This is about country, not your party !

[Jetmeck]

I would vote for anyone who has a fair and even handed approach to getting us out fo debt.

But how do you justify giving huge tax breaks to the rich ? How does this help our debt issues ?

The rich have done the best over the past decades and don't need
more tax breaks nor does big oil...............giving tax breaks to those who do not need them is absurd and if you truly are bout debt and spending you cannot back these policies ?


Spending can be cut by taking a hard look at defense which is bloated and out of control due to two wars. We ended one war and are about to end the other so it OBVIOUSLY needs to be cut.

We need to stay out of more wars....we are not the worlds keeper and need to be cleaning up and fixing up our own backyard/country instead of blowing money on stupid wars.


Medicare and SS need to be adjusted but not gutted. These policies are promises made to the masses and if these programs were not raided in past years maybe we wouldn't have as much of a problem .

Some of these problems were self inflicted by bad decisions but surely we can agree that wars and tax breaks for the wealthy do not work and do not need to be repeated to learn our lesson.

We need revenue, even Romney should understand a business needs revenue. I would support raising taxes on us all but there is no way in hell giving breaks to the wealthy is a smart move.

Please don't tell me they are job creators bacause thats not the case.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is about country, not your party !

That's one message republicans will never understand.

Republicans couldn't care less about America - only their own party's grasp on power.

No matter how many stupid, disastrous moves "The Decider" made, they were all about "don't criticize the president" during those eight years.

Now they are pretending to care about issues like spending and deficits when it's perfectly obvious to any observer that these issues are nothing more than political poker chips to them.

[Jetmeck]

republican crickets..............

[Irish Stout]

This is about country, not your party !

That's one message republicans will never understand.

Republicans couldn't care less about America - only their own party's grasp on power.

No matter how many stupid, disastrous moves "The Decider" made, they were all about "don't criticize the president" during those eight years.

Now they are pretending to care about issues like spending and deficits when it's perfectly obvious to any observer that these issues are nothing more than political poker chips to them.

Doesn't this statement defeat the purpose of the earlier argument? Republicans will only see an attack when things are approached this way.

[ant1999e]

No point in attempting a discussion with someone who already "knows" they're right.

[Jetmeck]

No point in attempting a discussion with someone who already "knows" they're right.

my original post is factual..............

[SoCalBronco]

Duke Johnson 2012.

Because he runs hard........... for America.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/466iWlwcIDA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


http://media.scout.com/media/forums/emoticons/13/neonu.gif

:USA:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Republicans will only see an attack when things are approached this way.

Good!

I'm not bringing a knife to a gunfight.

These sh*t stains destroyed our country.

They are totally unrepentant about this.

In fact, they can't wait to vote for a guy who plans to double down on Bush policy.

[Arkie]

We need alternatives.

http://dummr.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/illusion.gif%3Fw%3D500

[ant1999e]

my original post is factual..............

So is mine.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

We need alternatives.

http://dummr.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/illusion.gif%3Fw%3D500

That's not an accurate representation of the alternatives presented to us by our contemporary two party system.

The sign of the left should read "right" and the sign on the right should read "far right."

Americans who aren't old enough to remember what America was like before the Red Ink Reagan Revolution have no idea how far the political compass has been skewed to the right over the last 30 years.

The last Democratic president was a centrist.

This president is even more of a centrist.

What this country needs right now is a liberal in the mold of an FDR or a JFK - not a centrist like Clinton or Obama.

[lonestar]

No point in attempting a discussion with someone who already "knows" they're right.

Was thinking the same thing.

The far left have so much hate for those folks that have money, they can not be logical when it comes to issues..

They have money for the most part because they earned it..

Lots of the far left are dependent upon the government..

some are hard working folks but then so are many of the conservatives. Note I said conservative and not republicans.

I worked hard for my money and invested wisely paying off my mortgages early thus saving tens of thousands of dollars in interest on them..

But I ate a lot of Mac and cheese to do so.. Did not but new cars every couple of years just bought quality units and maintained them..
I also bought more house than I needed at the time.

The newest car I own is a 2002.

I'm a proud conservative that does not want my money wasted by the morons on the left that seem to think they know how I should live and how my money should be spent..

I'm just simple guy that did not waste his money but invested it.

Sorry that some are not as industrious as I was but I should not be penalized for those that did not want to work the hours I did to get ahead..

Nor should those that have more money than I have.

[Pony Boy]

Welcome to the Jetmeck and LABF circle jerk ...........

[GreasyQtip]

No point in attempting a discussion with someone who already "knows" they're right.

This reminds me of the many right wing politicians who signed a paper saying they will never ever negotiate about raising taxes no matter what ever!

How does that work at fixing things, setting your sides stance, digging in, and closing ears without any chance at compromise.

IT is well known that the right in our government in 2012 is much less open to debate and compromise.

[GreasyQtip]

Was thinking the same thing.

The far left have so much hate for those folks that have money, they can not be logical when it comes to issues..

They have money for the most part because they earned it..

Lots of the far left are dependent upon the government..

some are hard working folks but then so are many of the conservatives. Note I said conservative and not republicans.

I worked hard for my money and invested wisely paying off my mortgages early thus saving tens of thousands of dollars in interest on them..

But I ate a lot of Mac and cheese to do so.. Did not but new cars every couple of years just bought quality units and maintained them..
I also bought more house than I needed at the time.

The newest car I own is a 2002.

I'm a proud conservative that does not want my money wasted by the morons on the left that seem to think they know how I should live and how my money should be spent..

I'm just simple guy that did not waste his money but invested it.

Sorry that some are not as industrious as I was but I should not be penalized for those that did not want to work the hours I did to get ahead..

Nor should those that have more money than I have.

You think the issue is that I personally have no money? I am doing fine trust me.

We are simply looking at the rest of our society who does need help, they were not set up for success the same way you were, and it is your assumption it is their fault. The left would argue that some of the policies set forth by Bush has made it difficult to achieve the same success you think everyone is capable of. For that, now Romney is right, you better have rich parents who can pay your way.

Societies in history can be judged by how they treat the bottom of the barrel. Do you think we are not in this together?

This is Obama's point to you, your money? You didn't build that! A lot of people helped, the roads, transportation, and all the other people who keep the economy going.

You can try to aim for a government where the rich sit happily on top because they made it and look at people less fortunate, but the left is just asking for a little more balance and fairness, so everyone can get health care in this country. A basic human need where the price has been driven up beyond reach of people.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Welcome to the Jetmeck and LABF circle jerk ...........

Thanks for the view from the "wide stance" party. :wave:

[ant1999e]

This reminds me of the many right wing politicians who signed a paper saying they will never ever negotiate about raising taxes no matter what ever!

How does that work at fixing things, setting your sides stance, digging in, and closing ears without any chance at compromise.

IT is well known that the right in our government in 2012 is much less open to debate and compromise.

It works as well as Harry Reid saying anything the Congress pushes "is dead on arrival". It doesn't. Both sides suck. Funny thing is I see fault in both sides. You obviously have a habit of only blaming the right. It goes along with your lack of ability to take responsibility.

[DenverBrit]

It works as well as Harry Reid saying anything the Congress pushes "is dead on arrival". It doesn't. Both sides suck. Funny thing is I see fault in both sides. You obviously have a habit of only blaming the right. It goes along with your lack of ability to take responsibility.

http://blogs.trb.com/news/opinion/chanlowe/blog/budget.gifhttp://blogs.trb.com/news/opinion/chanlowe/blog/jobsb.gif

http://blogs.trb.com/news/opinion/chanlowe/blog/agree.gif

[orinjkrush]

We need alternatives.

http://dummr.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/illusion.gif%3Fw%3D500

OUTSTANDING!! QFT

[orinjkrush]

but the real division is not left or right or even rich or poor.

its in or out, as in elites (insiders) vs the rest (outlanders).

lots of rich can't get in. no poor can.

left and righties are in. left and righties are out.

[ant1999e]

http://blogs.trb.com/news/opinion/chanlowe/blog/budget.gifhttp://blogs.trb.com/news/opinion/chanlowe/blog/jobsb.gif

http://blogs.trb.com/news/opinion/chanlowe/blog/agree.gif

Rep.

[lonestar]

Welcome to the Jetmeck and LABF circle jerk ...........

:thumbs:

[barryr]

It works as well as Harry Reid saying anything the Congress pushes "is dead on arrival". It doesn't. Both sides suck. Funny thing is I see fault in both sides. You obviously have a habit of only blaming the right. It goes along with your lack of ability to take responsibility.

The hard corp liberals around here refuse to see anything wrong with the democratic party. It is hard to find anyone here who doesn't care for Obama but is jumping up and down for Romney with excitement, but the Obama supporters see really nothing wrong with Obama and just offer weak excuses for everything he does or doesn't do. The same goes for any democrat for that matter, but it's the conservatives who are biased though.

[Play2win]

but the real division is not left or right or even rich or poor.

its in or out, as in elites (insiders) vs the rest (outlanders).

lots of rich can't get in. no poor can.

left and righties are in. left and righties are out.

Access.

[Jetmeck]

Was thinking the same thing.

The far left have so much hate for those folks that have money, they can not be logical when it comes to issues..

They have money for the most part because they earned it..

Lots of the far left are dependent upon the government..

some are hard working folks but then so are many of the conservatives. Note I said conservative and not republicans.

I worked hard for my money and invested wisely paying off my mortgages early thus saving tens of thousands of dollars in interest on them..

But I ate a lot of Mac and cheese to do so.. Did not but new cars every couple of years just bought quality units and maintained them..
I also bought more house than I needed at the time.

The newest car I own is a 2002.

I'm a proud conservative that does not want my money wasted by the morons on the left that seem to think they know how I should live and how my money should be spent..

I'm just simple guy that did not waste his money but invested it.

Sorry that some are not as industrious as I was but I should not be penalized for those that did not want to work the hours I did to get ahead..

Nor should those that have more money than I have.



Facts are on our side...........your side is clueless............and you fit right in.

Address the OP if you can..............

[Jetmeck]

So is mine.

As said you wouldn't know a fact...something printed in a history book for example unless it was attached to the end of a 2x4.

You are that thick headed and unwillingly to expalin how giving tax breaks to the non job creators will help the country or our debt ?

Answer up you clueless **** or just go away.

[Jetmeck]

You assume I was set up. Hell my mother (raised in a single parent family for 17 of my first 21 years) never made more than minimum wage.

Could not afford to go to college so went into the navy to get GI Bill benefits.. Never did get my degree but attended many classes as I needed them to get ahead. After the navy I was married with a child started washing cars at a rent a car company at Stapleton.

Ultimately through hard work wound up as a city manager for them in several different cities and airport manager for 5 different airport starting with Colorado springs then Denver and retired the first time 21 years after starting washing cars, after being the airport manager for their largest airport car rental location in the world. Some 250+ employees a 16 bay working mechanics repair facility and 15000+ cars under my direct controll.

I worked for a living long hard hours to get where I am.
As for being concerned for the down trodden yes I am and give generoiusly each year to legit charities. As well as my church giving to them.

I do not believe in welfare that never ends.

I saw it start in about 1963 and frankly see that it has not helped to end poverty if anything it made it worse for the vast majority that went on it.

I believe that those that are rich (save those that exploit the futures markets) for the most part earned it and do not deserve to be taxed anymore than I am % wise. If I pay 28% so should they. So should most folks.

If I had more money I'd tax shelter it also. But not in your league.


As for health care anyone that goes to a hospital gets it. That is a fact of life I know I have friends in the business and hospitals just add in the lost revenue to our bills.

After midnite where I am nite.


Answer the god damn questions in the OP............your lack of facts or details to support your weak ass arguments is a joke.

Answer the questions in the OP.

[chadta]

Answer the god damn questions in the OP............your lack of facts or details to support your weak ass arguments is a joke.

Answer the questions in the OP.

Wow

not sure who you think you are that anybody has to answer anything to you.

My problem with the original post is that you and most lefties cant tell the difference between wealthy people, who should be taxed like anybody else, and companies who shouldn't be taxed as they don't actually pay any taxes they just raise the cost and pass it along to the consumer. No, companies shouldn't be getting hand outs either, the government should not pick winners and losers.

[Jetmeck]

Wow

not sure who you think you are that anybody has to answer anything to you.

My problem with the original post is that you and most lefties cant tell the difference between wealthy people, who should be taxed like anybody else, and companies who shouldn't be taxed as they don't actually pay any taxes they just raise the cost and pass it along to the consumer. No, companies shouldn't be getting hand outs either, the government should not pick winners and losers.

really don't care what you think but at least you put toghether a coherent answer even though your wrong.

according to you we should just give all companies a free ride...........that is not the way things were and this is part of wht is wrong..............we need revenue.

So per you giving oil companies tax subsidies is a lost cause, just grin and bear even though you fiscal conservatives are so much against debt ???????

Just noticed you are in Canada............give me a break....you don't even have a dog in this fight...........but thanks for trying to call out the guy that does and is not going to let republicans do any more damage with their anti middle class policies all the while helping the rich.

[SoCalBronco]

I would vote for anyone who has a fair and even handed approach to getting us out fo debt.

Fair statement. I think the breakdown should be about 70 spending cuts/ 30 new revenues.

But how do you justify giving huge tax breaks to the rich ? How does this help our debt issues ?

It doesn't help the debt issues, although most of the taxes paid are from the rich, so it would follow that when taxes are cut, they should be cut for those who paid the most in. Ofcourse, counter argument is if you cut it for poor and middle income, they are more likely to spend it since they need to spend to keep up with bills etc, which will stimulate economy more than tax cut for rich. That has merit too. In any case, we need not reach that question because I agree with you that deficit control is Issue No. 1, so tax increases for the rich are perfectly fine. Bowles-Simpson or even Clinton era rates are perfectly acceptable, even if they create a short term recession.

The rich have done the best over the past decades and don't need
more tax breaks nor does big oil...............giving tax breaks to those who do not need them is absurd and if you truly are bout debt and spending you cannot back these policies ?

There is an incentives argument to be made for tax breaks for companies and such as you don't want them to move overseas, but to me, deficit reduction is the first issue. The cost of such cuts is just prohibitive in terms of worsening the deficit, so I'm willing to give them away and maybe we can find some other types of incentives to keep them here. I don't agree with the view that they should stay here just because they should be patriotic or some stupid crap like that. Businesses should act in the most economically rational way. Perhaps not on the level of federal taxes, because that is where the deficit appears the most serious, but perhaps in exchange for giving up federal tax breaks, we could create more Enterprise Zones/Empowerment Zones in terms of local taxes etc.

Spending can be cut by taking a hard look at defense which is bloated and out of control due to two wars. We ended one war and are about to end the other so it OBVIOUSLY needs to be cut.

Defense is part of it, but the long term driver is SS/Medicare and its not even close. Just as we took the scalpel to taxes because it was important for deficit reduction, we too must take the scalpel to SS/Medicare. And this isn't a "false equivalency" either. It's an even more serious problem. I know you don't want to, but small adjustments by themselves are probably not going to be enough. The long term deficit here is like 63T, which is like 20 times the current budget, i.e. its much bigger of a deal than wars or taxes. This is priority 1. I know you hate the idea of vouchers, but there are some analysts who believe Wyden-Ryan doesn't go far enough. LABF thinks tax increases on the rich are enough to solve the probelm. It isn't, that doesnt come close to touching the 63T problem over the long term.

We need to stay out of more wars....we are not the worlds keeper and need to be cleaning up and fixing up our own backyard/country instead of blowing money on stupid wars.

I agree that war should be the last option. What we also need to avoid is "promoting democracies" that are contrary to our interest. We should focus on what is in the US's strategic interests, not necessarily promoting ideals. I give the administration props in foreign affairs by and large, but not in the ME. The Arab Spring is the worst thing imaginable. I think Romney on the whole would probably be more belligerent, which is not good, but I could also see him sending Morsi a card with a picture of Mohammed Mossadegh and Salvador Allende saying "play ball, biatch or else" (which would be great, I'm not hesitant at all to get our hands dirty if need be in terms of black projects, they are much less costly than wars). We should be smarter than to be planting vipers in our bosoms. Don't support Islamist regimes who would promote terrorism or US unfriendly regimes, or regimes that threaten stability. The administration is too caught up on syrupy, flowery crap. Stop it. Now.

Medicare and SS need to be adjusted but not gutted. These policies are promises made to the masses and if these programs were not raided in past years maybe we wouldn't have as much of a problem .

Not gutted, but serious adjustments that will actually solve the problem. This is the most serious issue. I'm there with you on taxes, but that alone won't come close to solving the problem.

Some of these problems were self inflicted by bad decisions but surely we can agree that wars and tax breaks for the wealthy do not work and do not need to be repeated to learn our lesson.

Agreed. I'm not ruling out wars, but I do agree they are the last resort and are quite costly. I'm much more in favor of black projects, destabilizing regimes from the inside etc. rather than full blown war.

We need revenue, even Romney should understand a business needs revenue. I would support raising taxes on us all but there is no way in hell giving breaks to the wealthy is a smart move.

Yes, new revenues are needed as part of the equation. People need to replace the Bush tax cuts with Bowles Simpson. It may create a short term recessions, that's ok, I accept that. It's not a big deal.

Please don't tell me they are job creators bacause thats not the case.

I have responded to your OP.

[Mecklomaniac]

This is about country, not your party !

That's one message republicans will never understand.

Republicans couldn't care less about America - only their own party's grasp on power.

No matter how many stupid, disastrous moves "The Decider" made, they were all about "don't criticize the president" during those eight years.

Now they are pretending to care about issues like spending and deficits when it's perfectly obvious to any observer that these issues are nothing more than political poker chips to them.



This is a hilarious statement coming from you. Have you ever seen a mirror? Too many people on both sides are cement-heads, incapable or unwilling to see any point of view that doesn't agree with their own.

It is foolish to argue that "Republicans couldn't care less about America - only their own party's grasp on power." I don't think you have a clue what motivates anyone whose opinion is different that yours, and so you have to categorize them as either being evil or stupid.

There are some pretty screwed up politicians on both sides of the aisle, and some are pretty narcissistic, but do you honestly believe they couldn't care less about the country?



http://www.real-funny-tee-shirt.com/images/Never%20Argue%20With%20Idiots%20AW100051.png

[lonestar]

really don't care what you think but at least you put toghether a coherent answer even though your wrong.

according to you we should just give all companies a free ride...........that is not the way things were and this is part of wht is wrong..............we need revenue.

So per you giving oil companies tax subsidies is a lost cause, just grin and bear even though you fiscal conservatives are so much against debt ???????

Just noticed you are in Canada............give me a break....you don't even have a dog in this fight...........but thanks for trying to call out the guy that does and is not going to let republicans do any more damage with their anti middle class policies all the while helping the rich.


I suspect the hi-lited portion rings truer than even you can comprehend.

It is obvious to me that you do not want to try to understand what makes the world tick.. Just want to be in a socialist or communist situation where "everyone is equal".

Ahahahahahahahaha.

Not going to happen moron.

[lonestar]

Answer the god damn questions in the OP............your lack of facts or details to support your weak ass arguments is a joke.

Answer the questions in the OP.

Btw my post was in answer to his response to me so STFU.
Looks like another lefties going on iggy so I do not have to look at your crap wasting my Time.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

How are lonestar and his buddies on the far right full of crap?

Let me count the ways...

Republicans ask if we are "better off" than we were four years ago. Let's look back. Four years ago exactly, President Bush told us we were on the precipice of an economic disaster. Lehman Brothers went out of business. John McCain suspended his candidacy to rush to Washington and try to help save the economy. The stock market went into a dive and didn't recover for a year. The Treasury secretary announced if we didn't act immediately the economy would face an unrecoverable crash.

Better off than we were four years ago? You damn right we are.

Republicans keep referring to a better time that never existed. Their favorite President is Ronald Reagan, and they mistily look to the days of Reagan as if they were America's best years.

Those of us who live in cities remember the Reagan years as a time of danger, with homeless people and drug dealers on every corner, a result of Reagan's cutting Federal funds to local government by 60%. The wealthy got richer, the rest of us suffered.

That's the world Romney and the Republicans offer for 2012, a return to Reagan's belief that "government is the problem."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is a hilarious statement coming from you. Have you ever seen a mirror? Too many people on both sides are cement-heads, incapable or unwilling to see any point of view that doesn't agree with their own.

It's not a matter of agreement with one point of view over another, despite the right's attempts to frame every issue that way.

It's about facts, truth, and logic - none of which are your strong suit, judging from your posts.

It is foolish to argue that "Republicans couldn't care less about America - only their own party's grasp on power."

Bullsh*t.

It isn't foolish at all.

The republicans have demonstrated time and time again through their actions that they put party before country.

You'd have to be either a moron with the powers of perception God gave a fruit fly or a hardcore GOP partisan not to see this.


I don't think you have a clue what motivates anyone whose opinion is different that yours, and so you have to categorize them as either being evil or stupid.

Another ridiculous argument.

You categorize someone as evil when they exhibit a pattern of doing (or supporting) evil consistently over time.

No need to speculate about motives - just observe their actions over time.

The GOP track record couldn't get much worse - which is why the rethugs' only option is to stay on the attack 24/7 and do everything in their power to obstruct anything Obama does in an effort to fix the mess they created.

They know they can't run on their record of accomplishments or their candidates' merits.

[Arkie]

Revisionists make it sound like the suffering masses hated Reagan. I remember Reagan winning a record 525 electoral votes in his last election 525-13. Then 4 years later at the '88 convention, he overshadowed Bush with the crowd chanting "4 more years" for Reagan.

[mhgaffney]

The Fed's goal is to transform all of us into debt slaves.

The money system is built on debt. Without debt there would be no money.

The plan is to monetize the debt -- which means to further debauche the dollar.

Best to spend your dollars now while they still have some value.

MHG

[TonyR]

I have responded to your OP.

You've made a fairly strong case for yourself to vote for Obama (or against Romney if you prefer to look at it that way). There will be no new revenues under Romney; Bowles-Simpson was submarined with the help of Ryan (although I suppose one could argue they'd pass something similar without the prospect of having to give credit to Obama); defense spending would likely be increased under Romney; we are much more likely to engage with Iran (or Syria, or whoever) under Romney/Ryan than we are under Obama. The SS/Medicare issue is a little more complicated but on the whole I think Obama is your guy (or Romney isn't).

[lonestar]

You've made a fairly strong case for yourself to vote for Obama (or against Romney if you prefer to look at it that way). There will be no new revenues under Romney; Bowles-Simpson was submarined with the help of Ryan (although I suppose one could argue they'd pass something similar without the prospect of having to give credit to Obama); defense spending would likely be increased under Romney; we are much more likely to engage with Iran (or Syria, or whoever) under Romney/Ryan than we are under Obama. The SS/Medicare issue is a little more complicated but on the whole I think Obama is your guy (or Romney isn't).

Which means in LOGIC speak you have not changed anyone's mind.

Only pumped more hope and change smoke up your asses. Hilarious!

[TonyR]

Which means in LOGIC speak you have not changed anyone's mind.

I see you didn't even attempt to address any of my points. Why would I expect to change your mind? You don't even use it.

[Jetmeck]

[QUOTE=Mecklomaniac;3654987]This is a hilarious statement coming from you. Have you ever seen a mirror? Too many people on both sides are cement-heads, incapable or unwilling to see any point of view that doesn't agree with their own.

It is foolish to argue that "Republicans couldn't care less about America - only their own party's grasp on power." I don't think you have a clue what motivates anyone whose opinion is different that yours, and so you have to categorize them as either being evil or stupid.

There are some pretty screwed up politicians on both sides of the aisle, and some are pretty narcissistic, but do you honestly believe they couldn't care less about the country?


people exactly like you are the problem.... facts show your party ****ed it all up and facts say your party obstructed us fixing it.

facts say your policies failed so going back to failed policies is just plain stupid................

accept facts and move on..............quit lieing and resisting the facts

this is the problem

[Jetmeck]

Btw my post was in answer to his response to me so STFU.
Looks like another lefties going on iggy so I do not have to look at your crap wasting my Time.

answer the question in the OP..................YOU CAN'T BUT KEEP RUNNING YOUR MOUTH.

IS there anyhting between your ears or do you intend to just keep ignoring facts and the questions i posed ?

[Requiem]

If you guys haven't figured out by now, Lonestar is a deluded Bible-thumper with no ability to critically think. Dude was a moderator at BroncosForums and cast off into the abyss because nobody there liked him.

[Jetmeck]

If you guys haven't figured out by now, Lonestar is a deluded Bible-thumper with no ability to critically think. Dude was a moderator at BroncosForums and cast off into the abyss because nobody there liked him.

Broncoforums................have you read any of takes in the central forum.....on this board ?


all about bashing the greatest coach in broncos history and the one who got us two superbowls................

leat he is consistent on his dumbass takes with no factual eveidence.

[chadta]

according to you we should just give all companies a free ride...........that is not the way things were and this is part of wht is wrong..............we need revenue.

ill get out the crayons, suppose you have a lemonade stand, lemons cost you 50 cents, so you sell your lemonade for 75 cents, if the cost of lemons doubles to $1.00 what happens if you sell your lemonade for 75 cents ? now replace the lemons with taxes. When business costs go up they simply get passed along to the consumer. There is only one tax payer.

So per you giving oil companies tax subsidies is a lost cause, just grin and bear even though you fiscal conservatives are so much against debt ???????

Not at all, they shouldn't get a penny either, neither should GM, neither should the banks, neither should solundra. We have our own solundra up here, its called samsung, we gave them an 800 million dollar deal to buy a bunch of windmills from them, supposed to create a bunch of high paying jobs, well we have created 80 or so minimum wage jobs, and we pay 5 times the going rate for power generated by these windmills.

Just noticed you are in Canada............give me a break....you don't even have a dog in this fight...........but thanks for trying to call out the guy that does and is not going to let republicans do any more damage with their anti middle class policies all the while helping the rich.

Not calling you out at all, you came across as an arrogant prick demanding a reply so i thought id give you one.

Canada sells alot of its stuff to the USA, so its in my best interest that you guys start buying things again, if it didnt affect me so much i really wouldnt care.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Revisionists make it sound like the suffering masses hated Reagan. I remember Reagan winning a record 525 electoral votes in his last election 525-13. Then 4 years later at the '88 convention, he overshadowed Bush with the crowd chanting "4 more years" for Reagan.

I noticed you didn't deny any of these specifics:

Those of us who live in cities remember the Reagan years as a time of danger, with homeless people and drug dealers on every corner, a result of Reagan's cutting Federal funds to local government by 60%. The wealthy got richer, the rest of us suffered.

Reagan was an actor who delivered an Oscar-worthy performance as "president" - that's the main reason why so many working and middle class people were duped by him.

The other reason is that all that borrowed money created the illusion of prosperity.

[Requiem]

Broncoforums................have you read any of takes in the central forum.....on this board ?


all about bashing the greatest coach in broncos history and the one who got us two superbowls................

leat he is consistent on his dumbass takes with no factual eveidence.

Lonestar and I go a decade back. He was picking fights with me when I was 13. LoooooL.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

Somebody actually let that whack job be a moderator?

Wow!

[Jetmeck]

ill get out the crayons, suppose you have a lemonade stand, lemons cost you 50 cents, so you sell your lemonade for 75 cents, if the cost of lemons doubles to $1.00 what happens if you sell your lemonade for 75 cents ? now replace the lemons with taxes. When business costs go up they simply get passed along to the consumer. There is only one tax payer.



Not at all, they shouldn't get a penny either, neither should GM, neither should the banks, neither should solundra. We have our own solundra up here, its called samsung, we gave them an 800 million dollar deal to buy a bunch of windmills from them, supposed to create a bunch of high paying jobs, well we have created 80 or so minimum wage jobs, and we pay 5 times the going rate for power generated by these windmills.



Not calling you out at all, you came across as an arrogant prick demanding a reply so i thought id give you one.

Canada sells alot of its stuff to the USA, so its in my best interest that you guys start buying things again, if it didnt affect me so much i really wouldnt care.



Your a dumbass.............oil companies should have never gotten the subsidies then tell me we can't get rid of them.

They are a dumbass republican idea like wars, tax breaks for the rich and they all will come down in the next four years.............

You can't be worried about a debt and then say your for wars, more tax breaks for the wealthy and oil company subsidies.

DID THE PRICE OF GAS GO DOWN WHEN OIL SUBSIDIES WERE ENACTED ? HELL FREAKIN NO


Next you will tell me how we shouldn't have healthcare even though you do................**** off

[chadta]

Your a dumbass.............oil companies should have never gotten the subsidies then tell me we can't get rid of them.

I said i agreed with you, im not sure what else you want, government should not be picking winners or losers in private business, all subsidies are bad and should be cancelled immediately.

You can't be worried about a debt and then say your for wars, more tax breaks for the wealthy and oil company subsidies.

Never been in favor of tax breaks for wealthy, they should pay the same rate as everybody else, simple flat tax 10% across the board, 15, 20 whatever it takes, but that includes everybody, even the bottom guys making minimum wage, no write offs, no breaks no nothing, simple and fair. Not sure how much clearer i can be that i am not in favor of any subsidies.

Next you will tell me how we shouldn't have healthcare even though you do................**** off


Yes i do, i also pay double the tax you do, yet businesses here pay half what businesses in the US do, healthcare is also bankrupting us, the way it is set up now with no fees at point of use, people see it as free, and because of that you wait forever to get anything done, hope you dont need a test done anytime soon, average wait times for simple tests are about 9 months, and heaven forbid you need a ctscan or anything like that.

Somewhere in between what we have, and what you had is probably a good healthcare system, but both extremes are stupid, ours and yours, its dumb for people to have to choose between eating and seeing a doctor, but its also stupid to have people sitting in the ER for a cough because it doesn't cost them anything to waste resources.

I had to wait 8 hours to get 17 staples in my head when i got it split open at a Metallica concert (which was in buffalo new york but i went back to Canada because I didn't have out of province insurance coverage) Nobody should sit for 8 hours bleeding from the head in an ER waiting room. The triage nurse should be able to tell people to go the **** home.

[Jetmeck]

I said i agreed with you, im not sure what else you want, government should not be picking winners or losers in private business, all subsidies are bad and should be cancelled immediately.




Yes i do, i also pay double the tax you do, yet businesses here pay half what businesses in the US do, healthcare is also bankrupting us, the way it is set up now with no fees at point of use, people see it as free, and because of that you wait forever to get anything done, hope you dont need a test done anytime soon, average wait times for simple tests are about 9 months, and heaven forbid you need a ctscan or anything like that.

Somewhere in between what we have, and what you had is probably a good healthcare system, but both extremes are stupid, ours and yours, its dumb for people to have to choose between eating and seeing a doctor, but its also stupid to have people sitting in the ER for a cough because it doesn't cost them anything to waste resources.

I had to wait 8 hours to get 17 staples in my head when i got it split open at a Metallica concert (which was in buffalo new york but i went back to Canada because I didn't have out of province insurance coverage) Nobody should sit for 8 hours bleeding from the head in an ER waiting room. The triage nurse should be able to tell people to go the **** home.



hOW ABOUT YOU COME HERE AND GET NO HEALTHCARE ? IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TO YOU ...YOU KNOW AS IN DYING ?

[chadta]

hOW ABOUT YOU COME HERE AND GET NO HEALTHCARE ? IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TO YOU ...YOU KNOW AS IN DYING ?

why so angry ?

its pretty simple really, don't accept a job that doesn't have good benis, if you cant get a job like that, time to go for more training so that you can.

Or go work in the public sector, they all get more than the people that pay taxes to pay their salaries.

[Jetmeck]

why so angry ?

its pretty simple really, don't accept a job that doesn't have good benis, if you cant get a job like that, time to go for more training so that you can.

Or go work in the public sector, they all get more than the people that pay taxes to pay their salaries.

REALLY SAYS THE GUY WITH GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE

[TonyR]

its pretty simple really, don't accept a job that doesn't have good benis, if you cant get a job like that, time to go for more training so that you can.

Or go work in the public sector, they all get more than the people that pay taxes to pay their salaries.

LOL Yup, there you have it folks. It's really just that easy. Just get more training! Because when you're living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford the training don't you know somebody will be willing to give it away! Hilarious!

Come on, chadta. You're smarter than this. Some (most?) people don't have the resources for "training". They have to take what they can get. I saw a stat just today that only 65% of people borrow to pay for college. What does that tell you? That college has become (to the extent it wasn't already) mostly for people above a certain income level. Lot's of people are shut out because they either can't afford it or can't borrow enough. You clearly have enough resources to the point where you're not aware of these hard realities.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/most-american-college-students-dont-borrow-to-pay-tuition/

[ant1999e]

why so angry ?

its pretty simple really, don't accept a job that doesn't have good benis, if you cant get a job like that, time to go for more training so that you can.

Or go work in the public sector, they all get more than the people that pay taxes to pay their salaries.

I never even heard of this guy two weeks ago. Now he's flipping out in every one of his posts. He must have experience a traumatic life experience.

[TonyR]

Romney is the opposite of conservative, with a plan that is fiscally reckless and a foreign policy that is unnecessarily militant. Obama has done about the best that could have been done, considering the united GOP opposition in Congress. My questions about Obamacare and my disappointment that we are not already out of Afghanistan are not enough to make me embrace a candidacy that even George W. Bush would have been repelled by—and, having had time to reflect on his own record, perhaps is.

Wick Allison, former publisher of the right wing/conservative National Review under William F. Buckley, and current publisher of The American Conservative.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/04/many-2008-conservative-obama-backers-or-obamacons-will-stay-true.html

[barryr]

I never even heard of this guy two weeks ago. Now he's flipping out in every one of his posts. He must have experience a traumatic life experience.

True, he averaged basically one post a day the past 9 years, but is hot and heavy with tons of posts and thread starters all of a sudden. Pretty odd to say the least.

[Jetmeck]

True, he averaged basically one post a day the past 9 years, but is hot and heavy with tons of posts and thread starters all of a sudden. Pretty odd to say the least.

Nothing odd but thanks for noticing my post coint, yours is quite high in a few years.

Recently had shoulder surgery , two of them actually so I have time to debate. Fired up yes..............some things are facts because they were written down and verified by fact checkers ( I know Romney's campaign is not run by fact checkers) but still some on the right would argue black was white.

People should be fired and up and pissed off at the blatant lies being told and history revision being done.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How the TeaTards Damaged America

There has never been a more irresponsible and reckless act on the part of any political party than the financial crisis engendered by the GOP in 2011 in its refusal to raise the debt ceiling limit without a fight; the real possibility was raised that America would, for the first time since its founding, default on its debt obligations to the world.

The debt ceiling is nothing more than the legal limit on borrowing allowed for the federal government. Both houses of Congress have to approve the limit and have done so repeatedly since 1917. Usually, raising the debt ceiling was a perfunctory matter – it had been done 74 times since 1962.

Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times and Bush II raised them 7 times – tax cuts have to be paid for with borrowings, after all. Put another way, Reagan raised the debt limit every five months, Bush every 13 months, and Obama every 15 months. (Clinton was every 24 months.) So, without the possibility of contradiction, the presidents who needed the debt ceiling raised the most often were Reagan and Bush, and the Republicans burbled happily as they did it.

Suddenly though, in the middle of a global financial trauma, those same GOPers decided that now raising the debt ceiling mattered. And, somehow, they portrayed this as being representative of out-of-control spending by the Democrats. (I showed why that was bogus up above.) There were a few other things that the Republican talking points hid from America – raising the debt ceiling wasn’t about allowing future spending, it was about paying past bills.

In other words, the money had already been spent – demanding cuts in future budgets did nothing to affect the structural debt. Now, American debt has been considered the safest investment globally for decades. Whenever international financial markets are rocked, investors take a flight to safety by buying American debt.

Treasury bonds are part of untold thousands of investment strategies, used as a means of diminishing the risk profile of a portfolio. All of this works solely because of international faith that America would never default on its debt. But once the economic illiterates known as the Tea Partiers came into office, their hopes, wishes and assertions became the other side of an economic debate about facts, figures and reality. Oh, investors wouldn’t care about America not paying its obligated interest on the debt, they intoned, as the actual investors who owned the debt squealed about the impact of such a delay being disastrous.

The Tea Partiers seemed to believe that the holders of American debt were little old ladies in Idaho, picking out breadcrumbs from their tea cozies while waiting for the next check from the government. And that ain’t reality. The vast majority of American debt is held by sophisticated international investors who, as I said, use Treasuries as part of a complex portfolio of investments.

If the cash doesn’t arrive as planned, the investment strategy dies. If people trading Treasury bills know that there is a default, the value of those Treasuries would crash through the floor. The debate – which in truth was over nothing real – put at risk the global financial recovery, simply so the GOPers could score a few points and work to appease the economic idiots they had helped usher into government. That’s why, in the middle of this pointless debate, S&P downgraded American debt from the first time in history – something that Romney and Ryan blame on Obama, which is, of course, a lie.

The real reason? That the debt ceiling had been turned into a political football. S&P wrote: The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.


Moreover, the country’s rating had been damaged because of the GOP’s apparent insistence to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. S&P wrote:
Our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

If Americans understood what had really happened in the debt ceiling debacle, and the possible horrific damage it could have inflicted on the country, they would – hopefully – run these people out of Washington and instead replace them with either Republicans more interested in governing than in rage or, if they can’t be found anymore, with Democrats.


- Kurt Eichenwald

[Cito Pelon]

I would vote for anyone who has a fair and even handed approach to getting us out fo debt.

But how do you justify giving huge tax breaks to the rich ? How does this help our debt issues ?

The rich have done the best over the past decades and don't need
more tax breaks nor does big oil...............giving tax breaks to those who do not need them is absurd and if you truly are bout debt and spending you cannot back these policies ?


Spending can be cut by taking a hard look at defense which is bloated and out of control due to two wars. We ended one war and are about to end the other so it OBVIOUSLY needs to be cut.

We need to stay out of more wars....we are not the worlds keeper and need to be cleaning up and fixing up our own backyard/country instead of blowing money on stupid wars.


Medicare and SS need to be adjusted but not gutted. These policies are promises made to the masses and if these programs were not raided in past years maybe we wouldn't have as much of a problem .

Some of these problems were self inflicted by bad decisions but surely we can agree that wars and tax breaks for the wealthy do not work and do not need to be repeated to learn our lesson.

We need revenue, even Romney should understand a business needs revenue. I would support raising taxes on us all but there is no way in hell giving breaks to the wealthy is a smart move.

Please don't tell me they are job creators bacause thats not the case.

Me too. I'm sick and tired of both these parties blaming everything on the other party, like they had nothing to do with any problem at all. The moderate voices on both sides are drowned out by the shrill, finger-pointing wings both Left and Right. Getting polarized really bad this election.

[Arkie]

How the TeaTards Damaged America

I thought it was the 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. We can't pay for that by raising taxes.

[lonestar]

Blah blah blah. SSDD.

[Requiem]

True, he averaged basically one post a day the past 9 years, but is hot and heavy with tons of posts and thread starters all of a sudden. Pretty odd to say the least.

Considering you created another account (used to be Barry Ramey) and both posters admitted to serving in the same area in Germany (and discussed the same reasons they had problems and critiqued poor medical service) -- You should be the last to talk about posting habits, you half-wit turd sucker.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I thought it was the 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. We can't pay for that by raising taxes.

Raising taxes is the ONLY way we're going to save America.

The TeaTards who claim we can do it by just cutting spending while continuing to give tax cuts to people who already have more money than God just plain suck at math!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Considering you created another account (used to be Barry Ramey) and both posters admitted to serving in the same area in Germany (and discussed the same reasons they had problems and critiqued poor medical service) -- You should be the last to talk about posting habits, you half-wit turd sucker.

I was once (falsely) accused of creating a second account.

The mods came down on me like some sort of cyber SWAT team, but this sh*t stain gets away with it....?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/386061_10151216435921125_732861714_n.jpg

[Cito Pelon]

I have to say it's pretty odd the GOP is bringing up the national debt when the debt Reagan rang up is still on the books. Every penny of it. The current GOP is trying like crazy to ride on Reagan's coattails, but every penny of Reagan's deficit spending is still on the books.

But somehow, somewhere, somebody in the Democrat Party is responsible for Reagan's deficit spending.

[barryr]

I have to say it's pretty odd the GOP is bringing up the national debt when the debt Reagan rang up is still on the books. Every penny of it. The current GOP is trying like crazy to ride on Reagan's coattails, but every penny of Reagan's deficit spending is still on the books.

But somehow, somewhere, somebody in the Democrat Party is responsible for Reagan's deficit spending.

Which by the way was approved and passed by democrats which controlled the House all 8 years.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I have to say it's pretty odd the GOP is bringing up the national debt when the debt Reagan rang up is still on the books. Every penny of it. The current GOP is trying like crazy to ride on Reagan's coattails, but every penny of Reagan's deficit spending is still on the books.

But somehow, somewhere, somebody in the Democrat Party is responsible for Reagan's deficit spending.

That's a good point.

The contemporary right has a completely fictionalized image of Reagan and a make-believe narrative about what he actually did as president...


The Reagan tax cut mythology, part 1:

Reagan’s tax cuts did not trigger an economic boom. In 1981, Reagan was correct that taxes needed to be cut; the American economy was facing an unprecedented beast called “stagflation” – inflation (normally associated with a runaway economy) and high unemployment (normally associated with low inflation.) The Federal Reserve, under chairman Paul Volker, needed to squelch inflation with a huge increase in interest rates, and did so (to see the horrors of this interest rate path, take a look at the historic rates (http://www.crestmontresearch.com/docs/i-rate-relationship.pdf) for 20 year an 1 year Treasury bonds. One month before Reagan took office, the Prime Rate hit is all-time high of 21.5 percent. With the cost of money at the highest rates in history, economic activity had slowed to a near crawl. Outside of monetary policy, the other lever available to the government was fiscal; attempting to get more money in the hands of Americans — anyAmericans – was important to prevent the economy from falling off a cliff. Now, in the fantasy retelling of the Reagan years blathered out by modern Republicans with no knowledge or concern about economic history, the Reagan tax cuts passed in 1981, and the economy transformed into paradise. But that story is fiction. Instead, the tax cuts of 1981 went through – with carnival barkers like Arthur Laffer proclaiming that economic growth would rush in before the ink on the law was dry – and then precisely nothing happened. By 1982, the economy was in such bad shape that the GOP talking point was not “Reagan the magnificent,” it was the plea (a principled one) that Americans should “stay the course,’’ despite the fact that there had been no evidence of growth. In fact, the economy had grown significantly worse – beginning the first full quarter Reagan was in office through the 1982 election, the growth in Gross Domestic Product was negative 8.9 percent. (By way of comparison, for the comparable period in Obama’s term, GDP growth was positive 15 percent.) A few months after the 1982 election – in February 1983 – the Fed had finally cut the Prime Rate below 11 percent, less than half of what it was when Reagan took office. (PS – presidents don’t have any role in raising and lowering interest rates.) And, surprise! Economic growth returned. With the cost of money significantly cheaper, corporations and consumers unleashed a flurry of economic activity – by the end of the first half of 1983, GDP growth had reached positive 5.1 percent. By the 1984 elections. GDP had grown by just under 34 percent since January 1983. Now, did tax cuts help? Sure – they lessened the damaging impact of high interest rates and, when the economy turned around, they helped increase the amount of cash available for economic activity. But if interest rates hadn’t have fallen? Reagan would have been a one-term president and shuffled offstage by the GOP forever.

The Reagan tax cut mythology, part 2:

One of the most revealing moments in the entire modern tax-cut debate occurred during Leslie Stahl’s interview of Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, on 60 Minutes. Actually, revealing isn’t the right word – terrifying is. Here was a man whose knowledge was critical in how this country would move forward, and he was woefully lacking. At one point, Stahl points out, despite Cantor’s protestations that Reagan never compromised, that Reagan in fact did raise taxes multiple times, with the biggest being in 1982 (before economic activity took off.) Cantor’s people were outraged by Stahl’s truthful recounting of history – outraged! ­– because it contradicted their Fairy Tales version of the Reagan years. “That just isn’t true,’’ one of Cantor’s aides yelled from off-camera, “And I don’t want to let that stand.” Cantor did nothing to correct his loudmouthed – and wrong – aide. In 1981, Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act – the tax cut law that GOPers slobber over to this day. The following year, in the bit of history excised from the Republican mind, Reagan signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA). While Americans still received tax cuts when aggregated with the prior year’s law, TEFRA constituted the largest tax increase in American history at that time. Why did Reagan do it? Because he wasn’t, contrary to some GOP revisionists, a blind ideologue. After the adoption of the 1981 tax cuts, government analyses showed that the impact on four-year average impact on federal revenues would negative 2.89 percent of GDP. (Remember the whole supply side scam, that tax cuts pay for themselves? Well, they don’t.) After TEFRA, the four-year average was positive 0.98 percent. You see, it seems that when you increase tax, tax revenues go up. Funny, that. But, because the tax cuts were cumulative negative, deficits went up. The first time in American history when deficits exceeded $100 billion was in 1982. The deficits stayed above that number until 1998, during the Clinton Administration. The first surplus came in 1999. (For those who don’t remember economic history under Clinton, he raised taxes in 1993, and – surprise again – higher tax rates increased federal revenue and allowed the government to reduce the amount of publicly held debt outstanding. Funny, that.)

Reagan tax cut mythology part 3:

At a meeting in the Oval Office, Obama commented on the fact that tax rates are lower now than they were under Reagan. After the meeting, Rep. Michelle Bachmann – one of the dangerous Republicans whose certainty to knowledge ratio might well be the first to exceed 100 percent – scoffed that Obama was fibbing. Of course, as the mantra goes, we have been pillories with higher taxes in the years after Reagan. But no – Obama was right. The total Average Federal Tax Rate for all income quintiles was between 21 and 22 percent in the Reagan years. When Obama took office, it was 17 percent. If the Democrats introduced the “Ronald Reagan Tax and Fairness Act” (I made the name up) calling for a return to the tax rates under Reagan, we would be talking about a 23 percent tax increase. Tax rates are at historic lows, which is why it is perfectly reasonable, in the face of massive federal debts, to raise them.

Laughing at the Laffer Curve:

This has lasted for decades since Reagan, and I have touched on it above. But now let’s really delve into the most destructive mythology. In my opinion, Arthur Laffer has done far more damage to the future of America than Osama bin Laden. Here’s why: Laffer came up with his little device called “the Laffer Curve” which stated that tax revenues increased and then decreased once you moved up the rate scale from 0 percent to 100 percent. While there are some technical arguments about why the last number actually isn’t correct, theoretically, Laffer is correct. So, by his logic, there is a point where cutting taxes increases federal revenues. For now, I’ll accept that as true. But there is one huge problem with that argument: the Laffer Curve has no numbers! In other words, assuming Laffer is right, there is a point somewhere on the scale where tax rates bring in the highest amount of government revenues. And where is that number? Nowhere close to where it is now. The empirical analyses conducted by people who are less polemical than Laffer have come up with 68 percent, 70 percent and 35 percent. Whichever number you choose, they are all higher than the current rate of taxation. You see, what Republicans ignore is that it is the Laffer Curve, not the Laffer rising vector. There is some point – even if you want to assume that Laffer is right – where tax cuts decrease the amount of federal revenue. Since 1981, there has been a direct correlation between tax cuts and increases in the deficit. In other words, empirically, the tax rate was below the peal of the Laffer curve before cuts even started. Supply siders will b**** and moan at those numbers, but they are fact, not fantasy. Deficits went up under Reagan, down under Clinton and up (dramatically) under W. To argue that tax cuts pay for themselves is about as logical as saying Jesus rode dinosaurs – it is a statement made to justify a desired outcome, and not something based on any truth.

- Kurt Eichenwald

[Jetmeck]

Which by the way was approved and passed by democrats which controlled the House all 8 years.

Have you ever once in your life admitted to being wrong ?

Your deflection of your party's mistakes is sickening.

[bombay]

People are just looking for opportunity and attainablity. Rocking the poor into lazy bliss through the sweet hammock of grubby little entitlements is an anecdotal myth perpetuated by the aristocracy to keep the grubby little masses bickering amongst themselves for an ever decreasing share of the pie.

[TonyR]

People are just looking for opportunity and attainablity. Rocking the poor into lazy bliss through the sweet hammock of grubby little entitlements is an anecdotal myth perpetuated by the aristocracy to keep the grubby little masses bickering amongst themselves for an ever decreasing share of the pie.

^ Well put.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ten True Facts Guaranteed to Short-Circuit Republican Brains (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/04/1127663/-Ten-True-Facts-Guaranteed-to-Short-Circuit-Republican-Brains)

As a public service to those who find themselves inextricably cornered by aggressively ill-informed Republicans at work, on the train or at family gatherings, presented here are ten indisputably true facts that will seriously challenge a Republican’s worldview and probably blow a brain cell or two. At the very least, any one of these GOP-busters should stun and confuse them long enough for you to slip quietly away from a pointless debate and allow you to get on about your business.

1. The United States is not a Christian nation, and the Bible is not the cornerstone of our law.

Don’t take my word for it. Let these Founding Fathers speak for themselves:

John Adams: “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797)

Thomas Jefferson: “Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.” (Letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814)

James Madison: “The civil government … functions with complete success … by the total separation of the Church from the State.” (Writings, 8:432, 1819)

George Washington: “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” (Letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789)

You can find a multitude of similar quotes from these men and most others who signed the Declaration of Independence and/or formulated the United States Constitution. These are hardly the words of men who believed that America should be a Christian nation governed by the Bible, as a disturbingly growing number of Republicans like to claim.

2. The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist.

The Pledge was written in 1892 for public school celebrations of the 400th anniversary of Columbus’ arrival in the Americas. Its author was Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, Christian socialist and cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy. Christian socialism maintains, among other ideas, that capitalism is idolatrous and rooted in greed, and the underlying cause of much of the world’s social inequity. Definitely more “Occupy Wall Street” than “Grand Old Party” by anyone’s standard.

3. The first president to propose national health insurance was a Republican.

He was also a trust-busting, pro-labor, Nobel Peace Prize-winning environmentalist. Is there any wonder why Theodore Roosevelt, who first proposed a system of national health insurance during his unsuccessful Progressive Party campaign to retake the White House from William Howard Taft in 1912, gets scarce mention at Republican National Conventions these days?

4. Ronald Reagan once signed a bill legalizing abortion.

The Ronald Reagan Republicans worship today is more myth than reality. Reagan was a conservative for sure, but also a practical politician who understood the necessities of compromise. In the spring of 1967, four months into his first term as governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed a bill that, among its other provisions, legalized abortion for the vaguely-defined “well being” of the mother. Reagan may have been personally pro-life, but in this instance he was willing to compromise in order to achieve other ends he considered more important. That he claimed later to regret signing the bill doesn’t change the fact that he did. As Casey Stengel liked to say, “You could look it up.”

5. Reagan raised federal taxes eleven times.

Okay, Ronald Reagan cut tax rates more than any other president – with a big asterisk. Sure, the top rate was reduced from 70% in 1980 all the way down to 28% in 1988, but while Republicans typically point to Reagan’s tax-cutting as the right approach to improving the economy, Reagan himself realized the resulting national debt from his revenue slashing was untenable, so he quietly raised other taxes on income – primarily Social Security and payroll taxes - no less than eleven times. Most of Reagan’s highly publicized tax cuts went to the usual Republican handout-takers in the top income brackets, while his stealth tax increases had their biggest impact on the middle class. These increases were well hidden inside such innocuous-sounding packages as the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987. Leave it to a seasoned actor to pull off such a masterful charade.

6. Roe v. Wade was a bipartisan ruling made by a predominantly Republican-appointed Supreme Court.

Technically, Roe v. Wade did not make abortion legal in the United States; the Supreme Court’s decision held only that individual states could not make abortion illegal. That being said, the landmark 1973 ruling that Republicans love to hate, was decided on a 7-2 vote that broke down like this:

Majority (for Roe): Chief Justice Warren Burger (conservative, appointed by Nixon), William O. Douglas (liberal, appointed by FDR), William J. Brennan (liberal, appointed by Eisenhower), Potter Stewart (moderate, appointed by Eisenhower), Thurgood Marshall (liberal, appointed by LBJ), Harry Blackmun (author of the majority opinion and a conservative who eventually turned liberal, appointed by Nixon), Lewis Powell (moderate, appointed by Nixon).

Summary: 2 conservatives, 3 liberals, 2 moderates.

Dissenting (for Wade): Byron White (generally liberal/sometimes conservative, appointed by JFK), William Rehnquist (conservative, appointed by Nixon). Summary: 1 liberal, 1 conservative.

By ideological orientation, the decision was for Roe all the way: conservatives 2-1, liberals 3-1, moderates 2-0; by party of presidential appointment it was Republicans 5-1, Democrats 2-1. No one can rightly say that this was a leftist court forcing its liberal beliefs on America.

7. The Federal Reserve System was a Republican invention.

Republicans, and, truth be told, many Democrats, despise the Federal Reserve as an example of government interference in the free market. But hold everything: The Federal Reserve System was the brainchild of financial expert and Senate Republican leader Nelson Aldrich, grandfather of future Republican governor and vice president Nelson Rockefeller. Aldrich set up two commissions: one to study the American monetary system in depth and the other, headed by Aldrich himself, to study the European central banking systems. Aldrich went to Europe opposed to centralized banking, but after viewing Germany's monetary system he came away believing that a centralized bank was better than the government-issued bond system that he had previously supported. The Federal Reserve Act, developed around Senator Aldrich’s recommendations and - adding insult to injury in the minds of today’s Republicans - based on a European model, was signed into law in 1913.

8. The Environmental Protection Agency was, too.

The United States Environment Protection Agency, arch-enemy of polluters in particular and government regulation haters in general, was created by President Richard Nixon. In his 1970 State of the Union Address, Nixon proclaimed the new decade a period of environmental transformation. Shortly thereafter he presented Congress an unprecedented 37-point message on the environment, requesting billions for the improvement of water treatment facilities, asking for national air quality standards and stringent guidelines to lower motor vehicle emissions, and launching federally-funded research to reduce automobile pollution. Nixon also ordered a clean-up of air- and water-polluting federal facilities, sought legislation to end the dumping of wastes into the Great Lakes, proposed a tax on lead additives in gasoline, and approved a National Contingency Plan for the treatment of petroleum spills. In July 1970 Nixon declared his intention to establish the Environmental Protection Agency, and that December the EPA opened for business. Hard to believe, but if it hadn’t been for Watergate, we might remember Richard Nixon today as the “environmental president”.

Oh, yes - Republicans might enjoy knowing Nixon was an advocate of national health insurance, too.

9. Obama has increased government spending less than any president in at least a generation.

Republican campaign strategists may lie, but the numbers (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/) don’t. Government spending, when adjusted for inflation, has increased during his administration (to date) by 1.4%. Under George W. Bush, the increases were 7.3% (first term) and 8.1% (second term). Bill Clinton, in his two terms, comes in at 3.2% and 3.9%. George H. W. Bush increased government spending by 5.4%, while Ronald Reagan added 8.7% and 4.9% in his two terms.

Not only does Obama turn out to be the most thrifty president in recent memory, but the evidence shows that Republican administrations consistently increased government spending significantly more than any Democratic administration. Go figure.

10. President Obama was not only born in the United States, his roots run deeper in American history than most people know.

The argument that Barack Obama was born anywhere but at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, is not worth addressing; the evidence is indisputable by any rational human being. But not even irrational “birthers” can dispute Obama’s well-documented family tree (http://suite101.com/article/president-obama-descends-from14-revolutionary-war-soldiers-a287470) on his mother’s side. By way of his Dunham lineage, President Obama has at least 11 direct ancestors who took up arms and fought for American independence in the Revolutionary War and two others cited as patriots by the Daughters of the American Revolution for furnishing supplies to the colonial army. This star-spangled heritage makes Obama eligible to join the Sons of the American Revolution, and his daughters the Daughters of the American Revolution. Not bad for someone 56% (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/55-of-republicans-believe-obama-was-born-in-a-foreign-country/) of Republicans still believe is a foreigner.