the taxes of the 1%, increase military spending, cut the deficit.

Is that your plan.?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I posted this link in the message that you replied to, knowing that you wouldn't read it.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/

I'm trying again because I'm apparently a masochist or something.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So changing campaign funding is your solution? I support public funding of campaigns. no contributions. Not even from the candidate to himself.

But I still support getting our money back from the 1% also.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

How are you planning to accomplish public campaign finance without building a consensus with conservatives? You're going to march around protesting until some politician decides to give you what you want?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Conservatives don't support money out of politics?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Many do, especially the Tea Partiers. But Occupiers tend to be incapable of even having a conversation with conservatives so I'm not clear on how that would work. Especially if Occupy is going to continue to reject the idea of running candidates.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Don't be afraid to discuss important issues.

We have to be courageous if we are to find more issues of common ground.

Defense cuts? yes or no?

Any other issues we might agree on? C'mon you can do it. Find your courage. If the worst thing is being called a tea party supporter nothing wrong with that.

You've hurled all kinda names against me. I ain't afraid.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

After seeing how much trouble you had yesterday with grasping a pretty simple comparison without rallying behind partisan flags, I have no confidence in your ability to have a rational conversation about the cost of the federal government. Your brain is built for one thing: rooting for your own tribe.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm looking for more common ground.

You suggested money out of politics, I responded immediately.

Now I'm asking about the defense budget. Do you support cutting it or not?

Perhaps you have another "common ground" item we could agree on.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Getting the money out of politics would solve a lot of other problems and that's why it's worth focusing on, instead of something like the federal budget, which is a wedge issue that will inevitably lead to ideological squabbling. Somebody will end up getting called a tea bagger. Nothing will get accomplished. So let's focus on something tangible and significant, and let's avoid partisan squabbling.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Do you support cutting the defense budget or not?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Why are you working so hard to position me as your ideological enemy? Is that constructive?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It was sarcasm! Irony! I do not consider deficit/debt a nat security issue.

I believe the 30 yr old conservative "starve the beast" strategy requires we see the deficit/debt as a nat sec threat in order to cut the pgms of the 99%.

Do you support cutting the defense budget of not?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

It was sarcasm. Sure, I believe that. (That was sarcasm.)

You didn't even realize that you were spouting a tea bagger slogan. You don't have to admit that because I know it's true.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But you are well versed on thetea party success, right?

So I ask again, What else does thetea party stand for? Perhaps we can find other areas of common ground.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

In another thread, you're spouting Tea Party slogans about the debt being a national security issue, and yet you're still accusing me of being a tea bagger for pointing out the existence of the Budget Control Act of 2011.

If you fail to spot the irony and I have to spend all day explaining it to you then you know that I'm simply going to find that hilarious also.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I already commented on this link. I agree with gettng all political contributions out of politics. I told you I support public financing of campaigns.

You never responded because you were too bust praising tea party success & criticising OWS.

Ok? What else does the tea party stand for? Perhaps we can find more common ground.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I AM NOT A TEA PARTIER. I was comparing and contrasting two things. You assume that if I point to something that some group does well then I must be affiliated with them even though I have clarified many times now that I'm not. You don't seem to have the circuitry to handle abstractions, and your primate lower brain instinctively wants to bare teeth when it senses intrusion from the other tribe. So you pigeonhole me as your ideological opponent because that's all that you can understand. You're going to spend a second day demonstrating your obvious mental handicaps?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

why should we have conversations with conservatives? I see no reason - nor can I see what we could possibly discuss.

They come filled with preconceived notions regarding the poor and the lies of the one percent -

let them see to their own education and cleanse themselves of the filth in which they lay . . . .

then perhaps, some discussion may be had

tll then the fuckers can all go hang

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 1 year ago

We can't get a constitutional amendment passed without finding common ground.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

You have to learn to work with conservatives or else you're never going to succeed at making substantial changes to how our government works. If your goal is simply to engage in partisan bickering then you're part of the problem, not the solution. You're part of the mechanism that the 1% uses to maintain the status quo. If you can't find the strength to transcend ideological differences in order to make our country a better place then you're not helping anybody.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We prefer public transportation.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Yes, and you'll always be pushed to the back of the bus if you choose to boycott this country's existing democracy. You can have little kum-ba-yah general assemblies back there while the real government ignores you.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

There are many (not just one) ways to achieve change. You're lack of vision is your weakness.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

There is one specific way to pass a bill in Washington, and OWS has rejected participation in that. If I want a new car then there are things that I have to do to make that happen. I'm not going to get a new car by standing in the street yelling about how much I want a new car.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Wouldn't the discussion be had in congress? OWS role would be protesting all pols on the streets.

Do you understand what OWS does? We don't run candidates but they listen to us anyway because of the force of our convictions. because of the righteousness of our cause.

Get it?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I'm criticizing that strategy for being ineffective. Because the force of your convictions isn't going to change our government. Why would Congress debate your agenda if you don't have any representatives there?

Get it?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

So what was the point of that? To perpetuate division, thereby ensuring that none of this will ever amount to anything? Why would you respond to a comment about seeking common ground with a rant about how the other side is wrong? Is that supposed to accomplish something?

You simply proved my point about Occupiers not being capable of even having a conversation with conservatives.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You accuse me of partisanship, but I did no such thing!

You have no evidence of that. You're just afraid to show your true colors.

Don't be! We don't have to agree. How can we find common ground if we don't discuss, disagree and find compromise.

You don't like that I say your praise of tea party supposed success pegs you as a tea party supporter.

My contention is logical. Your insults to my intelligence as a result of this logical contention are far worse. I'm still willing to search out common ground with you.

Defense cuts? yes/no?

Glass Steagal? yes/no?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

You assume that I'm a tea bagger simply because I referred to the Budget Control Act of 2011 and pointed out that Occupy could have achieved the same kinds of legislative accomplishments. But you deny being a tea bagger yourself even though it turns out that you agree with their platform. HILARIOUS.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"feeblemindedness"? All you have are personal attacks, and put downs of this great successful movement.

I didn't mention "black-or-white" you spent all of yesterday telling me how successful the tea party is. and how bad OWS is.

Thats why I call you tea party boy! Your comments not any L/R political thang. Now I'll check you link.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Save your nasty, mean spirited, criticisms of this great, successful progressive movement for someone who cares what you think.

Tea party boy!

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

The feeblemindedness that leaves you incapable of comprehending that I am not a Tea Party supporter is extremely entertaining, but I'll probably have less time to spend talking to you today since it's pointless anyway. There is a certain hilarious irony in your black-or-white mentality because you really remind me of George W Bush. If I'm not with you then I must be against you, right?

Try responding to this for once: http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-ground-one-way-forward-there-should-be-no-c/

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You don't understand. that's fair. Well there are pols pushing the agenda OWS has been chanting so you don't have to understand just wait, watch & you will see how it is done w/o corp money are pushing candidates.

We push ideas. They will address them or they won't at their own peril.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Every representative or senator who you don't replace with an Occupy candidate is going to take corporate money and will respond to the concerns of their corporate supporters, not to you. If you want a government that is responsive to your concerns then the way to accomplish that is by participating, not by standing outside and screaming until you get arrested.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Our strategy IS changing govt. And will continue to.

We disagree. You don't see it.

'sok.

It's not easy to see.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Your strategy is to change government -- without participating.

Your strategy is to advance your agenda in Congress -- without electing any representatives there.

Yeah, I pretty much get it. And that's what I've been criticizing.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

You're a disgrace to the Democratic Party.

I don't belong to the democratic party. I don't belong to any party. I do volunteer on occasion - but I am well aware my views are apt to be viewed currently as extreme.

Perhaps in ten years they will not seem so strange at all.

To suggest that I am working hard to maintain the status quo is simply another fallacy - a lie - one intended to ensure conservatives continue to have a seat at the table in years to come.

That premise is untenable. They have wrought far too much destruction to our nation as it is.

Conservative policy killed over one million Irish people - through starvation and disease, c. 1850.

Conservative policy has absolutely polluted the airwaves.

Conservative policy tanked our economy.

Conservative policy gave us water boarding and indefinite detention.

Conservative policy gave us unlimited campaign contributions.

Conservative policy gave us war in Iraq - and they fucked that all up.

In consequence we have been in Afghanistan far far too long - and may now be losing in the effort to stabilize a government system there that will encourage anything like justice for the people or human rights.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

You vote Democrat, you volunteer for the party sometimes, and you spend your free time spreading foaming-at-the-mouth rants about Republicans -- yet you don't "belong" to the Democratic Party. Uhm... okay.

You are working as hard as you can to maintain the status quo, just not intentionally. You don't realize what you're doing. That's why I'm trying to point it out to you. You can't represent the 99% if you can't overcome your hatred for half of the 99%. And clearly you can't. So the best thing for all Americans really would be if extremist partisans like yourself would just cut it out. That isn't going to happen, so the best that anybody can hope for is for people to call you out for your wantonly destructive behavior.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I also vote independent - I voted for Senator Jim Jeffords after he made his jump.

I will never again vote repeliccan.

  • NEVER

You can view it how ever you want - all you are doing is perpetuating the propaganda that has been spread by the mouthpieces of the .001 percent who insist on fucking everyone else.

They have been lying for over 70 years - they claim WWII ended the depression while in the very same breath insist government spending cannot ease either economic depression or recession.

the fukers lie . . . . constantly

I don't care how you see it - or what you call it. History demonstrates the clear and present danger conservatives may pose to a nation - and the last two decades are replete with ample demonstrations of this very simple fact.

You just refuse to read the writing on the wall.

  • Global Warming

  • it's right out in the parking lot

  • the repeliccan party is DONE

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Isn't this kind us us-versus-them bigotry and hatred incompatible with liberal ideals of inclusion and compassion and open-mindedness? You seem to embody a lot of the negative aspects of the extreme right, not the left. Kind of ironic.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I'm guessing that I'm not the first person to notice your bigoted streak. If you're a liberal then aren't you supposed to be against bigotry and hatred?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

No it's not that intellectual. You're simply not a very good liberal. Hate is not a liberal ideal. You're ranting about the right being wrong while embodying one of the worst aspects of the far right: bigotry. That's not a paradox, it just means that you're terrible at what you're trying to do.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

You simply proved my point about Occupiers not being capable of even having a conversation with conservatives.

It isn't necessary to have a conversation with conservatives. History, as the ink here illustrates serves as sufficient warning.

Contemporary events

  • like Global Warming

demonstrate with abundant clarity how insane any conversation with conservatives really is. Even simpler was the budget ceiling debate from 2010.

See Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis and compare:

Upon the Question of Default of Our National Debt

There is neither reason nor excuse for discussion with conservatives. they have lost all credibility.

There is neither reason nor excuse for discussion with conservatives. they have lost all credibility.

  • There is neither reason nor excuse for discussion with conservatives. they have lost all credibility.

  • There is neither reason nor excuse for discussion with conservatives. they have lost all credibility.

How many times need I repeat myself?

.

While the forces of al Qaeda arrayed against us, and drew blood, a cost of American lives, their chief obsession remained with steadfast and obstinate insistence, upon the issue of a single blue dress. These men are not patriots.

We have lost two precious decades as the ice caps retreat. Only now do they begin to curb the flow of wealth propping up their delusion.

The conservative ideologue and repelican psycophants are most clearly finished in America. I await their sudden and clamorous epiphany with eager anticipation.

.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

If you want to accomplish significant changes then yes, it is necessary to have a conversation with conservatives. If you want to maintain the status quo that divides the 99% and maintains the power of the 1% then keep up the partisan squabbling. But if you want real progress then you're going to have to grow up and learn to cooperate and build a consensus.

I'm not expecting that consensus to form due to the actions of extremists on either side of the ideological spectrum such as yourself. I expect it to start from the center and grow outward from there. People like you will probably reject it even then because of your inability to look beyond your false left/right dichotomy. The real dichotomy is the political inside versus the political outside, not the left versus the right.

As long as destructive voices like yours continue to perpetuate the false left/right dichotomy, the mainstream will never become enlightened to the true dichotomy between the 1% and the 99%.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

No it's not that intellectual. You're simply not a very good liberal. Hate is not a liberal ideal.

It doesn't take an intellectual giant to resent being lied to and robbed -

.

  • when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-

.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

A knee-jerk bigoted response. Just like a far-right chauvinist. You have a lot in common with the people who you hate.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

no you won't. Look at the political makeup in Vermont. The repelican party is DONE.

What you are selling is one more fallacy - that the entire system must be scrapped. It is a fallacy conservatives hold up when conservatism cannot be sold. Scrap it all.

It fits in fine with the Norquist plan of government of sufficient size it may be drowned in a bathtub.

bullshit.

we won't be able to drink the water or breath the air if norquist has his way.

bullshit.

Conservative policy killed over one million Irish people - through starvation and disease, c. 1850.

Conservative policy has absolutely polluted the airwaves.

Conservative policy tanked our economy.

Conservative policy gave us water boarding and indefinite detention.

Conservative policy gave us unlimited campaign contributions.

Did members of both parties sign on to some of this bullshit?

Yes, they did. Shame on them. Many of them wish they had not. Those that are willing to take corrective action should be given an opportunity to do so - provided their constituents are content with that.

AS for the rest - they can all go hang.

During the budget ceiling debate we saw President Obama offer up concession after concession - and he got nothing. During the six weeks running up to that deadline we saw both jobs numbers and the market tank - all over market uncertainty over whether the U.S. would default on it's debt.

We were downgraded as a result of the course of that debate and for no other reason.

the fuckers are DONE.

DONE I said.

The repelican party is DONE

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

When I read your posts I almost suspect that you're literally foaming at the mouth. This kind of rabid hatred is destructive and contributes nothing to anybody. You're a disgrace to the Democratic Party. You're working very hard to maintain the status quo. If the 1% had any need to plant propagandists then they would hire somebody exactly like you.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I'll tell you what we got- THe biggest fuckin credit card in the history of the planet.

As for the ratings agencies, they are run by Goldman too. Their opinions are meaningless. If they had a shred of decency, we would be rated at near junk status already.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

The debt payments are only 3% of our total budget.

It would be like you paying for your 5th house instead of paying the water bill on your primary residence. Would never happen.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

A knee-jerk bigoted response. Just like a far-right chauvinist. You have a lot in common with the people who you hate.

that is simply an obstinate refusal to accept the facts as they are.

You should watch Inside Job.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Have you ever had a racist explain "facts" to you about other races? You're that guy. Congratulations.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

Hating a bigot, is now bigotry???

Sounds like a show on FLAKESnews. Or at least one of their bright ideas.

Besides, I don't hate them, I know they are ill and need time and medicine to come around. And therapy, lots and lots of therapy.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Both of you guys are so sad. You're making me lose faith in humanity. If you're the 99%'s best hope and you hate half of them, then what hope is there?

[-] 2 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

Boy howdy.......have I!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/its-not-about-race/

Not sure if you've ever commented here, but it attracted them like flies.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I don't really see how the kind of bigotry that you see on display in some of those comments is more reprehensible than ZenDog's kind. Bigotry is bigotry. If it's wrong then all of it is wrong.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

it's not a race - it's an ideology

one that gave us -

waterboarding

indefinite detention

unlimited campaign contributions

an end of Glass-Steagall

the Patriot Act

an end of the Fairness Doctrine

planed occupation of Iraq for fifty years

and I have yet to see any race of Americans as intent on the utter destruction of this nation as are the modern conservatives

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Bigotry is bigotry, whether it's aimed at race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or any other label. You blindly hate all Republicans and that makes you a bigot. And bigotry makes you a very poor liberal.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

i say we tax you 90% of what you make. you say "fighting the selfesh greedy" well what about when the gov is the "greedy" one, the gov was never supposed to have that much power.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

If the gov has the power to tax they should tax the people with the money. Not the working/middle class. The wealthy crashed the world economy and haven't sacrificed like the rest of us. The national debt is made up largely of 2 wars that the wealthy benefited from as well as tax cuts the wealthy never should have gotten.

The wealthy have armies of lawyers, accts, & lobbyists to game the system! You don't have to advocate for them. Perhaps if you advocated for the real job creators (working.middle class) we could get this economy growing again.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

if the gov goes that far then it will never be enough because after they tax teh rich 90% they are not rich anymore then what you make is considered rich and they take from you......do you see how this plays out. be careful when you make a deal with the devil (gov), gov will take and take until they get to you and they will not stop there.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You don't know what you're talkin about. We had high tax rates in the '50's & enjoyed one of the best economic times.

So don't be afraid for those poor wealthy people. They'll be fine. Think about the 99%. this will help everyone.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

wow, that is your best argument? your hatred for people with more than you blinds you to logical thought. after the rich are gone who will you focus your hate on then? anyone who disagrees with you? that is the problem with bigots they never put the hate down you need to get some help with yours

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I don't hate anyone! That's just you dishonestly twisting my beliefs because your position is so weak it can't stand up the truth.

replace pro 1% conservatives w/ pro 99% progressive & protest for change that helps the 99%.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

No one can twist your words they are yours, what are my weak beliefs? You only want a truth that fits your narrative. Your progressives are just old dems you will get no change from them but hey keep dreaming, don't be angry if others are ready to wake up

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I ain't angry, I don't hate anyone. That's you mischaracterising me.

Sorry. I'm happy just fine. You don't like dems? Or Progressives.? Cool. I'm sure they don't like you either. LMFAO!!!

What does that matter?

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Sadly nothing like or not we all have to live together, that is hard when discourse become hostile and disrespectful, you will never effect change by saying thing like stupid retarded (insert whatever) you shouldn't hate someone you disagree with or even know. I am guilty of the same things my wife has to reel me in all the time I almost freak out and kill people on a daily basis. Where I grew up violence was common place and either you fought or you got your ass stomped and whatever you ad taken, I got out of that situation but old habits are hard to break but I'm working on changeing me first then maybe I can change the world

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I also grew with violence everywhere (projects of bklyn). Also dealt with anger issues, and have put that behind me. And although I can'treally change the world I can change the world in me.

So I ain't angry. And I'm not a hater. I ain't callin you (or anyone) nasty names I'm constantly asking people to refrain but I won't let that nastiness, & disrespect keep me from engaging where I see an opportunity to contribute.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

if the rich paid 0 dollars in taxes it would help the poor more as they would either buy product to create jobs, or hire directly at their business or homes . I myself asked for assistance one time from government when i was only making 800 a month when I had a tooth ache, and welfare told me I had no children living with me so there was nothing they could do. I will never forget this lack of concern for my welfare the one time I needed help. I dont see government taxes helping people, I do see government consuming those revenues however and building palaces, buying new vehicles, all while our homes and vehicles are becoming decrepit. I see government lining up their courts in favor of the elite awarding judgments and warrants for peoples arrest, (in effect restoring debtors prison). Go attend a small court hearing and see over 50% of the cases now are from checkngo, checkintocash, check city, title loan predatory lending against the poor. Our governent has joined the ranks of supporting predatory lending on every level, from fannie mae's predatory student loans that can never be discharged, to check city, and to land lords. It should be illegal for a person to own more than one home, when so many working americans can never afford a home. Im one of them. My family hasnt owned a home for 3 generations now.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

yeah that's the answer when we are all billionaires the republicans will care about us too....then there is reality...

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 1 year ago

Actually, Romney's bit is way closer to Hitler. Romney has a habit of drawing a line between those he feels are important to society and those he feels are abusing the system. This is very similar to Hitler and very opposite of Obama who at least believes he is working to bring people together.

The people villainizing the wealthy are Occupy protesters and myself. Obama has actually been careful to not step on their toes.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

sure obama not hitler.............I would beg to differ they (ROM and Obama) are each sides of hitler.......which side of the big H do you want is the question.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR1 (8) 1 year ago

You are right - I get upset when people also abuse the system - don't you?

Obama when he first took office preached that we should all come together. Obama now preaches that the wealthy needs to pay more in taxes - Romney doesn't.

Obama thinks everyone should be "middle class" - Romney reinforces the fact that everyone should have the opportunity to become wealthy - what's wrong with that?

[-] 0 points by GNAT (150) 1 year ago

Well based on those outstanding talking points from both candidates, who could refuse either of them? :D

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Romney is just another pathetic yes man, and will do the same exact stuff that Obama is doing if he;s elected.

[-] -2 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

stop using facts, it confuses the dem/libs/prgressives/ ows people

[-] 0 points by CitizenofAmerika (-71) 1 year ago

This whole issue of "caring" really means something to you, doesn't it?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I suppose, mostly I would like to see America continue for a bit longer and I feel as the system becomes increasing unbalanced that becomes less likely.

[-] 0 points by Chaoleo (0) 1 year ago

"These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney."

I'm not sure why it is assumed that Romney would be himself in front of his greatest campaign contributors. Would you be? Or rather, would any actual politician be? Would they not tell their greatest campaign contributors exactly what they think they want to hear? I see it more as evidence that Romney, like virtually all politicians from both camps these days including Obama (yes I said Obama), participates in the common practice of saying whatever he thinks he needs to say to win. How is that at all unexpected?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I watched the full version I think the most telling moment is when he is talking about his will, letting them know he's one of them. The thing about this tape is I have never seen Romney look more natural or more passionate, I believe this is how he truly feels and it does explain other remarks he has made. Obama on the other hand, for any faults he may have, has lived a life of service from the very beginning, sure he made a few bucks, people need money but not near what he could have say if he had gone the way of the 999 guy, so yeah watch everything and learn from it all.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Bloomberg News Romney Takes More Aggressive Tone to Reset Presidential Race

But now he is changing tone, just to show that one who is tone deaf can annoy us at much higher frequencies.

But he is doing this just a lark, because his campaign isn't in trouble, is it BetseyRoss?

When they say you are wrong, say it louder.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

hi brighton, I'm hoping the GOP lose the house it would be so fun to watch the TEA Party eat the whole hing from within.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Backatcha, frf, I guess it is too early for summary projections, rather than individual races, but that would excellent. Back to reality, (I can see it from my house) even if they get close it will mean some less crazy (don't think there is such a thing as a moderate anymore) Repelicans who will be inclined to (shhhhh) compromise. Plus, if we are off the cliff (and we should be, then compromising on cuts for the middle class from the expired Bush rates, while leaving out the 2% should get them in the habit? That's my theory (hypothesis, actually), and I am sticking with it. The six month extension, agreed to quietly, may not have been a good thing?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I've gone "out there" elsewhere and said the Arctic will be under a million square miles of ice next year and ice free the year after, the people who know better say no way, but I am not sure they have all read "The Tipping Point", it's approach best explains why we are beyond their worst projections already.

Now to The House, people got cozy, thinking the house is tough to change because the Ds held it so long once upon a time, but freshmen are venerable. I have never been able to read the mind of the independent voter, I Mean if you’ve read my profile I think I understand the left and the right, but the ones that flip have always puzzled me, but I am thinking maybe they can see gridlock, maybe they think that’s a bad thing right now and maybe they will be thinking that Obama will win.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

There have been times, in the past, I have rooted for gridlock but this isn't one. We will see what they think, or don't.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I hope Larry Flynt nails him to the wall.

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

These rich haters need to get whipped seriously.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

How many comments does a post on a lame media soundbit get? Over 400. How many do posts on the Fed openly stealing from the rest of the planet? Eh, maybe one or two.

That, right there, is the root of why everything is happening in this country.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

You are just a con tool hc, sorry if we figured that out.....

I am surprised this one got such little attention though

http://occupywallst.org/forum/heres-a-great-list-of-actions-across-the-country/

[-] -1 points by Orwellwuzright (-84) from Lockeford, CA 1 year ago

How many time do you Obama worshippers have to keep screaming that your god is actually different?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

What does this entitled little rich kid got to do with Obama?

[-] -1 points by tangential (33) 1 year ago

It is rare for the rich to care about the poor, either party, and rarer still for politicians to do so!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I think it is rare to truly care about anything no matter if you are rich or not.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Looks like Romney was right. Obama has the 47%:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

― Alexis de Tocqueville 200 years ago

[-] 4 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

And the last twenty years of supply side economics makes Tocqueville's case. I guess we rectify that mistake by supporting those who make the economy hum, consumers and the majority of people who are not on the supply side of the ledger.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I agree with you. Get business out of Gov, stop the corp welfare, cut taxes, and make a balanced Fed budget the law of the land like it is in most States.

[-] 4 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

The budget is the wrong thing to focus on as long as there is a serious recession. That's Econ 101, dude.

[-] -3 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Only if you believe that the only way we can fix the problem is for the Gov to spend borrowed and printed money.

BTW, the US came out of recession 36 months ago.

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

1sealyon, I never try to reason with people who reject textbook economics and the scientific method. Why are you even here, randroid?

OK, if your gonna get cute GDP turned around in '09, blah blah blah. Unemployment is still over 8%, and "46.2 million people in America fell below the poverty line last year."

http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/20/on-being-poor/?hpt=hp_c1

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Textbooks define a recession as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. That ended 36 months ago; or do you reject textbook economics and the scientific method?

There are also a number of textbooks with scientific arguments that Keynesian Economics is flawed:

14th edition of Paul A. Samuelson's Economics

Foundations of Post-Keynesian Economic Analysis, Marc Lavoie,

Economics Education: What Should We Learn About the Free Market?, Richard M. Ebeling

http://www.axiosinstitute.org/bookstore/Where%20Keynes%20Went%20Wrong/

[-] 2 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Free-market advocates have spent an unimaginable fortune trying to discredit Keynes, because they have a stake in low taxes and deregulation.

If Chevron told you global warming was a myth, would you believe them, too?

[-] -2 points by GNAT (150) 1 year ago

When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease ... But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.


The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that carries any reward.


You really have no idea what Keynes was saying. You should find good company with politicians and media opinion makers.

?

[-] -3 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If a climatologist that earns his living promulgating predictions of catastrophic AGW tells you that sea level will rise 30 feet in 75 years would you believe him?

Seems like everyone has an ox that they want saved from goring.

We all have a stake in low taxes and deregulation. Only governments that the dominate their people crave more taxes and increased regulation.

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Actually, no. I have nothing to lose from the regulation of derivative trading whatsoever, nor from capital gains tax for that matter.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You have plenty to lose from a Gov that steals your liberty (along with anything else that they can get their hands on).

Jefferson had the question of the size and scope of Gov about right:

" A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities. "

[-] 3 points by TommyNYC (730) 1 year ago

Oh god, now your quoting Jefferson and talking about "liberty"? Why don't you just scurry over here with the rest of the reptiles: www.teapartypatriots.org/

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Wisdom is often found in the most unlikely places.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

we still have mc jobs and no jobs

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

fucking conservative scumbags like to assert WWII ended the depression while insisting government spending cannot revive an economy

  • fukcing liars and theives
[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Getting the states out of the contrast negotiations is a good place to start, a federal law outlawing all these so called "right to work" laws which are nothing more than the state stepping in to keep wages low. Why do the cons want the government involved in business contracts?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I agree with you. Get business out of Gov and Gov out of business. Get rid of all laws that interfere with the businesses, their customers, and employees. Deregulate early and often.

If you think that we are not over regulated, think again. Just a few obnoxious examples:

  • License to paint finger nails (a separate license is required for toenails).

  • Fortune Teller license

  • Hair shampooing license

  • Mice hunting license

  • Early morning dancing permit

  • Hair Braiding License

  • Shaved Ice Regulation

  • Garbage Eating License

  • Gun ownership requirement

  • Cross-dressing Permit

  • Free Puppy and Kitten regulation

  • Regulations on the number of domestic showers

  • Dog chasing wild animal regulation

  • Bathing two or more babies in the same tub regulation

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

And don't forget the worst of all the wage killing "Right to Work"!!

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Human rights (like the right to work) are not granted by governments, they belong to us by the simple fact that we are human beings.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

so you support the government interfering with private contracts?

and I'm sure you believe that the Affordable Care Act will make health care affordable, after all that's what the name says right?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Human rights are unique and are not granted by Gov. They are yours by your very existence as a human being.

Contract law is a different matter.

The ACA will make health care neither affordable or careful. It will turn the whole system into the VHA. If you think that is a good idea talk to a Vet that has enjoyed the experience.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

What about being able to work in a union shop without paying dues is a basic "human right"?If they put the work "right" in the ACA would it be better? Just calling it "right to work" don't mean it so, if we really had a right to work in Arizona everyone would have a job, "right to work" laws have nothing to do with a right to work it has everything to do with the state interfering with private contracts in favor of business to keep unions weak and wages low.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Unions are private orgs they can charge what they want. I do believe that an individual worker should be able to opt out of the union and still work for a company that has a union shop. It is the unions not the corps that prevent this.

On that subject, why is it that you have know some one, be someone's nephew, or pay someone off to get into the carpenter's, plumber's, pipe fitters, machinist's, or any number of tight knit unions? It is nepotism at its worst and still largely a man's world.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I guess you never tried to break into business the world's the same all over, does that mean we shut down business?

You are wrong about unions causing it, it is the state that prevents the company and the union from signing a contract that says everyone who works at a shop or a business is in the union, everyone has the choice not to work there or not, but if you chose to and the union wants you to chip in and pay your dues and the company agrees to it, then the state has no right to interfere.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

For years many unions have been good-old-boys-clubs that keep out minorities, women, and cater to their buddies, relatives, and folks willing to pay them off. Businesses would happily allow non-union workers but the unions strike, or worse, to prevent it.

That said Gov involvement typically makes things worse and both labor and management would be better off without them. I have no quarrel with unions. They are just trying to get a better deal for their members. Union leaders however do not always act on behalf of the dues payers and there is a lot of cronyism. But that's what elections are for.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-4.pdf

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

As I said in the beginning so called “right to work” laws are the states using government to influence private contracts in one direction, in favor of business to keep wages low, so of course “Businesses would happily allow non-union workers”, that’s my point it’s government getting involved to weaken unions and lower wage

Yes unions would strike and the business would have to get by with non-union labor and try to compete with others paying good wages to skilled craftsman but that’s how it’s suppose to work, so everyone has a chance to make a decent wage, but the government uses these “right to work” laws to interfere and keep wages low, that would be the first thing that has to go.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Well we seem to agree on this one. Get Gov out of business, get business out of Gov, and send the criminals to the hoosegow.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

While I agree that government does intrude onto businesses turf too often, some intrusions are necessary. Let's not throw out the baby because the bathwater is dirty.

Pollution controls on automobiles are an example. If they were not in force, the skies of LA would be a dark brown suffocating concoction of death and disease. I breathed in the fumes as a kid in the 60's and would cringe to think anyone would want those choking fumes increased ten times just so business could thrive.

A balance in regulations is necessary. Either extreme is intolerable.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I agree. To discourage crimes some laws are necessary , shaving ice without a license is clearly not one of them.

All a business needs to be successful is a little luck and little Gov. - P. J. O'Rourke

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

re: comment from here

Engineered foods are like vaccines.

That is I'm sure a ridiculous statement - today. It might not be so ridiculous at some point in the future.

Personally I'm not at all convinced that vaccines are entirely safe - certainly I have had numerous vaccines over the course of my lifetime and there have been no identifiable ill effects.

Yet there is the instance of my father's dog. It took place a few years ago. They took him to the vet for a serious of shots, and he died as a result. They say

  • it happens.

That may be, and while one may not deny the benefits to society derived from vaccines, there does seem to be some small evidence of possible harm - and tremendous amount of denial surrounding the possibility.

This I find unacceptable.

If it were established, for example, that a particular vaccine is indispensable to the public health, and yet it will cause one in one million children to be born with birth defects - then let us admit it openly, and if the public health is at that great a risk, let us mandate the vaccine, and take responsibility for the health consequence of that one in one million who will be sacrificed in the interest of the public good.

This, apparently, we are not disposed to do.

.

Engineered foods are a completely different issue, presenting a whole different set of ethical questions, not to mention the possibility of capturing an entire food market by the pharmaceutical industry.

There have been instances of farmers having their crops infected with pollen from the ge crop grown next door, and the patent holders seek damages from the farmer who did not ask for their product.

Not to mention treating the entire population as guinea pigs.

This entire experiment should not be undertaken by private industry at all - but rather by the public, using public funds. Rigorous testing should be done to ensure these foods are in fact safe for consumption, and we should not allow the pollen to escape into the wild without a clear understanding of the implications - which could be gleaned through controlled experiments and computer modelling.

We should not have a society where it is even acceptable for a company, whose interest and welfare depend upon public perception and good will, to even suggest labeling their products in a way that is in the least fraudulent or misleading.

That is simply unacceptable.

It seems the whole world - the only planet in our universe that can sustain us, has now been turned into some laboratory experiment, and if it goes awry - it holds the potential to imperil us all.

.

**Q: Who's eating biotech foods? A: In all likelihood, you are.

Most people in the United States don't realize that they've been eating genetically engineered foods since the mid-1990s. More than 60 percent of all processed foods on U.S. supermarket shelves—including pizza, chips, cookies, ice cream, salad dressing, corn syrup, and baking powder—contain ingredients from engineered soybeans, corn, or canola.

In the past decade or so, the biotech plants that go into these processed foods have leaped from hothouse oddities to crops planted on a massive scale—on 130 million acres (52.6 million hectares) in 13 countries, among them Argentina, Canada, China, South Africa, Australia, Germany, and Spain. On U.S. farmland, acreage planted with genetically engineered crops jumped nearly 25-fold from 3.6 million acres (1.5 million hectares) in 1996 to 88.2 million acres (35.7 million hectares) in 2001. More than 50 different "designer" crops have passed through a federal review process, and about a hundred more are undergoing field trials.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Your open mind on this issue is refreshing. Many folks simply shut down at any mention of the up side to life saving innovations like vaccines and GMOs.

Farmers IP complaints: If your dog wanders over to you neighbors yard would you object to them keeping it for themselves? Does the dog become their property due to an accident of geography?

Corps in a competitive environment would do a better job innovating than the Gov, however immunity from prosecution for any FDA approved product would help. Based on your evidence above the years of exposure to GMOs has produced no evidence of millions dropping off the twig, and life expectancy has increased.

In the end you are right. Testing and modeling not withstanding people will eventually be the guinea pigs.

For that reason I recommend waiting until the 6th year of production before buying a car.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you are fucking insane

If your dog wanders into my yard I'll be certain to shoot the bastard. Can't have him destroying the flower garden.

Immunity?

So much for repeliccan insistence on personal responsibility

I hate you fuckers so much

I really do

seriously

  • corporations are people too, my friend

    • Mitt Romney . . . . August 2011
  • "Without personal responsibility there cannot be freedom. It is just that simple."

    • Newt Gingrich, July 10 1995
  • Corps in a competitive environment would do a better job innovating than the Gov, however immunity from prosecution for any FDA approved product would help.

    • nimrod . . . . just now
[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Why go through the FDA approval process if the approval has no meaning.? Can the FDA be sued if they approve a drug that later causes harm? Why not?

The Gov gets it both ways, they can put a drug on the market (particularly if they benefit from large pharma campaign contributions) but are immune from prosecution if there is a problem.

Better to keep the Gov out of the process completely. They are mostly inept or corrupt (or a bit of both).

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110310/13141713432/is-fda-helping-hindering-medical-innovation.shtml

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

BTW the Gov is already granting immunity for the producers of certain drugs after receiving FDA approval:

http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=845

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

“A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.” P.J. O’Rourke

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You don't have any faith in luck? It (or the lack of it) can often be a dominant factor in our lives.

Napoleon was once asked why he was so successful in battle. He replied that he had great generals. When then asked how he chose his generals he answered, "I pick the lucky ones."

As Waterloo later schooled Napoleon there also exists a thing called bad luck.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Both good and bad luck come with equal measure.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

That assumes that luck is normally distributed among the population and that everyone exploits evenly the the opportunity of good luck and mitigates against the bad. The outcomes of luck are varied based on individual skill, intelligence, means, and appetite for risk.

The result: some people are luckier than others.

http://www.lmcm.com/868299.pdf

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

These are local annoyances. Where is this in force? You should work hard to eliminate anything that doesn't make sense.

Good luck in all your good efforts

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Again all local annoyances. Where isthis? Good luck undoing it in your town.

I think thefed govt is not involved.

But I agree we should eliminate all stupid laws.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Tea bagger! You're against government regulation and you think that the debt is a national security issue ... But you accuse me of being a tea bagger when you're the one who seems to agree with their platform.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

really? Who do you think you are convincing? Or do you think you are making me angry. LMFAO!

Don't be a child.

I don't know the Tea party position on stupid laws.

Is this an area of common ground between us?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

You spent a whole day accusing me of being a tea bagger because of me typing the words "Tea Party", without realizing that you're the one who agrees with the tea bagger's political platform. I'm sorry but that's just hilarious.

You're full of leftist dogma about the tea baggers being a secret conspiracy run by the Koch brothers, yet you didn't know about the Budget Control Act of 2011, their biggest achievement. Also pretty funny.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I didn't say you were a tea bagger ever. (I never use that offensive term)

I didn't say you were a tea party supporter because you typed tea party.

That's ridiculous. both lies.

I said you were a tea party supporter because you praise what you claimed were their success! You know this.

Your lies to the contrary betray you real agenda. You want to paint me as unreasonable.

Please stop repeating these lies, please refrain from insulting me. If you can't discuss substantial issues then please don't bother responding.

Thanks, Peace, & good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] -2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

You brought this on yourself with your attempt to position me as your enemy yesterday. You ended up revealing how little you knew about the things that you were talking about. At least you know more now.

[-] -1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I've been talking about. You're distracted by the words "Tea Party" and you're not paying any attention to the conversation. I just don't understand why you bother. It's like talking to a brick wall. We're not even disagreeing with each other -- we're having two completely different conversations. Conspiracy theories about the Tea Party are absolutely irrelevant to anything that I've been talking about. I understand that you're a die-hard believer in the vast Republican conspiracy but that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I've been talking about.

I know exactly what kind of response that you're going to come back with. And I'm already giggling.

[-] 0 points by VQkag4 (-30) 1 year ago

I am for 99% progressive solutions. What do you support?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

No you're not. You're for the left half of the 99%. The idea of building a consensus among the real 99% is a completely foreign concept to you apparently. You're not capable of transcending your own little pigeon hole in order to work for the betterment of the entire 99%.

[-] 1 points by VQkag4 (-30) 1 year ago

Please don't use childish insults. We are adults no? Can we discuss issues seriously?

I care for 99% progressive solutions and I believe we can achieve this by voting for Obama. But we need to protest to make him work for OWS!

Can you answer my question. What do you support Romney boy?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I never say vote for Pres Obama

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I'm not decied yet and I wouldn't discuss it with you anyway. I'm working pretty hard to ignore all of the partisan squabbling because it's bad for our country. It's how the 1% maintains the status quo.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Similar but I never say vote for Pres Obama. And I only use the anti dem partisan strategy on a couple of specific people here. And you have not really been one of them that I can remember.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Too many come here for entertainment. This one comes to harass people.

Just cheap light trashy

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I think it's funny just like he apparently does that I didn't immediately notice, since his sock puppet ravings were believably similar to the things that you actually say for real.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

VQkag'4' is NOT me! I hope you know that.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

I figured it out eventually. I wonder how many people come to this site purely for entertainment.

[-] -1 points by VQkag4 (-30) 1 year ago

Everyone can see you're an anti-dem partisan.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Please refrain from using this false version of my login!

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

Ah now I get it. More sock puppetry. This site is so entertaining.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

you left off seat belt laws those were some of the first, and requiring cars to have horns, what the hell is the government doing anyway, I mean sure there were no air bags available as a option in cars till the government required them, but why should car companies take a chance that people would actually want them right?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I would prefer that consumers determine which options a car features.

Did the Gov cause the step function improvement in the quality, performance, and price of autos that occurred in the early 1980's? Not at all. It was competition from Japan and Germany that made the difference.

Volvo introduced air bags long before laws required them and safety minded consumers rewarded them with high sales and premium margins.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

so why did none of the US companies? if it were not for the government requirement we would still not airbags as an option, even though as you point out the car companies could have offered them but they decided not to, and this is common in the area of safety.

What about air and water do you really think companies would forgo profit to keep the air clean, or does that not matter to you?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Laws are necessary to prevent crimes; humans being what they are. You exhale CO2 with every breath and produce methane ( a more potent GHG) with fair regularity. Do you want the Gov to regulate your body?

We kill about 40,000 people per year on US highways (another 200,000 are injured). Does it make sense to stop the mayhem by making cars illegal?

Collision avoidance systems (CAS) could be installed today for ~ $1600 per car. About $20 B per year would replace the fleet in 10 years saving about 150,000 injuries and deaths and about $ 200B per year in accident costs. (About 60 times the improvement from air bags).

So why are CAS not the law?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I didn't see an answer to the question of "Why didn't they offer air bags?"

Looks like you are more interested in useless flooding of info like a lawyer burying his opponent in disclosures. But none of what you said has anything to do with the question I asked.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Air bags were invented in the US in 1951. The first experimental car was a Ford built in 1971. In 1973 the Olds Toronado was the first production car to offer air bags. In 1975 other Oldsmobile's, Cadillacs, and Buick's featured air bags.Ford began offering air bags in 1984 and Chrysler in 1988.

Europe generally lagged the US in the adoption of the airbag with Mercedes offering models in 1980 and Volvo in 1985.

Air bags became mandatory on cars in 1998.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

maybe in a few markets, but I bought a few cars t in those days and airbags was not an option on any of them, you name a few models my question is why not all models? we know how proud they are of their airbags once they were forced to put them in....same was true of seat-belts, in their day...

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Not all of their customers wanted to pay for the air bag option. Air bags must not have been important to you when you searched for a car in those days. The market worked. Consumers that wanted air bags got them. Those that did not had the ability to opt out; a choice they no longer have.

It is generally better to let the market work.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

now you're claiming that the auto companies were offering airbags 30 years before they were required? WTF???

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Airbags were required by Gov in 1999 and first introduced on production vehicles in 1973. Nearly 30 years as written below.

Industry was way ahead of the Gov as is usually the case.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The case of auto safety is more one of they will build it when the government requires it, that's the village I'm speaking of it takes a lots of different paths to move forward, that's something some never understand there must be balance, not ALL government not NO government, you can't ALWAYS lower taxes, anytime anyone speaks in these one direction only manners we should run away from that person and distrust what they say....

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

But the Gov edict lagged the introduction of air bags by nearly 30 years. That means if you wait for the Gov to do something it will cost you an additional 60,000 lives and three times that number in serious injury.

We would all be better off if the Gov just stays out of it. They are simply out of their depth.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Here's a link that talks about the current balance between requirements and pro-action by industry, in truth it takes a village....

http://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/new-side-impact-requirements-will-change-the-cars-we-buy.html

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

"with safety now a top priority for consumers, automakers are actively looking for ways to improve their cars."

Not a village, but market demand. It is actually quite rare to find a real case of "if you build it they will come". Most of the time manufacturers wait for a market demand to be sure that they can sell their stuff.

The exception to this rule are the disruptive start-up companies. They are the random mutation of the free market gene pool that sometimes changes everything, but mostly they just pea in the pool and die off.

http://smallbiztrends.com/2008/04/startup-failure-rates.html

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

so I looked at your links, none of them show me any airbags being offered in any pick-up trucks before the government required them you mean nobody but me wanted a pick-up truck with air bags, and even if it was just me, why didn't this wonderful market place satisfy my demand?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Ford offered airbags in 1992 and Dodge RAM in 1994.

The Gov required them in 1999.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

but they didn't and yet people love'em kind of blows your whole point, there was demand but they didn't provide them, life is often different that the ideal...

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

So if you want a pick up truck and air bags, tough shit, that ain't America?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If there is a market for a pick up truck with air bags suppliers will provide it. That is sort of the whole idea behind free markets.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

So you're worried about the crumbs on the kitchen floor as the house is burning down. Oh yeah - that makes sense! lmao.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

In 1994 what was the first step that Mayor Giuliani took to combat crime in NYC?

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 1 year ago

I give up. What?

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

He began with the crumbs. Little things with high public visibility like getting rid of the graffiti and arresting subway turnstile jumpers. These actions raised the public level of expectation for a crime free environment.

What we need is an increase in the public expectation for personal liberty. Freedom from Gov and dependence on Gov.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

So we can be more dependent on our employer? how about the freedom to see a doctor or go to school, government can enhance real freedom unless it's bound by some stupid notion that only money is freedom and only when you tax money are you affecting "freedom" taking someone's money is not taking their freedom, it's just paying the bills....

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

We possess certain rights simply because we are human beings. They are not granted to us by some Gov. They include, but are not limited to, liberty, life, and property.

When we allow Gov to take our rights in exchange for some bobble it makes it easier for them to grab more in the future. That was what De Tocqueville was talking about.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I have an individual choice to fire my employer. Alone, I can't fire the president.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

So you firmly oppose "right to work" laws, firing employers being so easy and all....

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Just as I have a choice to fire my employer, my employer has a choice to fire me.

I like that relationship. It is honest.

That said, if an employee and employer enter into an agreement that provides a different arrangement that is up to them and the state should not interfere.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

so if a group of employees form a union and work out a contract with an employer that says everybody who works here will get decent pay and will pay dues to the union you're cool with that and the state has no right to interfere?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Absolutely.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

we depend on property

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

usually when a repeliccan utters freedom from government what they are advocating is a license . . .

  • to rob the public blind
[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Don't you think that the folks in North Korea could do with a little freedom from Gov?

It is just a matter of degree. Less Gov is almost always better.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

less government only works when you have less collective power of any kind, it would only work if collective capital was not allowed. protection from bankruptcy for those who own stocks or are in other collective capital constructs, true responsibility, the reason we require regulation is that we have already removed so many consequences from investment in the name of encouragement, if there were real risk, yes there would be much less investment but there would also be far fewer failures, so banks could lend again...

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Agreed, although bailouts are worse than bankruptcy. At least with bankruptcy there is some effort by judges for an equitable settlement among interested parties.

Bailouts are just a big rip-off for tax payers, and not every citizen pays taxes.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

First off bonds have ratings, you takes your chances,.

You keep talking about these 401Ks well during the Bush years those 401Ks went down 22%, while under Obama they are up around 80% so I think on balance they should be thanking God a Republican ain't in the White House.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

So you excuse bad behavior by pointing out bad behavior?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I knew the concept of real responsibility would be so foreign to you that you wouldn't understand, what I'm saying is that the government steps in to protect people so they can start a business without having everything they own including their homes on the line, that's why the system doesn't work with the government stepping in helping investors limit their exposure while the workers have it all on the line...so of course investment would be hurt if the government didn't act to provide some protections just as those that work are hurt today because the government doesn't help them as much as it does those who write campaign checks, that's why we need public funding for public elections so they will work for everyone not just investors as government does now, the GM bailout was an exception and an exceptional success..

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I am with you on getting corps out of the Gov election business. But do not agree that the GM/Chrysler Bailout was an exceptional success. US taxpayers have lost $25 B and counting, bond holders lost everything, the Gov should have let the bankruptcy process work. GM would be a stronger company today and investors would be less reluctant to spend money on US corps (out of fear that the Gov will step in again and they lose everything). Chrysler is now foreign owned (Fiat profits go to Italy).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/15/auto-bailout-price-tag-rises-to-25-billion-how-high-will-it-go/

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Over a million people have jobs that wouldn't we dropped 25 billion a month in Iraq and never created a single job, the bond holders put their money at risk that's what capitalism is all about if there is never a loss there can't be profits. GM would be dead there was no private money, Romney knew this, and saying something different don't make it so, like tax cuts balance budgets cons are always saying shit that never works but it don't stop them from saying it , if Obama had not bailed them out we would have no auto building jobs no car parts jobs, the whole rust belt would be losing jobs instead of adding them.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You are wrong that there was no private money as evidenced by Fiats purchase of Chrysler.

Many corps go through bankruptcy (for example numerous airlines whose planes are still flying), continue to operate, and come out stronger then they were.

Bonds are different then stocks. They are loans that must be repaid. In bankruptcy court the bond holders would have had standing, but the Fed Gov screwed them. They screwed the poor and middle class union workers that made those loans via their 401Ks and pension funds. Where is the outrage?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

In many "bankruptcies" the CEO's walk away rich and none of them ever have to sell personal property to pay the debt. The bond holders lent the money to make a profit, that means they put it at risk, when money is put at risk it is sometimes lost.

I'm not talking about the auto bailout,(that worked great GM is still alive),

I'm talking about real personal responsibility where you have to sell your personal home if you run the company into the ground, you don't walk away with huge checks, and the stock investors actually own the company so more is at risk that just what you put into the stocks, the investor would learn what is like to truly lose everything just like the workers when these things go wrong, we would not have so many failures if we had a truly accountable based system.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Whatever money CEOs get it is only paid because the people that hired them signed the agreement. That is their fault. I don't begrudge anyone for being a good negotiator, particularly on the employee side.

The Gov stole money from the GM bond holders (many of them poor, and middle class union workers that had money invested via 401ks and union retirement funds which they did not control). Those people were never given a place at the settlement table. The Gov just took their money. Where was the NYT and Wash Post to speak up for them?

People can do what they want, but anyone that puts up their home to start a business is fool hardy since more than half fail.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I wonder if you really do "agree" you see stockholders would lose their homes in a corporate bankruptcy if there there was real accountability..

Take for instance when the airlines declare "bankruptcy" to shed pension requirements the people who had bought the stock you see their homes would be on the line same as the workers retirements....

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

When GM got bailed out all of the bond holders lost every thing ( a lot of them from the 401ks and Union retirement funds of the poor and middle class ). In a bankruptcy court they would have been equal participants at the settlement table. The auto dealers and their laid-off workers also lost everything with no day in court. The same is true in the case of airline bankruptcy. In the case of GM the Gov stole from the bond holders. There was a taking without just compensation.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-auto-bailout-and-the-rule-of-law

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313125/auto-bailout-casualties-john-berlau

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Empires rise up from our midst and overshadow our daily lives in the form of agri-giants bioengineering the food we eat, fossil fuel who will dictate energy policy as they destroy aquifers and ground water sources, decimate pristine natural habitat . . .

and all you can offer are comparisons with an isolated totalitarian regime and bland generalizations.

You don't belong here.

go away.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

don't ask him to leave, just kick his ass....

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

1sea.lyin doesn't get it.

scroll down.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

check out how I turn designed food into designed economy, what do think?

do you think we will still be smart enough to do that in his opinion?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I like the way you think. Truly.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I like bio-engineered food. It is predictable.

I want them to bio-engineer the tastiest steer possible, that lives off old newspaper, belches CHANEL №5 from both ends, and then clone the heck out of it until Filet Mingnon is $ 0.20 per pound.

I am still searching the grocery store for the inorganic lettuce. What is it Silicon based?

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

back in the late 90s I read an article in the Sunday edition of the NYT - in the glossy magazine section - I still have it if you want title, publication date, author . . .

Anyway - they did a spot on franken-potato, grown by McDs. Mind you, I was likely the only reader of that spot who also ever ate at McDs

They had grown millions of acres of ge potatoes. Millions.

they were engineered to produce Bt - it's a pesticide. when the pesticide is sprayed on the crop it still requires an enzyme contained in the insect gut before it becomes active.

That is not the case in the instance of genetic engineering.

The author watched a potato bug - it munched a couple of times on the leaf, and fell over dead.

And you can't wash that genetic engineered Bt toxin off

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Do you ever wonder about people who think we are so smart that we can design new food to eat, but not so smart that we can tell when an economic system is not serving the people?

They insist on a "free" market but have no problem tinkering with evolution...

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Engineered foods are like vaccines. They save hundreds of millions of lives, but the newspaper likes to print the story about the parent that believes the vaccine caused their child's autism. We have been eating engineered foods for more than 80 years, GMOs for 20. They have saved the lives of over a billion people.

I fear that we have turned into a nation of cowards afraid of everything from the air we breath, the work we do, the people we live with, and the water we drink. We are paralyzed by fear. We are now afraid to take on the great projects that were once hallmarks of the American character.

http://www.goldenrice.org/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/15/genetically-modified-foods-why-does-california-insist-on-finding-a-problem-where-nobody-else-does/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/geneticmodification/9284762/People-will-starve-to-death-because-of-anti-GM-zealotry.html

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/food-how-altered/

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

15 years after the dead potato bug and there are some strong arguments in favor of the GMO spud. McD consumers have for years been eating the same potatoes fried in GMO oil and drinking GMO sweetened Coke.

If you eat McD food every day the GMOs are likely the least of your problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/magazine/playing-god-in-the-garden.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://potatobg.css.msu.edu/Publications/Journal%20Publications/Grafius%20Douches%20Present%20and%20Future%20Role%20195-221.pdf

http://www.agbioforum.org/v7n12/v7n12a16-huesing.htm

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I like an economic system designed to serve all the people, think we could put one together? Or is that too dangerous to mess with?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

When you say economic system do you mean the system that the Fed Gov controls, or the whole system?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

they could do with a freedom from inherited power seems to me....

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Agreed.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

What's your definition of "humble"?

Bill Gates went to Harvard Steve Jobs to Stanford neither on scholarships.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Neither were sons of the likes of Mit Romney, Sam Walton, or Warren Buffet. Humble means that they had to work their butts off to accomplish what they did.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

and so could we, the Wall Mart clan rule far too many general stores and keep all others from getting a toe in how t do we know the great-great-grand-kid of Sam will be able to create jobs like him. we need to shake it up every generation to make sure the smart people end up making the calls, not just the ones born rich....

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Most great corporations were created by people of humble means. They are often destroyed or squandered by founder offspring unless they are smart enough to hire the right people to run it.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

so anybody like the Romney boys which got 20 million given to them, they ain't humble, nor is Jobs or Gates, so maybe like once in a blue moon someone from a "humble" background makes it, but those born rich they always "make it".

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Gate and especially Jobs started their businesses from nothing and worked hard to build them. They came from humble beginnings (as did BTW Sam Walton and Ray Kroc).

Most great businesses are started by people from humble beginnings.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

Almost always???

pretty good hedge your bet.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Jefferson had it about right:

" A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities. "

[-] 1 points by shooz (26680) 1 year ago

He said a lot of other stuff too.

I'm not in the mood for cherry picking, so what did the quote have to do with what I said?.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Less Gov is almost always better. Almost. Jefferson gave a good description of the right size and scope of Gov.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

you mean like people who constantly promise "tax cuts" we have sure been hurt by those suckers, and the fools who vote for them....

a far a "largeesse" goes the wall street bunch like Romney have got that down pat, the government pays all the expense and takes all the risk and they take all the money, you really think it's the poor people tyhat did this to us?

and BTW Americans have historically low tax rates right now with huge debt, don't seem like the poor are taking all that much

[-] 0 points by VQkag4 (-30) 1 year ago

We just need to be patient and wait for the 99% progressive candidates like Obama to work for OWS. Obama already supports OWS. We need to focus on that. We need to protest to make him push progressive policies.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

What we need to do is kill the GOP and scare the hell out of Obama and all the Democrats...

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Why is the Fed Gov in debt? Because of poor people? No, it is because politicians are cowards. They take the lazy route and borrow money so that they can get elected now and let future generations worry about the problem.

The Fed Gov are at best incompetent and at worst corrupt (maybe a bit of both). The only way to stop them is to cut of their money supply.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Why is Fed in debt? Because of conservative trickle down policy. 2 wars on credit, tax cuts for wealthy during war. Repub abandoning "pay as you go". Repubs destruction of economy.

Just reject conservative policies, embrace progressive solutions and we'll be fine.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

That is pretty one sided.

Take away all of the tax cuts and the wars and we would still be over $ 9 trillion in debt. Sorry but the progressive solutions cost money and politicians are cowards. They borrow instead of paying as we go.

The problem is not who is in power, the problem is inept and corrupt Gov. The only way to stop it is to cut off their revenue.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Correct the low taxes the 1% plutocrats have engineered when they bight the govt and gamed the system.

Help the real job creators (working/middle class) and economy will grow again and the deficit/debt will melt away!

And the $9 trillion you referred tomostly from Reagan/BushI. Clinton cut the debt, & created a surplus. Bush II abandoned "pay as you go" and exploded the deficit/debt.

We are still living with BushII annual $1 Trillion deficit. STILL!

[-] -2 points by progRobo (-30) 1 year ago

That's funny and you claim rebubs caused all this, but you may not know that the dummycrats have had control of the house since 2007

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Dems have failed miserably in not standing up to conservative policies. I am more disgusted with dems when they betray progressive principles and vote for the damaging conservative policies that have destroyed the world economy.

I expect it from repubs. dems should know better. And any dem who supports these conservative policies should be replaced with a progressive with a backbone.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

How many Dems voted for (and continue to vote for) tax cuts?

They don't like taxes because it costs them votes. But they sure do love to borrow (and print) money.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Dem Pres have given us a budget surplus, Repubs have exploded the deficit/debt for 30 years.

It is the repub strategy to explode the debt so they can then scream about cutting pgms of the 99%. (starve the beast)

Dems are fiscally responsible, (even Pres Obama has cut spending) Repubs are fiscally irresponsible.

Just the facts. Sorry.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Fact: Obama added $ 5 trillion to the debt. How is that a spending cut? A true cut requires a decrease in the debt.

A pox on both their houses. We must shut off their revenue. It is the only way to stop them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

A true cut to the deficit does not require a cut to thedebt. Sorry.

The annual $1.3 trillion deficit Bush left us has been cut to $1.2 trillion. A tiny cut because of the repub created economic crash, and the repub obstruction of dem recovery/jobs plans.

So yes there has been $5 T added to the national debt during Pres Obamas 1st term but that was the $1.3 T annual deficit Bush left us.

No?

Replace pro 1% fiscally irresponsible conservatives with pro 99% fiscally responsible progressives & we'll be fine.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The debt projection is $20 trillion at the end of a second Obama term. He is not cutting anything.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

He cut $100 Billion from the annual $1.3 T deficit Bush II left us.

We would have gotten more if your repubs hadn't obstructed every effort to improve the economy.

Replace pro 1% fiscally irresponsible conservatives with pro 99% fiscally responsible progressives & we'll be fine.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If Obama cuts the budget by $100B and then increases spending by $300 B he cuts nothing.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You are right but that hasn't happened!

And that is not the point.

The point is we are still dealing with your boy Bushes $1.3 T annual deficit, & repubs have obstructed every effort to improve the economy (which would cut the deficit) or cut the deficit because they want to A- protect the 1% low taxes, & B- they can't have the economy improve with a dem in the white house.

That's the point!

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

In 2012 Obama increased spending by $300B over 2011, that after a very steep rise the year before (see below) . He cuts nothing.

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

[-] -1 points by progRobo (-30) 1 year ago

That would mean replacing the "whole" dem party and reb should also all be replaced also

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

If you say so. That's your opinion. Vote how you like.

Everyone should look at their own representatives and decide how they should vote.

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

they are cowards afraid to stand up to those who write them campaign checks, so they promise tax cut after tax cut, and now with the wealthy paying the least they have since the days of robber barons they say cut them some more....

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The only way to stop them is to cut their revenue, irrespective of the source.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

start at the source the trust funds 100% inheritance tax till the debt is paid in full, that'll teach them, go after the family wealth and they won't fuck it up again

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The only way to stop them is to cut their revenue, including their ability to borrow.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

"0 points by 1sealyon (605) 17 hours ago When you say economic system do you mean the system that the Fed Gov controls, or the whole system?"

"control" is a rather extensional concept isn't it? there are those that say a butterfly flaps it's wings and a hurricane occurs across the world.

but yes in this case I was referring to the economic system as a whole, we all influence it, but none "control" it not even the government, the government can only influence it, say by outlawing "right to work" laws across the nation this would strengthen unions and act to broaden the base of wealth and therefore strengthen the economy.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If an economic system was developed in which folks voluntarily took part (like the pervasive US barter system) let them have at it.

If people are forced into a system that is tyranny.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Here's a video that will help you understand how the whole problem started when government stepped in to protect the people who own stock from the responsibly of true ownership, if we undo that the whole economic system would collapse but we could have the kind of hands off government you're looking for...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5kHACjrdEY

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The Gov stole money form the GM/Chrysler Bond holders. They did not own stock. They made loans to GM that the Gov refused to pay.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

GM went broke, that's not the government's fault, if we had let GM move through normal bankruptcy court it would have been cut up and harvested like a Bain Capital investment, and America would have lost it's auto industry, it was the right thing to do, get over it, that's why it's called risk...

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

"that's why it's called risk"

You hit on the exact point. GM, Wallsteet, Fannie and Freddie, they took the risk and the taxpayers were forced to bail them out. In what way was that the right thing to do? If they get cut up so be it. That is the risk they took (your words).

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

saving the jobs was the right thing to do, get over it...

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Not all jobs were saved. Many were lost in subsequent plant closings. Many jobs could also have been saved if there had been a normal bankruptcy but we will never know because the Gov broke the rules that every other business has to follow. What happened to equal protection under the law? What other chunks of the constitution do you want the Gov to rip out?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

the plants would have been cut up and parts sent overseas, the entire auto industry would have been lost...

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You have no basis for that assertion. Do you know where in the world the last four $1B plus auto plants were built? They were were built in the US.

They were built in the US because that is the most economical place in the world to build cars (particularly cars destined for the NA market).

Manufacturing is leading the US out of recession. It is the fastest growing segment since 2008. Why? Because the US is a manufacturing machine. It is the biggest in the world. Bigger than China. In US $ it has grown four times since 1980.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2227791872

http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2011/12/27/top-10-countries-for-manufacturing-production-in-2010-china-usa-japan-germany/

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

you really have no clue....when companies are sold for scrap their parts are cut up shipped wherever...there was nobody buying them as going concerns, they didn't exist, sure if things weren't what they were we could of done something different.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

What company was sold for scrap? GM? Chrysler?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I know the people who bought US Airlines, I guess the rest is just a lie as well?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Which people?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

That's where we don't agree you don't seem to understand what everyone actually involved in the matter at the time does, there were no buyers in this case had bankruptcy been allowed to continue they would have been sold for parts and all useful equipment shipped overseas.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Recovery after bankruptcy does not require buyers.

The following airlines filed for bankruptcy, came out stronger than before, and had no buyers (nothing was sold for parts no equipment shipped overseas):

Airline Bankruptcy date Recovery Date

US Airways 2002-08-11 2003-03-31

United Airlines 2002-12-09 2006-02-01

Air Canada 2003-04-01 2004-09-30

US Airways 2004-09-12 2005-09-27

Aloha Airlines 2004-12-30 2006-02-17

Delta Air Lines 2005-09-14 2007-04-30

Frontier Airlines 2008-04-10 2009-10-01

Mesa Airlines 2010-01-05 2011-03-11

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

as you have pointed out the government saved those

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Exactly. We agree again. These companies were not scrapped. Whether they were bailed out or went the legal rout through bankruptcy they would not have been scrapped. The difference is that the debtors would not have been cheated and the US taxpayer would not be out $ 25B.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

You have no basis for that assertion.

bullshit

We've got Romney as a fucking candidate for President - his record of outsourcing should be sufficient to indicate the possibility of those auto plants being boxed up and sent to Asia is a perfectly credible scenario and far more likely than someone else stepping in with the money and the strategy to create a new automaker here in the U.S.

You are so full of bullshit it stinks.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I think it's great to have American workers producing the cars sold here.

Just because we have foreign auto makers operating on US soil is no indication that they would have viewed the GM equipment as a desirable investment - it remains much more likely the factories would have remained empty than any new investment would have taken place.

Given the state of the economy the probability is likely over 90%

you are blowing smoke.

piss off

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If we allowed GM to file for bankruptcy (as the law requires if you believe in equal protection) the only difference would be that the bondholders would have had a chance at the settlement table and taxpayers would not be in debt for another $25B. GM would come out of bankruptcy (like the airlines have done many times) stronger than before.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

They do envy GM. That is why Fiat bought Chrysler. They outsourced no jobs to Italy (wise move) but the profits (and IP) end up there. How did that bailout help US taxpayers? We paid for Italy to make profits and take our technology thanks to the bailout. We had to pay for our own beating!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I can understand why you don't get what I'm saying, but if the government wasn't involved if you owned a share of stock you would lose every penny you have in the world before the a single employee in that company failed to get every dollar they were owned through the pension fund. If you bought a share of stock you would be a owner and personally responsible for that company's operation. Now this would radically affect investing, but it is the only way to get government out of the business and another thing anything you make it better stay on your property and none of it better get on mine not one little bit, not one whiff of smoke.

and why you quoting Jefferson wasn't he one of those pro government people didn't he get involved in setting this one up?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Jefferson was a flawed man (as are most people, an issue to which I have no personal experience). He did after all own slaves at the same time that he fought for liberty. He had some good ideas and some not. One good idea was his concept of limited Gov:

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities"

A bond is different then a share of stock as I am sure you are aware. A bond is a loan to the company, or state, or town, or Fed Gov. It is like the sheet metal that US Steel Sells to Ford. When shipped that steel is on loan to Ford until they pay for it. A Bond is the same thing. When GM and Chrysler were bailed out the Gov told the Bond holders (the holders of the loans to GM) that they refused to pay them. This should have gone to bankruptcy court where a fair settlement could be made. It was great injustice.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

In Jefferson's days corporations were dissolved after they served their propose here's that video I keep sending you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5kHACjrdEY

bonds have ratings because they are risk instruments...to compare a bond to an inventory settlement revels either ignorance or dishonesty time will tell which...

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

A bond is a loan. Stock is ownership in a company. There is a huge difference. In a bankruptcy settlement the bond holders have equal standing with US Steel and their overdue invoices for sheet metal. But in the case of GM the Gov stole from the Bond holders and gave to the suppliers (because they needed the suppliers and had the power to screw the people that made the loans to GM).

So the Gov took money from poor and middle class people (not to mention taxpayers) that lent money to GM and gave it to US Steel, a huge corp. Where is the outrage? Nowhere, because it does not fit the politics. Politics over people again.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

you really don't understand why they rate bonds?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Bonds are rated based the expected ability of the borrowing entity to pay back the debt. Bonds are loans like the mortgage on your house. You never lose the principal in a bond unless the company, or town, or state goes bankrupt. If they do go bankrupt you have an equal chance in bankruptcy court at getting your money back as any other creditor. If you default on your mortgage the court gives your house to the bank.

That is true unless the Gov breaks the law and steals your money with a bailout.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

If the law was broken arrest somebody, some times people do things you don't like but their not always breaking the law.

And when you make a loan you hope you get paid back at a profit, but you might not that's called risk, when you take risk you sometimes make money you sometimes lose.

The problem we have is not enough people making the profits are exposed to the ture risk because they';ve rigged the system so the working people are taking all the loses.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The Gov makes the laws, how can you arrest them? They just pass a law making their theft legal.

The bond holders that got ripped off by the Gov were surely exposed to risk, but wealthy GM suppliers got off with no risk. The Gov selected who got paid and who got the shaft.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Suppliers are not investors, you really don't know much about such things do you, at least you admit you were wrong to say they broke the law.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Finally we agree. Suppliers are not investors. They are lenders. They lend material to theirs customers and the customers agree to pay them back (these days that runs from between 45 and 90 days, however powerful customers, like GM, can inventory the parts in GM warehouses for up to 12 months and only pay the suppliers when they pull them from stock).

If GM goes bankrupt the lenders (suppliers and bondholders) may lose money, depending on what the bankruptcy court decides.

However in the case of GM the Gov stepped in and screwed the bondholders (many poor and middle class, 99% individuals) and paid off the rich, 1% suppliers (the same suppliers that conveniently make big campaign donations) . So much for the Gov caring about the poor and middle class, they only care about keeping their own easy, powerful, 1% jobs.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Again with the bond holders haven't we already talked about this thing called bond ratings? You are just pissed that Obama saved the auto industry when Romney would have let it die.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I thought we had finally reached agreement that suppliers are lenders like a bank or bondholder?

Don't you believe that people who buy US bonds have just lent money to the Gov? If no then why do we worry about our $16 T Gov debt?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

so if I am forced into the system, from hunger and a desire to eat, that's tyranny, I should be allowed to eat what I want without being forced into an economic system, or are you saying I should be allow to starve, if I want, in that case I think we can always choose not to be a part of the system so all systems are voluntarily aren't they?

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If the Gov is starving you and you are forced into the system then yes that is tyranny. Freedom is always the better path. Some, like Patrick Henry, prefer it to life itself. BTW, I don't consider our current system completely voluntary although some do opt out or use a hybrid approach:

http://mises.org/daily/2605

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

What's the government got to do with what I said, what do you mean by "freedom"? Am I free too live anywhere I want to? How about "your" house? Of course then you might want to bring in some good old government tyranny, if I decided I wanted to be free to live somewhere you thought you "owned", but who owns anything, less government tyranny steps in....

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

" Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

  • T Jefferson

Freedom is only one of several basic human rights including the right to life and the right to property. These are rights that we possess as human beings and not granted to us by some Gov.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Let's talk about that "right to property" do I have a right too any property I fancy?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

If a 13 year old girl working nights and weekends cutting grass, baby sitting, and shoveling snow earns enough money to buy a bicycle then that bike is her property.

If that same girl's mom puts money every week from her pay into a 529 plan for her college tuition then that money is the girls property.

Property may be earned, it may be gifted, it may be inherited, it may be won. There are even some cases where property may be found ( as in the rules of the sea, or land occupied by continuous use over a long period); however these cases are fuzzy and frequently require adjudication.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Sounds like a lot of government to me, what's this stuff you call "money" sounds like a government thing to me, sounds to me like a freedom restricting tyranny sort of thing. Here watch this short film it will help you understand what the problem with all this government is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5kHACjrdEY

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Money may have nothing to do with Gov. Gold for example was and continues to be a universal form of money and is not Gov issue. Gold also has little intrinsic value (you can't eat it or power your car with it). The fact that it is rare makes it a good candidate for a medium of exchange.

Gold (money) is a place holder for other useful or desired property.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

take the government's protection away from shareholders and you got a deal...watch the video, if are cool with breaking up these corporations I think it could work, but I think it might set us behind people who are cool with more government than you seem to be, but the problems come from government being involved but only one the one side, the side of corporations...

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

What corporations do you want to give the Gov power to break up and for what specific reasons?

I agree that the Gov should stay out of business as much as possible. If you don't like Gov courts let private arbitrators resolve bankruptcy issues (this method BTW works best in many divorce cases). But no more bailouts (Wallstreet, GM, or my neighbor down the block that got in over her head buying a house she can't afford).

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

you really don't understand "ownership" do you?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

shareholders are shielded they can't lose their homes just the money they spent on the stock, in real ownership you are responsible for what your comp[any does with the government's involvement shareholders are protected from personnel lost, they only lose their investment so they can limit exposure, without government interference everything you own home, cars anything would be sold to meet any debt the company owes.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Sure they can lose their homes. If they are dumb enough to mortgage their homes and buy stock (like some did during the 90's NASDAQ boom) and then that stock fails (like many did in 2001) then they lose their homes. The Gov protected none of them from their folly. As it should be.

Why is the Gov bailing out people that speculated on homes in the early 2000s. People that did not get in over their heads are now being forced to pay for their reckless neighbors. That is truly a case of the Gov shielding owners from their responsibilities. Why are you not outraged about that?

I am confounded by your recalcitrance on this issue.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

corporations are legal entities created by the government to shield stockholders form real responsibility, if we remove that protection no one would own a single share of stock because it would be dangerous to do so , and all corporations would cease to exist then we could could cut back on government, but that would have to be the first step or corporation would take even more power and freedom from Americans.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Bonds are not stocks. They are loans. There is no ownership for the Gov to shield.

In the case of owning stock the shareholders are not shielded. If the corp does something wrong and a successful suit is brought and monetary damages are awarded the shareholders lose money. There is no Gov shield.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I don't want to give government power, I want to take away the government's power to protect those who own stock from their responsibility, did you even watch the video?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I agree with you. Minimize Gov power to the lowest practicable level; and then cut another 10% so they have to play catch-up.

The video argues that the problem is corporations. The problem is collusion between the corps and Gov.

Get Gov out of the business of business and business out of Gov.

The purpose of a for profit corp is profit. That has always been the purpose not withstanding any youtube video. Don't distract them from their purpose by asking them to become charities or some other function. Surviving in business is tough enough as it is.

If you want to amend the constitution to prohibit free speech for corps as the video recommends will you be upset when the following corps are included in that ban:

Greenpeace Planned Parenthood NAACP NARAL AFL/CIO PETA Teamsters NEA

They are all corporations.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

An old lament for the Monarchy, only the those born to power and wealth can truly manage it only they are never greedy or lazy as they are selected by birth, God places those who should rule in homes of the "good families", this has always been with us and always will be, today it is the guiding light of the Republican Party, preservation of Family Wealth.

[-] -2 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Well, he's wrong about on thing: we didn't all vote for Obama four years ago. Some of us were actually concerned about fiscal responsibility, massive Congressional and Presidential corruption, etc. Otherwise, I like it; I don't think I need to see any more of this election.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The first step toward fiscal responsibility is getting rid of Republicans, history teaches uos that, I'm sure you would agree after seeing how the Ds balanced the budget all by themselves.

[-] -2 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

As witnessed under the present administration, the Dems have never heard of the word "budget" - for them its all one big bottomless pit. If only the rest of America could live like that.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

In 1993 the Democrats, many of whom knew that it would cost them their seat in congress (these are true American heroes) passed a budget that led to the first surplus in decades. Here is what Alan Greenspan had to say about the Democratic fiscal policy:

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.

At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”

“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us. Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan Current fiscal issues Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives March 2, 2001

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

"a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment." (Greenspan, 2001)

But that's now what has occurred is it? Of that 120 billion dollar deficit surplus that was theoretically generated, they spent 70 billion - they just pissed it away.

The problem is that those seeking to be enriched by government now outweigh those who wish to get government out of their lives.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The wealthy have always depended on government to keep in place the rules that keep them wealthy, it's not as simple as more or less government, it's about the kind of government, Hardly anyone wants government out of their lives, how many do you know that want to sit at home all day guarding their homes? I mean some do but not many. we did in fact pay down some debt before the GOP took over and cut taxes, getting rid of the GOP is still the best course going forward....

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

That's ridiculous - what we need to do is get rid of this President and the entire Congress. That's precisely the kind of partisan BS I'm talking about. You're trying to sell Obama policy as if it were Greenspan policy of 1993 which ultimately, left to Congressmen, proved to be total failure.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

II support real action that will make a real difference right now the best thing anyone can do is defeat a Republican, you came talking like you knew something but clearly you just want OWS to be ineffective because you know anyone who hears the truth will turn out Republicans,.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

who would pass the laws and budgets ?

[-] 2 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

There is no really need of laws or budgets when you have a benevolent dictator; either get with the program or sayonara, and have a good trip.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

so you support the Bush plan? you know when he said it would be a lot easier if he were the Dictator, remember that?

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

If you dont want to see the truth - close your eyes
But it will still be there

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

I agree with virtually all of what he had to say.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.

At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”

“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us. Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan Current fiscal issues Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives March 2, 2001 (so I guess you never vote for any Republican)

[-] 1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Do you remember how they achieved that surplus and the debate that ensued over what to do with it? They did it by borrowing from Social Security and then they spent 2/3s of it rather then put it towards the debt they incurred in borrowing it. It's all BS.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

That's not true, in 1993 the Democrats without a single Republican vote passed a bill that led to a real balanced budget by 2000, then the Republicans started screaming about Washington taking in too much money and they slashed taxes and re-established the debt.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well said. Dems cut spending & balance budgets, Repubs cut taxes to wealthy, overspend on military, and explode the debt in order to then scream "we gotta gut SS, & Medicare" (starve the beast)

We're smarter than that.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I would like to think so, but if we were smart, somebody would be asking those Republicans what they plan to do if we ever do balance this budget, given what they did last time. No one is running the clips of the GOP leaders running around talking about "Washington taking in too much money".

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I remember. When a surplus comes they indeed scream too muchrevenue & seek to cut the wealthiest taxes.

Same old song & dance.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

That's just not true - it was creative accounting and ultimately they decided to spend 70 billion of that 120 billion rather than put it towards the debt.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Here is a full calendar year in which the total debt went down by over 100 billion dollars:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

It is from Jan 1 2000 to Jan 1 2001

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

This chart begins in 1993? Do you remember the congressional debate, the articles in the paper? What did they do with that surplus, the result of creative accounting? Clinton could have been a super star; he was limited both by minor personal insecurities and the confines of the politics that created him as presidential.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

This link is only intended to prove the point that the budget was in fact balanced before the Bush team got ahold of it.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

What is your definition of "balanced"?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

total debt decreasing

12/31/1999 Not Available Not Available 5,776,091,314,225.33

01/02/2001 Not Available Not Available 5,728,739,508,558.96

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

How does one define balanced without a fixed term? Many individuals pay monthly mortgage payments; they therefore adopt a monthly budget - that budget is said to be "balanced" when we can meet of monthly loan payments. We know the terms of our debt obligations; is it an acceptable level of debt or are we over extended, and how do we determine this?

Long term debt, short term debt... perpetual continuous debt... how does a government determine that it is balanced if there is no fixed term; what does balanced actually mean? Does government have a hundred year plan? Does it not appear more as a thousand year plan? And will it suffice in the hope that we might survive our debt long enough to achieve our demise by other means? It this not what "balanced" means?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

sounds like you're lost in the weeds, let me help you out, when the credit card balance is going down, that's better than up....

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

If we were to establish a reasonable term and proportion taxes commensurate, these politicians would be lucky to leave office alive - budgets cannot "balanced" if there is no "term."

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

the "term" in the case I gave you was the calender year 2000, what's wrong with that? seems simple enough debt goes down, good, debt goes up, bad, throw out the people who cause debt to go up, in American that's the GOP

you do seem hung up on something but you are having a bit of trouble explaining exactly what that is, you do see now how we had a balanced budget till the GOP screwed it up

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

What's wrong with that is the term in unspecified; it is indefinite - we cannot determine a loan payment, or even assess our financial health, without knowledge of the term - it's not possible. Amortize 20 tril for a period of ten years and divide it evenly amongst 320 mil; this becomes your annual tax obligation. I can't find a loan calculator big enough to do that. The idea that we can simply refinance the debt on a yearly basis using short term this and long term that, is bogus - only government does that because the debt is astronomical.

[-] -3 points by Mowat (164) 1 year ago

An intense anti-Romney campaign is being waged by Zionists - and their helpers in the main-stream media - who are very comfortable with a sleazy president. The O guy will do just about anything to please them. He will keep the Fed and banks happy with whatever law-breaking and de-regulations they need. Romney is a threat to the status-quo. So, hard luck America: You have to live under the Z-bankers siege for another 4 years.

[-] 5 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Romney is nothing but a front for the greedy bastards that got us in this mess.

You are an idiot.

[-] -1 points by alva (-442) 1 year ago

the " mess " has been created by bam and is being perpetuated by him.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

idiot number two eh? well you see your problem is I remember we when we had a balanced budget, and I remember who fucked it up, get rid of the GOP get rid of the problem, it really is that simple....

[+] -7 points by roboProg (-56) 1 year ago

Sounds to me that you are jealous of another man's success. Maybe if you got off the couch and get a job and not depend on Gov assistance, you could have something for yourself also

[-] 6 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I guess Washington was just jealous of King George, I never thought about it that way, I mean if you don't want you and yours to sever those born to wealth, you must be jealous.