Chicago Gets Googled
Asian Carp: 'Nice Try, Suckers'
Friday Afternoon Diversion: Earth With Rings
Mariotti's Photo Scuffle?
April 15 saw hundreds of protesters descend on Chicago's Federal Plaza to ostensibly demonstrate against what they perceive as the expansion of government and its attendant intrusion in their private lives.
Although smaller tea party protests have been going on around the United States since Barack Obama assumed the presidency, CNBC commentator Rick Santelli gets the credit for starting the idea of nationwide Tea Party protests (harkening back to the Revolutionary-era Boston Tea Party). In fact, just hours after his initial comments from the trading floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, a series of websites began to appear, organizing Tea Party protests. Santelli's original idea was to have the protests happen on July 4; as more and more conservative activists picked up on the idea of organizing a mass, national protest, April 15, the Internal Revenue Service's filing deadline for individual taxpayers, quickly became the date of the protests.
While protests around the nation, (Chicago included) were largely filled with conservative voters and right wing supporters, state and national Republican leadership were conspicuously absent from the demonstrations. Although the Naperville protest included Hinsdale Republican Rep. Judy Biggert, Naperville state Rep. Darlene Senger, and City Councilman Doug Krause, the more visible (and larger) Chicago protest was absent any elected officials. In fact, the entire "Tea Party Movement" has been a source of discomfort for many mainstream conservative officials. Most national Republicans, including party regulars like Senate minority leader Mitch McConnelland House minority whip Eric Cantor were careful not to schedule any public appearances Wednesday. And while Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal sent out an email promoting the Tea Party protests, he didn't attend one. And therein lies one of the major disconnects between mainstream Republicans and grassroots conservative activists: how involved does the party want to be in this movement?
The protests, promoted extensively by Fox News and organized through conservative talk radio and right wing lobbying organizations, run the risk of whipping up a base of activists that could do more harm to the GOP than help. Ignoring them may leave the party vulnerable to charges that current leadership isn't responsive to their base.
(Ed. Note: There are many more photos of yesterday's Tea Bag Protests in our Chicagoist Photos Flickr Pool. — CS)
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Protest Fail.
Where was your anger and vitriol back when Premier Bush enacted the TARP program?
TAX THE RICH!
I've expressed my view on protests before. Whatever. I don't care about the subject or reasoning, but I take HUGE issues with people parading their children around with these signs. These kids don't know what's going on, and to have them with signs saying "Get out of my Daddy's pockets" and "Stop Stealing My Future" in cutesy glitz makes me feel ill. What sort of parent actually believes that this is making the child interested in the economy or politics?
I agree with JDole84. Using kids, whatever your views, is pretty low-road. I'd say one recent exception would be when we see CPS students, probably not as well-off as some of the folks in these pictures, on TV calling for an end to violence and the recent murders of so many students ... or protesting the closing of their schools. I can't help but contrast that with these kids, presumably on their Spring break, who hopped in the Tahoe with Mom and Dad and went on an adventure they shouldn't be expected to even understand, before hitting Crown Fountain and the Bean. Too bad it wasn't warmer out!
CNN Reporter to Chicago guy holding sign portraying Obama as Hitler: "Why is Obama a fascist?" Guy holding sign: "Because he is!"
Way to make us proud, Rubes.
If you want a real treat ask any of these bozos (or anybody else dropping the "S" bomb) to simply define socialism. Nothing serious pal, just give me the most cursory basic, dictionary definition.
Response:
"It's what Obama's doing".
^ Real response given to me.
These people are like modern day "Know Nothings" and "Southern Dixiecrats" of old. Irony being that they wouldn't know anything about either.
Indeed. Apt comparisons to those old factions.
Further irony: The see themselves as the heirs to Lincoln and the Founders, as though those great men, most of whom were serious and public intellectuals, would tolerate the vast willful ignorance of these tools.
I wish I had been there to teabag every last one of these clowns!
As far as the genius with the ACORN sign goes, I guess "Checking for Inaccuracies, Flagging them as Non-Eligible, and then Submitting all Signatures Gathered Regardless of Status as Required by Federal Law" didn't fit on his sign.
".......run the risk of whipping up a base of activists that could do more harm to the GOP than help. Ignoring them may leave the party vulnerable to charges that current leadership isn't responsive to their base........"
Kevin, here's how I would tweak your point. YES, fiscal conservatives DO want to put the Republican Party on notice. Republican politicians who will get hurt are those who DESERVE to be hurt.
Hurting the Republican Party---as you put it---will HELP it in the long run. Stop the wasteful and downright harmful spending. Or your political career is in jeopardy, whether you are Republican or Democrat.
As one example, Judy Biggert, Republican in the western suburbs, voted for the TARP boondoggle. That is not acceptable.
The Tea Parties reflect a sentiment that is only going to grow. It was a great and inspiring expression of speech and I was pround to be there in Federal Plaza.
"YES, fiscal conservatives DO want to put the Republican Party on notice."
Too bad it took you hypocrites and wimps 8 years to get around to it. What, are conservatives that lazy and apathetic?
"Hurting the Republican Party---as you put it---will HELP it in the long run." Agreed. Let's hope a reasonable conservative party emerges. All the nuts can have Idaho.
"Stop the wasteful and downright harmful spending."
Again, why weren't you guys in the streets over Medicare Part D? Iraq War? No-bid contracts for Iraq War? Please note that spending does not exist with revenue, and for some reason, you dolts raised not a peep when Bush, in the midst of two fucking wars, cut revenues. THAT NEVER WORKS. NEVER. STUDY HISTORY. Christ, you think you would have learned from LBJ. Or the Bourbon kings prior to 1789.
"The Tea Parties reflect a sentiment that is only going to grow." Agreed. The idiot fringe, always present in America, has learned to use modern electronic communications, and even has a news network for support.
"It was a great and inspiring expression of speech and I was pround to be there in Federal Plaza." You have a lower bar for personal pride than do I.
Anyway,
It's not surprising that there are still large numbers of people in this country who just can't deal with a black man being on an equal or higher rung than them.
Did you actually see proof to support this sweeping statement, or are you engaging in assumption and ideological thinking?
Me, I don't cry racism or similar charges without solid, specific proof--I try to stick with what the facts support, which gives me plenty of ammo against this right-wingers. I guess you are a bit different.
A bunch of white far right wing people take to the streets to protest government spending as soon as a black man takes office, never minding the fact that they were all quiet while the biggest goverment expansion and spending was taking place under Bush. Yeah, common sense..lol.
Common sense? Hardly, though it certainly is plausible.
Perhaps Obama is perceived as a weak-livered socialist, even a Muslim, more than a uppity black man, by conservative teabaggers. Or perhaps a "tipping point" has been reached, which often happens in times of increasing anxiety about jobs and finances.
The left has yet to learn that tossing out such charges so cheaply backfires with many, many more moderate people. You would think the left would have learned this lesson over the past 30 years.
Me, I'd rather assign motive based on hard fact, not plausible speculation. As I said, you have different, looser standards.
As I said, by your own reasoning you have equally loose standards.
WHAT?!?
Are you saying that these, largely white, middle-class right wingers might be....RACIST!
HOW DARE YOU SIR!
That man loves CAPATALISM not SOZILSIM! Just say NOE to BORACK ABAMA!
WHAT?!?
Are you saying that these, largely white, middle-class right wingers might be....RACIST!
HOW DARE YOU SIR!
That man loves CAPATALISM not SOZILSIM! Just say NOE to BORACK ABAMA!
You know, as much as I disagree with the conservative teabaggers, it seems the vast majority of their arguments revolve around issues other than racism.
Do I think some are racist, as Navin describes?
Of course, though I doubt we would agree on the scope and influence of such attitudes.
But without solid proof, I'd rather tackle their arguments and ideas and not casually toss out the nuclear bomb of racism. Be factual, not ideological or speculative.
Then you yourself have no argument of "Hypocrisy" because, you know, technically, you don't actually know for sure that these people weren't raising hell during Bush's wild spending. Of course it's incredibily unlikely, just as it's incredibily unlikely that these people aren't motivated by racial issues (however insidious) as well. It would seem we're on pretty even footing here.
If you want solid proof, go to YouTube and check out video of people spewing hateful racist remarks while being interviewed at McCain/Palin rallies.
Those are the same ones who I would assume are supporting the tea bag protests.
I myself know MANY wealthy, professional (read: doctors, dentists, lawyers) who HATE the idea that a black man is president and a black family is inhabiting the White House.
I know many racists, too. Many professional racists. Racism still exists in America; indeed, it is a powerful force as evidenced by housing battles and some areas of economics and education, as well as population distribution and some forms of political activity. And common sense suggests that centuries of racist attitudes among Americans have yet to evaporate from the culture.
But assigning such a sweeping, general motive to these teabaggers is not supported by the facts. It's mere speculation. There is a difference. And assigning such a motive without solid factual backing that is specific to this protest only undermines the arguments against these tools. Why such a thing is hard to understand is beyond me.
You'll never get the solid proof you want though. Unless a census worker was there with a clipboard asking each person if he or she were racist.
Racism is always going to exist, it has been around since the beginning of time. There is racism within cultures...if the whole world were exactly the same shade of the same color, there would still be racism.
You're right when you say that assigning this single motive is wrong. I'm sure they have other motives as well, but I'm also sure that a lot of them wouldn't be there if it were a white republican spending wildly.
Oh yeah...we Did ahve a white republican spending wildly for 8 whole years! And there were no protestors. Huh.
Exactly Ingrid,
And I'm not assigning a single motive either. Just pointing out the sad fact that there are a ton of people who can't stomach a black President. A *wild* statement, I know...lol.
Then congrats to you for pointing out what, at least from your point of view, is an obvious statement that can be neither proved nor disproved. Gold-star time for Navin, for whom nearly everything in life seems to stink of racism, at least based on your comments here.
Seriously, trying to make racism a prime motive (and I know you are not making it on the only motive, to your credit) can be harmful, as you need to have a very clear, very sold, very factual idea of your enemy's motives if you want to fight them effectively. That's basic warfare, whether through politics or the military, or both. Again, the left never gets this, one of many reasons it has gotten its ass thoroughly kicked in the USA for 30 years.
"Many professional racists."
When I played, I never set out to hurt anyone deliberately - unless it was, you know, important, like a league game or something.
Dick Butkus
Touche, sir.
Here's the thing. This all got its start with the Ron Paul folks. Fine folks, I disagree with them completely, but they make good arguments and are pretty rational.
The GOP has no identity, and has been wandering in the deserts sans Moses for months now. Michael Steele? Palin? Jindal? Rick "Secession is ok" Perry? SNL can't make up characters like this. Even funny SNL.
So they co-opted the Ron Paul idea of teabagging, though to their "credit" they were self-aware enough not to name it after a practice of dipping your balls in someones mouth.
Fox news hopped on, and the really scary right-wing joined in. When Stormfront(dot)org is promoting your teabag day? That's no good.
Is everyone there a racist? Of course not. But it's like the Palin rallies where some decent people got shouted down by the loudest and most unctuous.
The message has gone from "Strict Constitutionalism" to "Everyone angry pile on!". That only serves the crazies, the bigots and lunkheads.
By the by, the left has had this problem as well for decades.
FWIW,
I've talked to a number of intelligent Libertarians (uh, I know, I know) that want nothing to do with these people latching on to their scene. Of course when you've got Ron Paul talking about 'privateering' ala 200 or so years ago, they become very hard to take seriously as well.
There are many great libertarian thinkers, Ron Paul's a bit...animated...but he's not too out there.
I'm a progressive bordering on touchy feely European Socialism, but I like a good argument and compromise is the heart of democracy.
"......Anyway,
It's not surprising that there are still large numbers of people in this country who just can't deal with a black man being on an equal or higher rung than them......"
Eureka! You've uncovered the real motive behind the Tea Parties.
Lost my whole response to Ward, thanks to this janky comment system.
Ward,
It would appear that way as you and all these fruitcakes completely ignored 8 years of the greatest spending in U.S. history. At least Obama's trying to put some of this into stimulus in THIS COUNTRY, rather than throwing it down a black hole into a country we CHOSE to go to war with, or on unsustainable medicare modernization, DHS, private security firms and ON AND ON.....
It would appear that way, since none of you right wing fanatics did shit while Bush was throwing more money away. At least Obama's spending a decent amount of it in THIS COUNTRY rather than throwing it down a black hole in Iraq or on completely unsustainable medicare modernization. Hypocrites, you all towed the line on UNPRECEDENTED spending with ZERO transparency for 8 years 'till the black dude became pres...
Not surprised that you have NO ANSWERS for Matilda's examples of out of control GOP spending, and there are more examples than what she posted.
Hey man, they did plenty.
They profited like CRAZY.
These responses are priceless. Charges of stupidity, racism, and anything else rather than debating what the protest was actually about. You left-wingers can't stand anything that deviates from your narrow views. Its pretty pathetic. I'll bet you had no problem when people brought their 2 year old kids to anti-war rallies. Further, you didn't cry racism when the mostly white crowd was protesting a foreign policy headed up by a black woman, Dr. Rice. This is so silly, its really sad. I used to think there was more intelligent debate on this forum but am mistaken.
I was at the rally yesterday and would say that I resembled the profile of most in attendance. I am a conservative/libertarian who is disgusted with the spending, corruption and fiscal policies of both parties. I would say there were more Republicans than Dems, but the majority were people who are disgusted with both sides. This article is ridiculous, the reason there were no Republican politicians at these rallies (besides Tony Peraica) was because they asked to speak and were turned down in most cases. Michael Steele was in Chicago for some reason yesterday and asked to speak and was denied.
You all ask why there was no protest when Bush was in office. There was obviously disgust with him and many conservatives left him, as evidenced by his 25% approval rating. But Obama has utilized Bush's bridge to Socialism/Fascism and has ramped up the spending and the expansion of government exponentially. And I do know what those terms mean, although you lefties don't seem to. Socialism is central control of the means of production. Fascism is central control of private companies. We are heading towards a hybrid of those systems. The Great One is going to triple the debt. We are going to have trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. These are things that liberals were criticizing Bush for, but now they are OK as long as The Great One calls it "investment."
So that's my take. Now go ahead and call me racist, stupid, rube and anything else. I know that you can't defend the ideas on the merits.
No one who knew me would ever call me a left-winger; in fact, I'm pretty much a warmonger when it comes to American power. Nor are most of my friends left-wingers. And we still think the teabaggers, on the whole, have ill-defined and idiotic ideas that will do nothing but make America weaker.
But hey, as soon as the GOP produces a realistic revenue and appropriations plan, I would love to listen.
Perfect illustration of what I am talking about. All you have are insults ("teabaggers", "idiotic") and generalities. You will do anything to avoid defending the government's trillion dollar deficits, pork-laden "stimulus", money-printing, bailout agenda. Again, you choose to try and shift the attention to Republicans, who are just as guilty as the current administration.
But you guys keep complaining but have yet to offer any realistic revenue and spending plans. Did you not get that the first time I've said it. The last GOP "budget" was a PR stunt. Put up or shut up. Random ranting about socialists and secret Muslims doesn't do much.
Sue me--I border on a Kenysian right now (though that does not mean I am 100% in agreement with Obama's stimulus or budget). The GOP, it seems, would rather unemployment shoot up to 15% or even 20% instead of moving away from its all-tax-cuts-all-the-time philosophy. And guess what? Whether you like it or not, America needs health-care and infrastructure reform--now, in fact--lest we become weaker. The GOP, instead of sticking its head in the sand and pretending like reality is fantasy, had best come up with some serious ideas for fixes or it will become even more populated with pointless anger.
Don't get me wrong: I am a pretty serious student of global economics, and how inflation and poor spending, as well as poor revenue collection, can topple societies. I am very aware of the dangers of various approaches. Right now, though, I'd rather do something, as Obama proposes, then just sit back and let the whole fucking thing burn because some people prefer to have their heads up Grover Norquist's ass.
Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, either.
Ok Craig, allow me.
-The deficient was incurred due to 8 years of fighting 2 very expensive foriegn wars while the defense budget ballooned with "pork" projects. The defense budget is roughly HALF the budget. Yet I don't see many people protesting that.
-The point of the stimulus is to combat the paradox of thrift, that's when people make a recession worse by not buying things because they're scared of the recession. The government stimulates the economy by getting projects moving. The biggest "pork" in the stimulus that all those republican governors balked at? Extending unemployment benefits to people out of work. A tiny percentage of the stimulus money by the way.
-Money Printing: I assume you're a dollar-strong proponent? Good deal, but the us debt to China and Europe is such that an increase in inflation might actually help.
-Bailout Agenda: You mean the 700 Billion George Bush handed to the financial sector with little or no oversight in the fall? I opposed that as well. Also the deregulation under Clinton and Bush was such that the banks were able to create more and more "products" that destabilized the very bedrock of the economy. I think that the banks should be allowed to go bankrupt, reform and pass through to reform. The zombie banks are a bad idea, but considering the 700 billion dollar hole the Obama administration was left to fill before that could happen, I'm cutting them some slack while they try and manage.
Reagan started this nightmare, Bush and Clinton and Bush continued it. But Obama is "hitler" for trying to fix it with the tools available? If the Santellis of the world had their way you'd have a revolution in this country. Food riots, hyper-inflation, supply-chain breakdown and insolvency of the whole system of credit. That all almost happened Craig.
The nation had a financial heart attack back in the fall. The Teabaggers are complaining about the mess the surgeon is making trying to save the life of the patient.
Cute signs, tea bags, crude signs and angry chanting by the Glenn Beck's of the world isn't a response, it's goddamn tantrum.
Clarification: It wasn't only war spending, but revenue reduction via tax cuts (and some other spending measures, too) in the midst of those wars, a surefire way to trouble. We should have had a tax increase{s} to pay for the so-called War on Terror.
People always talk about spending and revenue almost as separate things. That is the wrong way to look at it.
Funny, its always a "tantrum" whenever people who aren't leftists/Democrats protest. When Democrats do it, its an exercise in consitutionally protected speech.
I am NOT defending Bush, but the deficits under his reign were between $100b - $400b until the TARP money at the very end, which we agree was ridiculous. Obama's future deficits wade into the region of 11-12% of GDP, which is unheard of. I understand the theory behind the stimulus, but I just don't think it will work and I think we just have a difference in philosophy. I do not believe the government is productive with its spending because it has not "earned" the money and spends freely without the constraint of risk that would encourage it to spend wisely. It is human nature that when you spend someone else's money, you take less care in what you invest it in. This is why centrally-planned economies fail, the government does not contain the expertise in the areas they "invest" in to ensure careful investment and monitoring of the use of the funds. This is why I am a proponent of tax cuts and refuse to accept the premise that they caused the financial crisis. I also don't buy the notion that government regulation could have solved this. Who were these magical government regulators who would have concluded that these derivatives were too risky and that the market was distorted with bad loans? I just don't think they exist. The financial crisis was a perfect storm of many variables that came together at the perfect time. Government distorted the housing market by encouraging banks to give bad loans, lenders and brokers had a field day and wrote bad loans that they knew Fannie/Freddie would buy, banks/investment houses concocted models that didn't account for a housing collapse, etc.
I just think we have different views of government. I don't think government draws our best and brightest people and it is evidenced in impotent, wasteful federal programs that do not work. How about the war on poverty? We have transferred trillions from producers to non-producers and created dependency and generational poverty because there is no incentive for them to remove themselves from a situation where they receive something for nothing. Politicians prey on these people and promise to "help" them around re-election time, and we have a vicious cycle.
You say Reagan/Clinton/Bush caused this, I disagree. I think tax cuts are preferable to government spending any day because people who earned their money spend more wisely than government, who spends for reasons of pleasing politicial special interests and their constituiencies. You seem to think government can provide for everyone, but to do that would mean confiscatory taxation and the loss of incentive to produce. In short, it will spread misery equally and we'll become France.
I guess as a pathetic left-winger, I'll bite.
I'm far from being an economist, but all I know is that the economy is super-fucked. I'm one of the millions of people who have been laid-off recently (mainly due to my company's over-speculation in the housing market, a problem caused by both parties). Right now, I will pretty much support any new approach to fixing the problem short of sacrificing a lamb outside of the Fed so long as they are not tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of industry. Both of which have shown to exacerbate the problem. I'm willing to tell Obama, just go at it, and if you fuck things up worse, I may just swallow my pride and vote Republican in three years.
Like many have already said, this protest has as much do with Obama (not necessarily as a black president, but as a liberal president) than it does with the stated goals of too much spending. The ACORN sign, the Bill Ayres joke, what the hell do those have to do with limiting spending. Absolutely nothing. These are simply people who are angry that the Democrat won and they're tying that anger to something many of them limitedly understand.
And if I can be a snarky little bastard right here. You said that you, "resembled the profile of most in attendance." I'm going to take a guess as to what that means, white and upper middle class. Am I right? Am I right?
Since you know so much about the rally, I guess you were there. And yes, the Bill Ayers joke was waaaayyy out of line. That person should never be allowed to insult such a fine citizen who tried to kill policemen in New York and was freed on a technicality and because of personal connections of his father.
To answer your question, I am white and I would probably qualify as middle-middle class to upper-middle class.
You ask my race and class as if I should be ashamed to answer. I make no apologies for any perceived success I have earned. I had no advantages growing up in life. My Father was a Democrat laborer and provided for us but we never had extravagancies. I borrowed my way through school, acheived an MBA and have a good job. I don't understand why people like me are considered selfish and are under assault. I became a libertarian because I think the government is way too involved in the daily lives of average citizens and the system has been corrupted by money and the short term views of politicians, many of whom can be re-elected in perpetuity. There are so many people who limit themselves and don't even try to succeed, and I believe much of that is brought on by dependency created by the government. Soon we will have a system where 50% of the population does not pay income taxes. I refuse to believe that 50% of this country cannot take care of themselves. I am all for helping the helpless, but not the clueless.
But Bill Ayer has nothing--zilch, nada--to do with the current economic crisis. You lost. Let it fucking go already. Those who don't are as sad as the leftists who still kept bitching about W's drunk driving arrest--it has nothing to do with anything anymore, not after the election.
And before you call me a leftist, note that I agree with your view of Ayers, who is, and remains, scum. If you don't believe me, check my posting history.
I make no apologies for any perceived success I have earned. I had no advantages growing up in life.
So you don't use roads, public transit, sewers, parks or benefit from public innoculations (which have eradicated countless diseases) military defense, flood and fire protection, police protection, plastics/velcro/GPS (thanks to NASA)?
I'm sure the private sector could handle all that. Look at the parking meters, they're going gangbusters!
My Father was a Democrat laborer and provided for us but we never had extravagancies.
First, you mean extravagances.
Second, Uphill, both ways, in the snow? Were all your toys sharp or filled with toxic chemicals? Federal regulations on lead and product safety prevented that. But then, you didn't have toys. Not in the austere academy.
I borrowed my way through school
From banks? FDIC insured banks? Were these loans federally structured? You socialist!
acheived an MBA and have a good job.
In finance? Is this job in 1998?
I don't understand why people like me are considered selfish and are under assault.
You're not "under assault". Stop this compound thinking. You have a good job (I think NSYNC is gonna be HUGE) and I assume a decent living. Self interest is fine, but suddenly, after 8 years of massively mismanaged warfare and indecencies with infrastructure you're all very worried about being seen as selfish. Did you set a wake-up call for 2009?
I became a libertarian because I think the government is way too involved in the daily lives of average citizens
You mean paying taxes. The tax rate returned to what it was during the largest sustained economic boom in generations. Pull the other one chap.
and the system has been corrupted by money and the short term views of politicians, many of whom can be re-elected in perpetuity.
And how many of these teabaggers (oh you deserve it) voted? I vote in every damn election. And I vote my conscience. Voter turnout in the 30% range for local and state elections? Where the real muckery goes on? There's where you start your damn revolution.
There are so many people who limit themselves and don't even try to succeed, and I believe much of that is brought on by dependency created by the government.
If only all those poor people would work harder at their minimum wage jobs in industries that provide no benefits and no chance for progression they'd all achieve the American dream. Or die in their 40's from stress and poor diet brought on by limited food choices and on the job injuries.
Soon we will have a system where 50% of the population does not pay income taxes. I refuse to believe that 50% of this country cannot take care of themselves.
Yes, because that fake libertarian stat, which I've seen tossed around for years, includes children and the elderly. The solution of course is more child labor and no retirement. Get to work you lazy babies! WHO IS JOHN GALT GRANDPA?
I am all for helping the helpless, but not the clueless.
Well, I gave it a shot here.
Wow. Your post really changed my mind. I didn't realize government provided so many efficient, well-run functions. I can't imagine a much better operation than the CTA. When is the next Doomsday fare hike? The DMV and City of Chicago are also very lean, efficient operations. I also didn't realize that the government kept me safe from disease and eating poisonous food. Wow, how great. Otherwise, those evil corporations would be trying to kill me. Wow, government is great. That must be why there are numerous traffic coordinators on every corner downtown. I thought they served no purpose, but they have probably saved my life dozens of times.
Wow, this must be why government workers are paid bloated salaries and receive full-salary pensions for the rest of their lives, no matter how long they have worked. This must be why they take great care to hand out contracts to people who just happen to have donated to their campaigns. This must be why they issue ghost payroll jobs. This must be why there is a shortage of doctors/facilities and people die waiting for operations in countries with socialist health care. My mind has been changed. Let's pass a law and let Obama rule for life!
I wasn't implying that I had it rough and am an inspirational story or anything, I'm not. I was answering the question of a previous poster. I fully expected to be mocked though, that is what you liberals do. You think you are so smart but can't figure out that Socialism has never worked. And yes, I am fully aware of what that means. You are the ones in denial for refusing to recognize that is the system you endorse. You keep looking at it through the prism of the elite, who don't have to live by the rules they impose on the common folk. People don't want to live how the elites want them to live.
Check your own stats. Obama will remove millions from the tax rolls. Taxes were not at this level during the boom, they were raised after the boom. A boom which was caused by the invention of the internet (thank you Al Gore), a tool that introduced a new way to buy and sell goods. Finally, there are very few "poor people" who work minimum wage jobs as a primary income earner. Most minimum wage earners are teenagers/young people.
Oh, and sorry for the spelling errors. I should take better care to make sure each and every word I spell is correct while posting. I guess that would make me an idiot to someone as smart as yourself.
Oh dear God.
"You think you are so smart but can't figure out that Socialism has never worked."
Except, no one is calling for socialism. Only more regulation of capitalism at this point and reforms that need to be undertaken lest we become a shitter version of Brazil--pre-boom, that is.
So, you want tax cuts. WHERE WOULD YOU CUT SPENDING? Why can't you people--especially those who claim to have an MBA--acknowledge that revenue decreases must result in spending decreases? Christ, even St Ronnie never understood that.
You sound like some corporate anarchist--fuck government, let's just trust the corporations to do it right and efficiently all the time.
That's rather naive and hopeful, to say the least. And ignorant: With public spending, our society would be a lot less friendly (profitable) for corporations. Railroads, highways, canals, air travel, science research, military protecting trade routes (what, you thought those 10 or so aircraft carrier battle groups were just to drop bombs on brown people?), etc.
God, you seem clueless. And more ideological than pragmatic, which is always a losing proposition.
I don't care about big govt vs small govt, so to speak. I care about smart investing on a national scale--what is the best way to get cheaper and more efficient health care? Better transit? A leaner, stronger military? Better education?
Tell me how the free market takes care 100% of those problems, and do so in a way that acknowledges factual reality more than fantasy, and I will follow you to your next MBA Libertarian cocktail party.
Otherwise, bug off.
Bug off, huh? I know it must be annoying to actually have to listen to someone like me who thinks instead of just accepting knee-jerk, feel-good, emotion-based liberalism/socialism. If you travelled outside of your little bubble, you'd see that there are many people who think like me and are independent and not mesmerized by someone who reads well off a teleprompter.
Again, tax cuts INCREASE revenue to the federal government. Ronald Reagan nearly doubled the revenue to the federal government during his administration. People are more productive with their own money and when allowed to pursue their self-interests. I swear, liberals just refuse to believe this. The data is very clear. As bad as Bush was, I believe he had a few months where tax receipts came in at record amounts. The problem is a SPENDING problem for the reasons I have laid out in other posts.
So I'm the one who is ignorant and clueless, yet you don't even know that tax receipts increase with tax cuts. Production/GDP is not flat at all times, it increases and decreases due to many external variables.
Calling somoeone ideological just means you don't agree with them. You think you are reasonable, whereas I am "ideological." It means nothing.
It means nothing except for the fact that you are hearing real ANSWERS from matilda and other posters.
You don't answer the tough questions and you don't offer any solutions
to your complaints.
Instead of being a Fox news regurgitator, why don't you lay out your answers to the problems. And insulting Obama isn't an answer.
I swear, you liberals cannot have a debate. You just have to reference Fox or Bush, even though I have stated repeatedly I thought Bush was terrible as well. Once your ability to say "OH YEAH, WELL BUSH DID THIS AND THIS," is taken away you have absolutely nothing to say. You don't know why it is you believe what you beleive. Your ideas don't stand on their own. All you do is FEEL.
I have laid out the reasons for my views repeatedly. What am I not answering?
I can't imagine a much better operation than the CTA.
I can, it's called Metra. Or any of the hundreds of public transit systtems around the world (London, Paris, New York) that are run by the government. Just because ours is badly run does not mean the concept is bad.
The DMV
FAIL on this. The DMV was completely revamped under Jesse White. It's won numerous awards for efficiency. In the 10 years I've been driving it's changed radically.
and City of Chicago are also very lean, efficient operations.
Again, your example doesn't prove the rule.
I also didn't realize that the government kept me safe from disease and eating poisonous food. Wow, how great.
Otherwise, those evil corporations would be trying to kill me.
I didn't say that. But public health initiatives are a loss leader, preventative care is too. Government research funding has improved everything from childhood illness to geriatric care. All at a minimal cost when you factor in the benefits.
Wow, government is great. That must be why there are numerous traffic coordinators on every corner downtown. I thought they served no purpose, but they have probably saved my life dozens of times.
Actually, they're meant to ease congestion. We can debate their effectiveness if you like, but if that's your argument, again, FAIL.
Wow, this must be why government workers are paid bloated salaries and receive full-salary pensions for the rest of their lives, no matter how long they have worked.
Retention bonuses for people who quit AIG? The highest paid government official would be the poor man at the party compared to even mid-range CEOS. FAIL.
This must be why they take great care to hand out contracts to people who just happen to have donated to their campaigns.
There is no cooporate corruption. AIG/CITI/ENRON/BoA
FAIL.
This must be why they issue ghost payroll jobs.
Multi-million dollar golden parachutes, stock options? FAIL.
This must be why there is a shortage of doctors/facilities and people die waiting for operations in countries with socialist health care.
Yeah, look at those mounds of corpses in Switzerland, the UK, and Sweden with their life expectancies greater..than..ours. FAIL
My mind has been changed. Let's pass a law and let Obama rule for life!
No, four years, then an election based on those 4 years. You have read the constitution right?
I fully expected to be mocked though, that is what you liberals do.
Well, if you're going to dress up in funny costumes chanting nonsense and generally confusing the issue to the point of incoherence. Yes.
I'm not a "liberal" by the way. I'm a progressive. But you're still kind of funny.
You think you are so smart but can't figure out that Socialism has never worked. And yes, I am fully aware of what that means.
Good thing that's not what's being advocated here. Cause it's not. Progressive taxation is not socialism. You don't know what it means.
You are the ones in denial for refusing to recognize that is the system you endorse. You keep looking at it through the prism of the elite,
You have an MBA and I'm an elitist? By elite do you mean competent? Educated? Enlightened? When did being "elite" become a bad thing. Hell, I want everyone to be their best.
who don't have to live by the rules they impose on the common folk. People don't want to live how the elites want them to live.
Who is telling you how to live? Paying your taxes is controlling your life? That's a child's view. You want to debate, fine, but let's be reasonable and not cry "FASCIST!" every April 15th shall we?
Check your own stats. Obama will remove millions from the tax rolls.
Yes, poor and low income people who don't pay much anyway. I'd rather have what little buying power they have go into the economy. The wealthiest, who will see a return to Clinton era (GAH!) taxes. They're not going to go poor or start selling plasma to live. One thing the Obama administration has been doing is closing the Swiss Bank loopholes. Yes, all those noble rich can no longer hide money in foriegn countries. Y'know, tax fraud.
Taxes were not at this level during the boom, they were raised after the boom.
Er, no. Here, read. And get that money back on the MBA.
A boom which was caused by the invention of the internet (thank you Al Gore), a tool that introduced a new way to buy and sell goods.
Actually it was created by the government. FAIL. And it was venture capital (really? an MBA?) that allowed internet start-ups to flourish. Venture capital from...wealthy people. Oh no!
Finally, there are very few "poor people" who work minimum wage jobs as a primary income earner.
This is a financial shell game. By paying as little as a dollar over minimum wage employers are able to qualify for tax incentives. So no, they're gettin 7 bucks an hour. Try feeding yourself, let alone a child on that. It's laughable.
I guess that would make me an idiot to someone as smart as yourself.
Anti-intellectualism? CHECK
Anti-Labor? CHECK
Peaons to bygone era of rugged individualism? CHECK
The libertarian trifecta. Applause applause.
Look, Craig, calm down. Your government is not trying to destroy you, it's not invading your life. Organize, protest, support like-minded candidates, raise funds, start businesses and for God's sake vote...vote...vote.
Teabags? Sloganeering? Palling around with right-wing nutbars? This isn't helping you at all Craig.
I can't imagine a much better operation than the CTA.
I can, it's called Metra. Or any of the hundreds of public transit systtems around the world (London, Paris, New York) that are run by the government. Just because ours is badly run does not mean the concept is bad.
The DMV
FAIL on this. The DMV was completely revamped under Jesse White. It's won numerous awards for efficiency. In the 10 years I've been driving it's changed radically.
and City of Chicago are also very lean, efficient operations.
Again, your example doesn't prove the rule.
I also didn't realize that the government kept me safe from disease and eating poisonous food. Wow, how great.
Otherwise, those evil corporations would be trying to kill me.
I didn't say that. But public health initiatives are a loss leader, preventative care is too. Government research funding has improved everything from childhood illness to geriatric care. All at a minimal cost when you factor in the benefits.
Wow, government is great. That must be why there are numerous traffic coordinators on every corner downtown. I thought they served no purpose, but they have probably saved my life dozens of times.
Actually, they're meant to ease congestion. We can debate their effectiveness if you like, but if that's your argument, again, FAIL.
Wow, this must be why government workers are paid bloated salaries and receive full-salary pensions for the rest of their lives, no matter how long they have worked.
Retention bonuses for people who quit AIG? The highest paid government official would be the poor man at the party compared to even mid-range CEOS. FAIL.
This must be why they take great care to hand out contracts to people who just happen to have donated to their campaigns.
There is no cooporate corruption. AIG/CITI/ENRON/BoA
FAIL.
This must be why they issue ghost payroll jobs.
Multi-million dollar golden parachutes, stock options? FAIL.
This must be why there is a shortage of doctors/facilities and people die waiting for operations in countries with socialist health care.
Yeah, look at those mounds of corpses in Switzerland, the UK, and Sweden with their life expectancies greater..than..ours. FAIL
My mind has been changed. Let's pass a law and let Obama rule for life!
No, four years, then an election based on those 4 years. You have read the constitution right?
I fully expected to be mocked though, that is what you liberals do.
Well, if you're going to dress up in funny costumes chanting nonsense and generally confusing the issue to the point of incoherence. Yes.
I'm not a "liberal" by the way. I'm a progressive. But you're still kind of funny.
You think you are so smart but can't figure out that Socialism has never worked. And yes, I am fully aware of what that means.
Good thing that's not what's being advocated here. Cause it's not. Progressive taxation is not socialism. You don't know what it means.
You are the ones in denial for refusing to recognize that is the system you endorse. You keep looking at it through the prism of the elite,
You have an MBA and I'm an elitist? By elite do you mean competent? Educated? Enlightened? When did being "elite" become a bad thing. Hell, I want everyone to be their best.
who don't have to live by the rules they impose on the common folk. People don't want to live how the elites want them to live.
Who is telling you how to live? Paying your taxes is controlling your life? That's a child's view. You want to debate, fine, but let's be reasonable and not cry "FASCIST!" every April 15th shall we?
Check your own stats. Obama will remove millions from the tax rolls.
Yes, poor and low income people who don't pay much anyway. I'd rather have what little buying power they have go into the economy. The wealthiest, who will see a return to Clinton era (GAH!) taxes. They're not going to go poor or start selling plasma to live. One thing the Obama administration has been doing is closing the Swiss Bank loopholes. Yes, all those noble rich can no longer hide money in foriegn countries. Y'know, tax fraud.
Taxes were not at this level during the boom, they were raised after the boom.
Er, no. Here, read. And get that money back on the MBA.
A boom which was caused by the invention of the internet (thank you Al Gore), a tool that introduced a new way to buy and sell goods.
Actually it was created by the government. FAIL. And it was venture capital (really? an MBA?) that allowed internet start-ups to flourish. Venture capital from...wealthy people. Oh no!
Finally, there are very few "poor people" who work minimum wage jobs as a primary income earner.
This is a financial shell game. By paying as little as a dollar over minimum wage employers are able to qualify for tax incentives. So no, they're gettin 7 bucks an hour. Try feeding yourself, let alone a child on that. It's laughable.
I guess that would make me an idiot to someone as smart as yourself.
Anti-intellectualism? CHECK
Anti-Labor? CHECK
Peaons to bygone era of rugged individualism? CHECK
The libertarian trifecta. Applause applause.
Look, Craig, calm down. Your government is not trying to destroy you, it's not invading your life. Organize, protest, support like-minded candidates, raise funds, start businesses and for God's sake vote...vote...vote.
Teabags? Sloganeering? Palling around with right-wing nutbars? This isn't helping you at all Craig.
I can't imagine a much better operation than the CTA.
I can, it's called Metra. Or any of the hundreds of public transit systtems around the world (London, Paris, New York) that are run by the government. Just because ours is badly run does not mean the concept is bad.
The DMV
FAIL on this. The DMV was completely revamped under Jesse White. It's won numerous awards for efficiency. In the 10 years I've been driving it's changed radically.
and City of Chicago are also very lean, efficient operations.
Again, your example doesn't prove the rule.
I also didn't realize that the government kept me safe from disease and eating poisonous food. Wow, how great.
Otherwise, those evil corporations would be trying to kill me.
I didn't say that. But public health initiatives are a loss leader, preventative care is too. Government research funding has improved everything from childhood illness to geriatric care. All at a minimal cost when you factor in the benefits.
Wow, government is great. That must be why there are numerous traffic coordinators on every corner downtown. I thought they served no purpose, but they have probably saved my life dozens of times.
Actually, they're meant to ease congestion. We can debate their effectiveness if you like, but if that's your argument, again, FAIL.
Wow, this must be why government workers are paid bloated salaries and receive full-salary pensions for the rest of their lives, no matter how long they have worked.
Retention bonuses for people who quit AIG? The highest paid government official would be the poor man at the party compared to even mid-range CEOS. FAIL.
This must be why they take great care to hand out contracts to people who just happen to have donated to their campaigns.
There is no cooporate corruption. AIG/CITI/ENRON/BoA
FAIL.
This must be why they issue ghost payroll jobs.
Multi-million dollar golden parachutes, stock options? FAIL.
This must be why there is a shortage of doctors/facilities and people die waiting for operations in countries with socialist health care.
Yeah, look at those mounds of corpses in Switzerland, the UK, and Sweden with their life expectancies greater..than..ours. FAIL
My mind has been changed. Let's pass a law and let Obama rule for life!
No, four years, then an election based on those 4 years. You have read the constitution right?
I fully expected to be mocked though, that is what you liberals do.
Well, if you're going to dress up in funny costumes chanting nonsense and generally confusing the issue to the point of incoherence. Yes.
I'm not a "liberal" by the way. I'm a progressive. But you're still kind of funny.
You think you are so smart but can't figure out that Socialism has never worked. And yes, I am fully aware of what that means.
Good thing that's not what's being advocated here. Cause it's not. Progressive taxation is not socialism. You don't know what it means.
You are the ones in denial for refusing to recognize that is the system you endorse. You keep looking at it through the prism of the elite,
You have an MBA and I'm an elitist? By elite do you mean competent? Educated? Enlightened? When did being "elite" become a bad thing. Hell, I want everyone to be their best.
who don't have to live by the rules they impose on the common folk. People don't want to live how the elites want them to live.
Who is telling you how to live? Paying your taxes is controlling your life? That's a child's view. You want to debate, fine, but let's be reasonable and not cry "FASCIST!" every April 15th shall we?
Check your own stats. Obama will remove millions from the tax rolls.
Yes, poor and low income people who don't pay much anyway. I'd rather have what little buying power they have go into the economy. The wealthiest, who will see a return to Clinton era (GAH!) taxes. They're not going to go poor or start selling plasma to live. One thing the Obama administration has been doing is closing the Swiss Bank loopholes. Yes, all those noble rich can no longer hide money in foriegn countries. Y'know, tax fraud.
Taxes were not at this level during the boom, they were raised after the boom.
Er, no. Here, read. And get that money back on the MBA.
A boom which was caused by the invention of the internet (thank you Al Gore), a tool that introduced a new way to buy and sell goods.
Actually it was created by the government. FAIL. And it was venture capital (really? an MBA?) that allowed internet start-ups to flourish. Venture capital from...wealthy people. Oh no!
Finally, there are very few "poor people" who work minimum wage jobs as a primary income earner.
This is a financial shell game. By paying as little as a dollar over minimum wage employers are able to qualify for tax incentives. So no, they're gettin 7 bucks an hour. Try feeding yourself, let alone a child on that. It's laughable.
I guess that would make me an idiot to someone as smart as yourself.
Anti-intellectualism? CHECK
Anti-Labor? CHECK
Peaons to bygone era of rugged individualism? CHECK
The libertarian trifecta. Applause applause.
Look, Craig, calm down. Your government is not trying to destroy you, it's not invading your life. Organize, protest, support like-minded candidates, raise funds, start businesses and for God's sake vote...vote...vote.
Teabags? Sloganeering? Palling around with right-wing nutbars? This isn't helping you at all Craig.
Whoa, I missed this one. Nice tactic of labeling everything "FAIL". By doing that, you attempt to substitute that for a coherent argument.
"I can, it's called Metra. Or any of the hundreds of public transit systtems around the world (London, Paris, New York) that are run by the government. Just because ours is badly run does not mean the concept is bad."
I can't speak about New York, London, Paris. How about Amtrak? There's another smooth operation.
"The DMV was completely revamped under Jesse White. It's won numerous awards for efficiency."
I was there last week to renew my license. If that is supposed to be an efficient operation and a sign of things to come with govt run health care, I weep for our country even more.
Again, your example doesn't prove the rule.
Great rebuttal. I have given several examples.
"We can debate their effectiveness if you like, but if that's your argument, again, FAIL."
So because they are intended to ease congestion, it is OK. Funny how liberals never measure success by results, only by intentions. Yes, public schools suck but we care about the kids. Yes, welfare isn't helping but we care about the poor. It goes on and on.
"Retention bonuses for people who quit AIG? The highest paid government official would be the poor man at the party compared to even mid-range CEOS. FAIL"
You must be speaking of the retention bonuses that Chris Dodd stuck in the spending bill and Obama knew about but feigned outrage about when they were paid.
"There is no cooporate corruption. AIG/CITI/ENRON/BoA"
Another poor rebuttal. You name four companies out of thousands. I believe there are a higher number of corrupt govt officials than corporations.
FAIL.
"Multi-million dollar golden parachutes, stock options?"
Those are a pittance compared to the bloated pensions received by do-nothig government workers.
"No, four years, then an election based on those 4 years. You have read the constitution right?"
It was a joke. Sorry.
"Well, if you're going to dress up in funny costumes chanting nonsense and generally confusing the issue to the point of incoherence. Yes."
Kind of like you liberals dressing in pink and smearing blood all over youselves to protest the war, and holding die-ins that disrupt traffic? Please.
I'm not a "liberal" by the way. I'm a progressive. But you're still kind of funny.
And if this is the best you can do, you are the ignorant one.
"Good thing that's not what's being advocated here. Cause it's not. Progressive taxation is not socialism. You don't know what it means. "
I'm tired of debating this. Socialism generally is equated with government control. There are many variations of it. This rally was about much more than progressive taxation.
"You have an MBA and I'm an elitist? By elite do you mean competent? Educated? Enlightened? When did being "elite" become a bad thing. Hell, I want everyone to be their best."
An elitist is someone who wants to tell others how to live and generally condescends to those with who they disagree. People like Al Gore who want to ration electricity and fuel but fly in private jets and use more electricity in a month than most folks do in a year.
"Yes, poor and low income people who don't pay much anyway. I'd rather have what little buying power they have go into the economy. The wealthiest, who will see a return to Clinton era (GAH!) taxes. They're not going to go poor or start selling plasma to live. One thing the Obama administration has been doing is closing the Swiss Bank loopholes. Yes, all those noble rich can no longer hide money in foriegn countries. Y'know, tax fraud."
You can only soak the wealthy for so long. There is not enough wealth in the top 5% to pay for all of The Messiah's programs. It sounds like you really don't like the wealthy. Jealous? In a sane world, they would be thanked for paying so much in taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes.
Er, no. Here, read. And get that money back on the MBA.
Ok, that was an error on my part. Guess that renders every single thing I have said meaningless even though you have brought no facts/figures/logic to the table.
"And it was venture capital (really? an MBA?) that allowed internet start-ups to flourish. Venture capital from...wealthy people. Oh no!"
Another insult, very nice. I know it was venture capitalists. I said invention when I probably should have said the introduction of the internet into the mainstream. Are we going to parse words now?
"This is a financial shell game. By paying as little as a dollar over minimum wage employers are able to qualify for tax incentives. So no, they're gettin 7 bucks an hour. Try feeding yourself, let alone a child on that. It's laughable."
And you have facts to back this up? Didn't think so. I am foolish enough to think that the market determines those rates. BTW - did you know tax cuts increase revenue to the federal govt?
"Anti-intellectualism? CHECK
Anti-Labor? CHECK
Peaons to bygone era of rugged individualism? CHECK"
How cute. What a pathetic rebuttal you have brought forth. I made the mistake of thinking you could hold a decent discussion. I can tell from this post that you are the one who is intellectually lacking, yet you carry yourself as intelligent as a cover.
If you are happy with the government that we currently have in Illinois and are willing to see such incompetence and disregard for voters go national, that is great. I think our fundamental disagreement is on that point. You think government holds all the answers and I think they are the problem.
Whoa, I missed this one. Nice tactic of labeling everything "FAIL". By doing that, you attempt to substitute that for a coherent argument.
But your ideas are fail? Yes, I'm mocking you Craig.
I can't speak about New York, London, Paris. How about Amtrak? There's another smooth operation.
Eurorail, Rail Canada, NY Transit, SF Transit, NOA Transit... You name one, I name five. FAIL.
I was there last week to renew my license. If that is supposed to be an efficient operation and a sign of things to come with govt run health care, I weep for our country even more.
Well, clearly your unsubstantiated claim trumps all other findings. How about the post office, y'know the service that delivers billions of parcels and letters a year cheaply and efficiently. They have LINES oh god! Lines!
But you get your package. And you got your license and people would get their health care. Unlike the current system where they'd get...?
Yes, public schools suck but we care about the kids. Yes, welfare isn't helping but we care about the poor. It goes on and on.
So let's hand it over to the caring arms of the Rand corporation? Because HMOs have caused nothing but outbreaks of spontaneous joy and good health for millions?
You ust be speaking of the retention bonuses that Chris Dodd stuck in the spending bill and Obama knew about but feigned outrage about when they were paid.
No, I'm talking about the ones authorized under the Bush 700 Billion dollar bailout that AIG dangled in front of employees in lieu of wages for months at a time.
Clearly, that was Obama's fault.
Another poor rebuttal. You name four companies out of thousands. I believe there are a higher number of corrupt govt officials than corporations.
FAIL.
No, you're doing it wrong, don't try to be funny, you're hysterical just the way you are.
Shall I cite the hundreds of banks, equities firms, hedge funds and defense contractors who have been found by the GAO and others to have committed massive fraud? Google isn't broken Craig.
The difference between a government and a company is you can vote out a government. Yes, voting! It works bitch.
FAIL
Those are a pittance compared to the bloated pensions received by do-nothig government workers.
Again, the highest paid government employee is the poolboy at the CEO party.
Kind of like you liberals dressing in pink and smearing blood all over youselves to protest the war, and holding die-ins that disrupt traffic? Please.
How did that war turn out by the way? Trillion dollar quagmire? Thousands of soldiers dead? Billions in long-term VA care? Upwards of 100K Iraqis killed?
Maybe you should've joined the Code Pink folks Craig?
I'm tired of debating this. Socialism generally is equated with government control. There are many variations of it. This rally was about much more than progressive taxation.
Which has given Americans generation of prosperity. Deny it all you like. You still enjoy it every day.
An elitist is someone who wants to tell others how to live and generally condescends to those with who they disagree.
You mean like the Gay Marriage opponents? Or the creationists who want to strip science education? Or the anti-choice crowd who want to limit reproductive rights? Or Fox News and talk radio who lie, mock and cudgel anyone they broadly define as "liberal"?
People like Al Gore who want to ration electricity and fuel but fly in private jets and use more electricity in a month than most folks do in a year.
You keep mentioning Al Gore. Did he steal your puppy or something Craig? I guess nobel laureates who devote themselves to science education have to be saints or else all their work is just bullshit. Pretty high moral bar their Craig. I think Al Gore's a tad of a hypocrite as well, but I also think his contributions far outweigh his failings. Cause people are complex Craig.
You can only soak the wealthy for so long. There is not enough wealth in the top 5% to pay for all of The Messiah's programs. \
Ugh. Made up kiddie names and games.
Progressive taxation ain't "soaking" anybody.
It sounds like you really don't like the wealthy. Jealous?
Not really. Since I make a comfortable living. I don't mind paying my taxes. I live in a society, with others and I want them cared for when they need it and our common interests seen to. But then, I'm not a petulant teenager with Rand on the brain.
In a sane world, they would be thanked for paying so much in taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes.
I think being rich is thanks enough.
Ok, that was an error on my part.Guess that renders every single thing I have said meaningless even though you have brought no facts/figures/logic to the table.
Er, you apologized, dissembled and then attacked. All in two sentences. Impressive.
No,it just means you were wrong about that. Something I proved. with...facts.
Another insult, very nice. I know it was venture capitalists. I said invention when I probably should have said the introduction of the internet into the mainstream. Are we going to parse words now?
Well, yeah, since you're using them wrong to make points that are factually incorrect.
And you have facts to back this up? Didn't think so. I am foolish enough to think that the market determines those rates.
Are you familiar with the concept of the
There, facts, refuted. Moving on.
BTW - did you know tax cuts increase revenue to the federal govt?
Yes, because people stop cheating on their taxes.
How cute. What a pathetic rebuttal you have brought forth. I made the mistake of thinking you could hold a decent discussion.
You mean all that stuff where I went point by point taking your argument apart and providing you with links and facts that you ignored. Ah, touche sir!
I can tell from this post that you are the one who is intellectually lacking, yet you carry yourself as intelligent as a cover.
I'm a stealth elitist.
If you are happy with the government that we currently have in Illinois
Which I'm not and never said I was. But go on.
and are willing to see such incompetence and disregard for voters go national, that is great.
I'm not and I don't. Is my only choice your way of this horrid garbage you describe? False choice. DId you take logic in college?
I think our fundamental disagreement is on that point. You think government holds all the answers and I think they are the problem.
No. I think government is a common solution to common problems. I think elections are better at determining leaders than share-holder meetings and that the unregulated free market would leave only the very wealthy and very poor. I believe in middle ground, common solutions and good ethical governance.
You're a panic rat scared of your own shadow couched in fear-thinking and sloganeering.
lol Jess,
Exactly what I was thinking before I got to the end of your post, this dude fancies himself as John Galt, which of course is like fancying yourself as Frodo Baggins in LOTR. Main difference? One of those fantasy books is at least very good.
Ayn Rand was little more than a social Darwinist in drag.
I, for one, would rather be Merlin.
2 signs from the CHicago protest (photos are at Huffpo, with credits):
"Barack Hussein Obama The New face Of Hitler” Chicago.
"The American Taxpayers Are The Jews For Obama's Oven" reads one sign in Chicago--
That is plenty offensive and quite irrational. How does one even begin a reasonable discussion of issues with somebody who is holding such a sign?
You don't.
These are the same people who are keeping Glenn Beck's, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al ratings so high.
You cannot have a reasonable conversation with people who believe that Obama is a socialist.
Oh, sure. I'm sure the objective Huffington Post was making no effort to highlight the signs that would put the protest in the worst possible light. No, never.
As I said, the VAST majority of the signs were perfectly appropriate. You can either believe me or not. In the meantime, go ahead and carry on calling everyone teabaggers, idiots, and any other colorful names you come up with that allow you from addressing the themes of the protest.
There are some wackos at every protest. I did see the Hitler sign but didn't see the other one you speak of, though I believe you when you say you saw it. I can honestly say that that was the only sign I saw that was inappropriate, although one about Barney Frank's sexuality could be considered by some to be over the line. You should't judge the entire group of people by those two signs, though I'm sure that's what you want to believe so you will do it anyway. 99.9% of the signs were not out of line. I'm sure the media scouted out those two signs and made sure to publicize them in an effort to discredit the whole protest.
Also, I'm sure you saw all of the Bush/Hitler references (and worse) in protests during his administration. I'm sure you were equally outraged by those.......
"You should't judge the entire group of people by those two signs, though I'm sure that's what you want to believe so you will do it anyway. "
Yet you generalize everyone here as a left-winger. Do as I say, right?
You're right. I probably did generalize too much, but the comments on the board reflected those of left-leaning people.
Two points:
1) If these were really protests about "out-of-control spending," as many defenders claim, and not just right-wing tribal drum circles, why the sign in the image above? Why was ACORN such a central concern for so many of these protestors both in the run-up to the events and at the events themselves? Why were there signs about Obama's birth certificate? Why so many other issues? No, I think this has very little to do with tax policy.
2) In the words of Andrew Sullivan: put up or shut up. You can't protest high taxes and runaway spending without saying what you'd cut. Defense spending? Medicare? Unemployment benefits? Then say so. You can't say "taxes are too high, government spends too much" and expect people to take you seriously. That's not an argument, it's a statement of ideological preference. Tell me what you want changed and why. The absence of specific grievances indicates just how unserious everyone involved in these "parties" is.
Why does this movement show such tolerance for the relatively high percentage of nutjobs that were present?
If I saw even a single protester say "Hey, that is out of line" I would be impressed as all hell. Instead, they cheer and high-five.
But Bill Ayer has nothing--zilch, nada--to do with the current economic crisis. You lost. Let it fucking go already. Those who don't are as sad as the leftists who still kept bitching about W's drunk driving arrest--it has nothing to do with anything anymore, not after the election.
And before you call me a leftist, note that I agree with your view of Ayers, who is, and remains, scum. If you don't believe me, check my posting history.
Funny, its always a "tantrum" whenever people who aren't leftists/Democrats protest. When Democrats do it, its an exercise in consitutionally protected speech.
I am NOT defending Bush, but the deficits under his reign were between $100b - $400b until the TARP money at the very end, which we agree was ridiculous. Obama's future deficits wade into the region of 11-12% of GDP, which is unheard of. I understand the theory behind the stimulus, but I just don't think it will work and I think we just have a difference in philosophy. I do not believe the government is productive with its spending because it has not "earned" the money and spends freely without the constraint of risk that would encourage it to spend wisely. It is human nature that when you spend someone else's money, you take less care in what you invest it in. This is why centrally-planned economies fail, the government does not contain the expertise in the areas they "invest" in to ensure careful investment and monitoring of the use of the funds. This is why I am a proponent of tax cuts and refuse to accept the premise that they caused the financial crisis. I also don't buy the notion that government regulation could have solved this. Who were these magical government regulators who would have concluded that these derivatives were too risky and that the market was distorted with bad loans? I just don't think they exist. The financial crisis was a perfect storm of many variables that came together at the perfect time. Government distorted the housing market by encouraging banks to give bad loans, lenders and brokers had a field day and wrote bad loans that they knew Fannie/Freddie would buy, banks/investment houses concocted models that didn't account for a housing collapse, etc.
I just think we have different views of government. I don't think government draws our best and brightest people and it is evidenced in impotent, wasteful federal programs that do not work. How about the war on poverty? We have transferred trillions from producers to non-producers and created dependency and generational poverty because there is no incentive for them to remove themselves from a situation where they receive something for nothing. Politicians prey on these people and promise to "help" them around re-election time, and we have a vicious cycle.
You say Reagan/Clinton/Bush caused this, I disagree. I think tax cuts are preferable to government spending any day because people who earned their money spend more wisely than government, who spends for reasons of pleasing politicial special interests and their constituiencies. You seem to think government can provide for everyone, but to do that would mean confiscatory taxation and the loss of incentive to produce. In short, it will spread misery equally and we'll become France.
You say Reagan/Clinton/Bush caused this, I disagree. I think tax cuts are preferable to government spending any day because people who earned their money spend more wisely than government, who spends for reasons of pleasing politicial special interests and their constituiencies.
That's a nice gloss on history, but it ignores reality. Reagan and Bush II cut taxes without cutting spending. You want spending cut, tell us what you want cut. Tell us what you think the private markets could do better. Win the argument on the merits. Until the conservative movement is honest with Americans about what government programs they want to do away with, it deserves to be mocked as unserious and devoid of real ideas.
Well, outside of national defense I don't think there is a heck of a lot government does better than the private sector and I thought I laid out my reasons in my post. It has to do with incentives and having a stake/risk in what you are spending money on.
You are wrong about tax cuts. Tax cuts actually increase the revenue to the federal government because it incentivizes citizens to produce and they are more prudent investors with their own money. The money is used for capital/investments, we have economic growth and hence, more tax revenue. Check the data, it's there. Tax cuts increase receipts. The real problem is spending. Our politicians are whores to special interests and voting groups and can't restrain themselves.
Liberalism and Socialism are what are devoid of ideas. They have been tried for centuries and have failed, unless you consider Cuba a success.
Liberalism and Socialism are what are devoid of ideas. They have been tried for centuries and have failed, unless you consider Cuba a success.
The wealthiest countries with the greatest quality of life are examples of what most liberals are pushing for. Strong support for business, strong regulation and strong social programs for its citizens. This isn't "Socialism" or "Capitalism" run amok either. Check out the facts on Scandinavian countries if you think I'm incorrect. You can go live in a tax free, free market paradise like Somalia if you like. At least proud "lefties" like myself have a success to point to.
Craig,
I'm not surprised to see that your deficit numbers are intellectually dishonest as well as outright false. You'd think if you had actually faith in your beliefs you wouldn't need to fudge the numbers.
First, Bush's budget deficit is more like $450 billion.
Second, your figure does NOT account for Iraq and Afghanistan war spending: Nearly ONE TRILLION DOLLARS (emergency supplemental off the books spending).
Third, Bush inherited a $230 billion dollar surplus from Clinton.
Finally, His unaffordable medicare modernization will cripple the country for an unforseable future.
You all want to associate me with Bush. I am not defending him, I don't like him, I think he was terrible, etc. I don't know how many other ways I can say it. I'm sorry that I was off $50b in estimating his deficit. What's $50bn in the Age of Obama?
So I underestimated his deficit, that just proves my point even more. As bad as Bush was, Obama is putting him to shame with his projected spending/deficits. I fully agree about your point on Medicare, but I would think that if you are a liberal who likes Obama, you would like a program like that.
I'm sorry that I was off $50b in estimating his deficit. What's $50bn in the Age of Obama?
Well as I pointed out you were more like 1 Trillion off.
I'm a liberal but I did not vote for Obama, and one of the big reasons why I didn't (of many) is that his economics team and proposals are so tied to Wall Street high finance. This just makes me laugh at the sheer absurdity of the "socialism" accusations even more. Yeah a guy who hires ex-bigwigs from Goldman Sachs (and Milton Friedman fanboys) to advise him is going to turn the U.S. into North Korea...
What a joke..
@Craig Evans "We have transferred trillions from producers to non-producers and created dependency and generational poverty because there is no incentive for them to remove themselves from a situation where they receive something for nothing. "
Not going to try and debate anything you said because you don't 'hear' things, but I just have to comment on your comment above.
You ever been around really wealthy people? They LIVE to get something for nothing. They froth at the mouth over freebies. They are the kings of the loophole and also the ones who stand to benefit the most by tax cuts.
I guess it must be human nature to yearn for something for nothing, but when you're poor and try to do that then you're ruining the economy and being lazy.
No, the real reason you're not going to debate me is because you can't. I wasn't calling the poor lazy or greedy, I was saying that government has encouraged generational poverty with the current welfare system. I actually feel very sorry for the people who are trapped in it because most of them are probably very capable people who have had all ambition sucked out of them.
And as for your comment on the wealthy, there is no doubt that some are crooks, but as with everything else, I believe that the vast majority are not. I am glad I don't have your outlook on life. It sounds like you hate the wealthy and convince yourself they are all scumbags so you have an excuse not to try.
So Ingrid,
There you have Craig's brilliant debate style:
You hate the rich and are lazy because you disagree with me.
Your head is filled with compound logic.
Everyone who fails did so because they did not try hard enough. Right.
There are clearly no societal factors at play. Factors that might be counteracted by loss leading government intervention.
The poorest American can get food, sanitation and housing. That beats about half the humans on the planet by a country mile.
Public health, which you sniff at, keeps pandemics under control and helps increase lifespan. Big Pharm wants to dump money into boner pills by the billions. Without government research thousands of ailments would still be killing people.
You think you'd be better off on your own? Be my guest. Really, I think you should be able to opt out. But you get NOTHING from this forward. You're cut off, entirely. You get, oh, let's say Guam. You and your cohorts. Make your libertarian paradise of free markets, pay as you drive roads and chant "Who is John Galt" till your eyes bleed.
We'd like to build a society of adults working to better everyone's life. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
"We'd like to build a society of adults working to better everyone's life. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out."
Oh, you do? Well, why didn't you say so? I didn't know that is all you wanted. Haha. What a joke. I mean, who doesn't want that? That statement doesn't mean anything, that is a meaningless platitude, like saying you are "for world peace." It is such a general and vague statement that is intended to make you feel good about yourself while making me look like I am against it.
Most liberal statements like that die when you ask the person one simple question - "how are you going to do that?"
Again, you take the argument too far in the other direction and start blabbing about Guam and inferring that I am an anarchist, etc. Protesting against excessive government intervention in our lives is much different than advocating for NO government.
I know you don't have much to say though, that's OK. Just keep hanging around with people with 100% same views as you. YOu can all help each other feel good about yourselves and morally superior to ogres like me.
You take a summary joke and focus on it, so intensely, you can simply ignore the refutation of your entire argument by me, Navin, Matilda and others.
That's the Limbaugh method. Calling me a "liberal" is not only inaccurate, it's not an insult.
The assumption that the left is a bunch of latte sipping limosine liberals is so old man. The last election showed that much.
For the record, I'm friends with people who hold a whole spectrum of weird political beliefs. From a libertarian nut to a couple of dyed in the wool anarchists. The difference between them and you teabagging enthusiasts is their arguments are cogent, not just a ramble of fear-talk from Fox News and talk radio with smatterings of ignorance, general paranoia and racism for flavoring.
They have thought out ideas, you have platitudes and sloganeering.
Go read "Supercapitalism" by Robert Reich, and "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman. Two very different takes on economics. Form some informed opinions and try again.
You have not refuted one thing I have said accurately. I have offered sound logic and reasoning for my beliefs and you have come back with insults, accusations of racism, and vague generalities of "responsible adults working for a better society." I have explained why I believe government spending is not the answer and you call me an idiot. I tell you that tax cuts increase revenue to the federal government and you refuse to believe it and hurl more insults. You are the one who cannot back up your beliefs. Like most leftists/progressives/liberals, your idea of debate is to insult people and attempt to head off any serious debate.
My apologies for calling you a liberal, would you prefer leftist? Either way, you are the one who can't explain why it is I am wrong. You all pretend that you are so smart but I think that is just cover for the fact that you can't explain your thoughts. Liberalism is the easiest, most gutless choice you can make. All you have to do is parrot the media, leftist professors in colleges and Hollywood movie stars. It requires no intellectual pursuit or growth, all you have to do is tell yourself that you are caring and morally superior to others. The idea that liberals are smarter is almost as big of a farce as global warming.
Thanks for the recommendations. I've read most of Milton's work. My personal favorite is Thomas Sowell.
Craig, saying "Nuh uh, you didn't" doesn't take back everything everyone has already taken time to write taking your amorphous and poorly thought out ideas apart piece by piece. Go back, read them, you've been refuted. A bit of libertarian logic, you deal with the deals you make.
Liberalism is the easiest, most gutless choice you can make. All you have to do is parrot the media, leftist professors in colleges and Hollywood movie stars. It requires no intellectual pursuit or growth, all you have to do is tell yourself that you are caring and morally superior to others. The idea that liberals are smarter is almost as big of a farce as global warming.
Oh, I get it, you're doing a parody thing. Whew. I thought you actually believed this stuff.
You are kidding right?
Please?
Seriously? Global Warming is a farce? Is evolution real? How about gravity? Is the earth round? Teach the controversy! There are lots of "theories" about the earth being the center of the universe. Fetch my astrolabe!
My girlfriend's from Spain. The ruling party in Spain is the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. Her 65 year old mother lives in a small town of about 4,000 people that was built in the 60s, but she is within walking distance of everything because it was densely developed. She worked hard and paid off the house, and now that she is retired she knows she'll be taken care of, and all she worked for will never be taken away from her just because she gets sick or isn't a savvy investor. They don't have God-awful schools over there. In fact they turn out students who know more about American history than many Americans do -- all paid by the state. They have high-speed rail connecting the cities in Spain, and transit we can only envy within their cities, because the country funds it. Due to geographic necessity, Spain has invested a lot into green energy. They're beginning to export that innovation and knowledge. Oh, and rich people still get rich there too. Imagine that.
I grew up in a socialistic environment. The government provided my family with free housing. You didn't always get to choose where exactly you lived, but it wasn't bad. There were special stores too, where the prices were very reduced and there were no sales taxes ... although they didn't always have the coolest new CD, or that new cereal that had just come out. And the lines were really long. The government paid for my dad's education, although he had to pay them back with more years of service. He has good retirement and medical benefits for the rest of his life, although he has to go to select facilities for the medical care, so he supplements it with private insurance. I still benefit from membership in the credit union created for the organization my dad worked for, with free banking services.
My dad had a 30-year career in the U.S. Navy.
I just heard a story on NPR (oh noes! Liberalism!) about the green energy initiatives in Spain, which were made possible by government incentives when the technology was a loss leader. Now, a decade later, they're exporting the tech here and cornering the market.
European socialism is about as far removed from Castro's cult of personality as you can get. The notion that old people should have to choose between health care and transit is appaling. The infrastructure we could have, high speed rail and the like? A great investment that will only improve people's chance to succeed.
Plenty of rich people got Euros in the bank.
Thank your dad for his service. My dad was British Royal Navy back in WWII.
Thanks Jess. As an EU citizen, my girlfriend can live and work in *any* EU country she can find a job in. The last time we returned from traveling together and she went through the 'visitor' line at U.S. customs, she was questioned, photographed and lazer-scanned like she was a third-world gypsy trying to swindle her way into the U.S. to take advatage of our valuable educational opportunities and plentiful entitlement programs. What a laugh.
Well, since Texas is looking to secede we can all prep for a body-cavity search when heading to SXSW.
Just a question, how many dead people did your girlfriend have to drag out of the way to see a doctor? Was it over 10?
Man, I miss Spain.
Well, as you told me, don't let the door hit you in the ass.
Good for Texas. Someone has to stand up against this expanding government. Too bad that the governor is not completely sincere. If he were, he would tell Obama to keep all of the stimulus money.
Gotta laugh at Texas and Perry. Perry threatens secession and the rest of the country let's out a collective "GOOD RIDDANCE! PLEASE DO!". Meanwhile only an a tiny 18% agree with him. Good luck with the election Rick.
And here you have the utter stupidity of the tea baggers summed up in one simple news item. I wonder why she didn't refuse the help........uh, pardon me "Goverment Coercion" of the police and 911 lol...
SUNBURY — A quiet, solo protest against massive federal government spending ended in a city woman being rescued from the cold waters of the Susquehanna River on Wednesday morning.
Joanne Millard, 68, a resident at Riverfront Apartments, slipped on a rock and then fell into the water while dumping tea leaves from a plastic bag into the river to protest the recent trillions of dollars in government spending.
While tea party protests occurred in groups of thousands all across the country on Wednesday, Millard protested alone.
“I just felt at the time that no one else here would be interested,” Millard said.
Millard fell face down into the water after slipping. She was in the water for a total of about 10 minutes, she said, and then, around 11:30 a.m., management officials from the apartments, a police officer, and the ambulance, all arrived about the same time to pull her from the water.
She was taken by an ambulance from Americus to Sunbury Community Hospital, where she stayed for several hours until her temperature rose and there was no longer threat of hypothermia.
She received minor injuries, but was back home and doing well by Wednesday afternoon.
While April 15 is often viewed as an impersonal day of government take-back, this peaceful protest may have resulted in more good than originally intended by proving that heroism and opportunity for new friendship is alive and well.
Another resident of Riverfront Apartments — a woman named Hazel who declined to provide her last name had planned on driving Millard to the grocery store in the morning. When Millard didn’t meet her at the scheduled time, she remembered her neighbor’s plans to go to the river.
“Something hit me,” Hazel said, “she’s over at the river.”
That’s when Hazel immediately left the building in search of Millard.
“I practically flew over here,” Hazel said as she stood on the sidewalk of Merle Phillips Park, leaning on a cart owned by Millard, awaiting news of her neighbor’s condition. That’s when she saw her lying in the river.
Hazel attempted to pull her out, but couldn’t, so she hurried back to the apartments to alert management to the emergency.
Manager Wendy Herrold and two other team members hurried to the scene, while one member stayed on the phone with 911, Herrold said.
Herrold and just-arriving Police Officer Wade Lytle then pulled Millard onto the bank.
I am happy that some liberals are branding the Tea Party protesters as racist.
That sort of arrogant leftist talk is only going to push more people into the conservative movcement.
Thanks for the help!
Ward,
I don't think the "conservative movement" wants you guys.....at least not the conservative movement that cares about winning election..
I'm going to try and respond the way you do.
"But your ideas are fail? Yes, I'm mocking you Craig."
Mocking is what you resort to when you can't handle what I am saying. FAIL. Oh, and you are a moron too.
"Eurorail, Rail Canada, NY Transit, SF Transit, NOA Transit... You name one, I name five. FAIL."
Conmpared to what? Other government run operations? That is like being the valedictorian in summer school. I would argue that the NY transit system is nothing too be that proud of. These transportations systems aren't competing against abnything, so calling them "great' is a matter of opinion. FAIL
"Well, clearly your unsubstantiated claim trumps all other findings. How about the post office, y'know the service that delivers billions of parcels and letters a year cheaply and efficiently. They have LINES oh god! Lines!"
As opposed to your claims, which are all substantiated and known facts. The post office is another joke, what low standards you have. You basically agree that it sucks, but at least they deliver a package, which is what they are supposed to do. You are probably the type who will pat their kids on the back for getting Ds and Fs. FedEx is far superior and if you don't see that, then you are blind and beyond help. Wow, what are you going to bring out next as a shining example of government? HUD? Fannie/Freddie? Public schools? FAIL FAIL FAIL
"So let's hand it over to the caring arms of the Rand corporation? Because HMOs have caused nothing but outbreaks of spontaneous joy and good health for millions?"
Again, you agree with me that it sucks and then launch into a sarcastic response. I should know better than to get sucked in to arguing with an idiot like you. You don't bother to refute my arguments, rather you resort to sarcasm. I am perfectly happy with my health care. FAIL.
"No, I'm talking about the ones authorized under the Bush 700 Billion dollar bailout that AIG dangled in front of employees in lieu of wages for months at a time"
Didn't say it was his fault, I just said he knew about it, didn't stop it, and pretended to be outraged when he saw that the public didn't like it. Nice try, but FAIL.
Shall I cite the hundreds of banks, equities firms, hedge funds and defense contractors who have been found by the GAO and others to have committed massive fraud? Google isn't broken Craig.
I have never argued that there is not corruption in business, I just don't believe its on the same scale as govt. Spreaking of fraud, how about Fannie/Freddie? FAIL>
The difference between a government and a company is you can vote out a government. Yes, voting! It works bitch.
Haha. Back to name calling. What an intelligent, sophisticated liberal you must be. FAIL
"Again, the highest paid government employee is the poolboy at the CEO party. "
This statement, more than any others so far, really shows your ignorance.
"Which has given Americans generation of prosperity. Deny it all you like. You still enjoy it every day."
Wow. So you think our prosperity has been brought about by government? Not by people being allowed to pursue their self-interests in a semi-free market? Are you serious? How has this worked? I enjoy prosperity brought about by hard work. I can tell from chatting with you that you are not one who works in the real world and you don't have to be held to any standards. Are you a government worker?
"You mean like the Gay Marriage opponents? Or the creationists who want to strip science education? Or the anti-choice crowd who want to limit reproductive rights? Or Fox News and talk radio who lie, mock and cudgel anyone they broadly define as "liberal"
Back to Fox. I know that all you liberals can do is robotically cite "Fox" and "Bush." It creates a diversion and allows you to avoid defending ideas. Gay marriage has been voted down again and again when brought to a vote. Nobody is imposing anything on anybody there. If the people wanted it, we would have it and if attitudes change, then we will get it. I know you liberals aren't a big fan of democracy, but at this point people are against it. Many people also don't buy global warming and it is not high on their lists of concerns. But I'm sure they are all stupid, unlike you.
"You keep mentioning Al Gore. Did he steal your puppy or something Craig? I guess nobel laureates who devote themselves to science education have to be saints or else all their work is just bullshit. Pretty high moral bar their Craig. I think Al Gore's a tad of a hypocrite as well, but I also think his contributions far outweigh his failings. Cause people are complex Craig. "
Haha! Each comment is more pathetic than the last. Another grade school level reponse. I think he is the epitome of the liberal/socialist who wants to impose a way of life on certain people but doesn't follow it himself. I love your rationalization that people are "complex." I'll remember that next time. If I don't pay my taxes, I'll say it was because I am "complex." Is that the best you can do?
"Ugh. Made up kiddie names and games."
Kind of like you have been doing all along.
"I don't mind paying my taxes. I live in a society, with others and I want them cared for when they need it and our common interests seen to."
Another meaningless, general statement. I want people to be cared for when they need it too, I just resent politicians creating dependence in people who are capable of providing for themselves in an effort to get their vote.
"I think being rich is thanks enough."
Thank the govt for not taking it? Now that is logic! So you don't think that maybe some of these people have worked for it? I am so glad I don't have your world view.
"Are you familiar with the concept of the "
Huh? Couldn't find anthing? I understand.
"Yes, because people stop cheating on their taxes."
Wow, another intelligent response. Much easier than actually admitting I am right about tax cuts.
"You mean all that stuff where I went point by point taking your argument apart and providing you with links and facts that you ignored. Ah, touche sir!"
Just like Obama, you think because you say something, it is true. You provided one link and I haven't seen many facts. You took nothing apart and have offered no specifics. I haven't seen an original thought from you, just "FAIL." You're quite pathetic.
"Which I'm not and never said I was. But go on. "
Well, the only solution you seem to offier is "government should do this" and "government should do that." What intellectual depth. I assumed you were happy with the govt here since govt is your solution to everything.
"I'm not and I don't. Is my only choice your way of this horrid garbage you describe? False choice. DId you take logic in college?"
I don't need to take a course in college to be able to apply logic. What a follower you are. FAIL.
"No. I think government is a common solution to common problems. I think elections are better at determining leaders than share-holder meetings and that the unregulated free market would leave only the very wealthy and very poor. I believe in middle ground, common solutions and good ethical governance."
Another meaningless, vague statement. Well, I might believe in those things too if you would offer any specifics. Who isn't for ethical governance? This is a microcosm of all of your arguments. You are not specific, you come with generalities and claim to refute what I am saying. FAIL.
"You're a panic rat scared of your own shadow couched in fear-thinking and sloganeering."
I really feel sorry for you. I don't buy for a second that you make a comfortable living. You appear to be someone who would rather take from others who work hard and make everything "equal", something that has proven impossible over time. Producers eventually stop producing when over-taxed. Keep waiting for the government to provide for you, Jess. You'll be waiting forever and your life will be even more pathetic than it is right now. I should have known better than to argue with someone who is so clueless and has no original thoughts.
Craig, I've cited articles, web sites and books.
I'm not having an argument with Glenn Becks's bullet points again and again.
You're anti-government hysteria is tiresome and rooted in the belief that an organization that can be voted out of office is inferior to one that cannot be.
You don't like paying taxes, you don't like the President, you don't like "government telling you how to live your life". All fine things. But your argument consists of sneering at Al Gore, science and yelling "you liberals and your..." when challenged. Time and again.
There are many thoughtful conservatives. David Frum (most of the time) and George Will come to mind. They make cogent arguments based on facts. Read more of them, get less from Little Green Footballs and Drudge and you'll be ready for 2010 in no time.
That's when we have an election. Feel free to show up. Cause last time, all your friends, didn't do so hot.
I'm going to try and respond the way you do.
"But your ideas are fail? Yes, I'm mocking you Craig."
Mocking is what you resort to when you can't handle what I am saying. FAIL. Oh, and you are a moron too.
"Eurorail, Rail Canada, NY Transit, SF Transit, NOA Transit... You name one, I name five. FAIL."
Conmpared to what? Other government run operations? That is like being the valedictorian in summer school. I would argue that the NY transit system is nothing too be that proud of. These transportations systems aren't competing against abnything, so calling them "great' is a matter of opinion. FAIL
"Well, clearly your unsubstantiated claim trumps all other findings. How about the post office, y'know the service that delivers billions of parcels and letters a year cheaply and efficiently. They have LINES oh god! Lines!"
As opposed to your claims, which are all substantiated and known facts. The post office is another joke, what low standards you have. You basically agree that it sucks, but at least they deliver a package, which is what they are supposed to do. You are probably the type who will pat their kids on the back for getting Ds and Fs. FedEx is far superior and if you don't see that, then you are blind and beyond help. Wow, what are you going to bring out next as a shining example of government? HUD? Fannie/Freddie? Public schools? FAIL FAIL FAIL
"So let's hand it over to the caring arms of the Rand corporation? Because HMOs have caused nothing but outbreaks of spontaneous joy and good health for millions?"
Again, you agree with me that it sucks and then launch into a sarcastic response. I should know better than to get sucked in to arguing with an idiot like you. You don't bother to refute my arguments, rather you resort to sarcasm. I am perfectly happy with my health care. FAIL.
"No, I'm talking about the ones authorized under the Bush 700 Billion dollar bailout that AIG dangled in front of employees in lieu of wages for months at a time"
Didn't say it was his fault, I just said he knew about it, didn't stop it, and pretended to be outraged when he saw that the public didn't like it. Nice try, but FAIL.
Shall I cite the hundreds of banks, equities firms, hedge funds and defense contractors who have been found by the GAO and others to have committed massive fraud? Google isn't broken Craig.
I have never argued that there is not corruption in business, I just don't believe its on the same scale as govt. Spreaking of fraud, how about Fannie/Freddie? FAIL>
The difference between a government and a company is you can vote out a government. Yes, voting! It works bitch.
Haha. Back to name calling. What an intelligent, sophisticated liberal you must be. FAIL
"Again, the highest paid government employee is the poolboy at the CEO party. "
This statement, more than any others so far, really shows your ignorance.
"Which has given Americans generation of prosperity. Deny it all you like. You still enjoy it every day."
Wow. So you think our prosperity has been brought about by government? Not by people being allowed to pursue their self-interests in a semi-free market? Are you serious? How has this worked? I enjoy prosperity brought about by hard work. I can tell from chatting with you that you are not one who works in the real world and you don't have to be held to any standards. Are you a government worker?
"You mean like the Gay Marriage opponents? Or the creationists who want to strip science education? Or the anti-choice crowd who want to limit reproductive rights? Or Fox News and talk radio who lie, mock and cudgel anyone they broadly define as "liberal"
Back to Fox. I know that all you liberals can do is robotically cite "Fox" and "Bush." It creates a diversion and allows you to avoid defending ideas. Gay marriage has been voted down again and again when brought to a vote. Nobody is imposing anything on anybody there. If the people wanted it, we would have it and if attitudes change, then we will get it. I know you liberals aren't a big fan of democracy, but at this point people are against it. Many people also don't buy global warming and it is not high on their lists of concerns. But I'm sure they are all stupid, unlike you.
"You keep mentioning Al Gore. Did he steal your puppy or something Craig? I guess nobel laureates who devote themselves to science education have to be saints or else all their work is just bullshit. Pretty high moral bar their Craig. I think Al Gore's a tad of a hypocrite as well, but I also think his contributions far outweigh his failings. Cause people are complex Craig. "
Haha! Each comment is more pathetic than the last. Another grade school level reponse. I think he is the epitome of the liberal/socialist who wants to impose a way of life on certain people but doesn't follow it himself. I love your rationalization that people are "complex." I'll remember that next time. If I don't pay my taxes, I'll say it was because I am "complex." Is that the best you can do?
"Ugh. Made up kiddie names and games."
Kind of like you have been doing all along.
"I don't mind paying my taxes. I live in a society, with others and I want them cared for when they need it and our common interests seen to."
Another meaningless, general statement. I want people to be cared for when they need it too, I just resent politicians creating dependence in people who are capable of providing for themselves in an effort to get their vote.
"I think being rich is thanks enough."
Thank the govt for not taking it? Now that is logic! So you don't think that maybe some of these people have worked for it? I am so glad I don't have your world view.
"Are you familiar with the concept of the "
Huh? Couldn't find anthing? I understand.
"Yes, because people stop cheating on their taxes."
Wow, another intelligent response. Much easier than actually admitting I am right about tax cuts.
"You mean all that stuff where I went point by point taking your argument apart and providing you with links and facts that you ignored. Ah, touche sir!"
Just like Obama, you think because you say something, it is true. You provided one link and I haven't seen many facts. You took nothing apart and have offered no specifics. I haven't seen an original thought from you, just "FAIL." You're quite pathetic.
"Which I'm not and never said I was. But go on. "
Well, the only solution you seem to offier is "government should do this" and "government should do that." What intellectual depth. I assumed you were happy with the govt here since govt is your solution to everything.
"I'm not and I don't. Is my only choice your way of this horrid garbage you describe? False choice. DId you take logic in college?"
I don't need to take a course in college to be able to apply logic. What a follower you are. FAIL.
"No. I think government is a common solution to common problems. I think elections are better at determining leaders than share-holder meetings and that the unregulated free market would leave only the very wealthy and very poor. I believe in middle ground, common solutions and good ethical governance."
Another meaningless, vague statement. Well, I might believe in those things too if you would offer any specifics. Who isn't for ethical governance? This is a microcosm of all of your arguments. You are not specific, you come with generalities and claim to refute what I am saying. FAIL.
"You're a panic rat scared of your own shadow couched in fear-thinking and sloganeering."
I really feel sorry for you. I don't buy for a second that you make a comfortable living. You appear to be someone who would rather take from others who work hard and make everything "equal", something that has proven impossible over time. Producers eventually stop producing when over-taxed. Keep waiting for the government to provide for you, Jess. You'll be waiting forever and your life will be even more pathetic than it is right now. I should have known better than to argue with someone who is so clueless and has no original thoughts.
Craig, I've cited articles, web sites and books.
I'm not having an argument with Glenn Becks's bullet points again and again.
You're anti-government hysteria is tiresome and rooted in the belief that an organization that can be voted out of office is inferior to one that cannot be.
You don't like paying taxes, you don't like the President, you don't like "government telling you how to live your life". All fine things. But your argument consists of sneering at Al Gore, science and yelling "you liberals and your..." when challenged. Time and again.
There are many thoughtful conservatives. David Frum (most of the time) and George Will come to mind. They make cogent arguments based on facts. Read more of them, get less from Little Green Footballs and Drudge and you'll be ready for 2010 in no time.
That's when we have an election. Feel free to show up.
"I really feel sorry for you. I don't buy for a second that you make a comfortable living. You appear to be someone who would rather take from others who work hard and make everything "equal", something that has proven impossible over time. "
Sorry, Craig, but your comments here have crossed the border to stupid.
No one is calling for socialism.
No one is calling for communism.
No one is calling for making everything and everyone "equal" beyond what the Founders and others have envisioned. No one is saying we should try Animal Farm in real life.
Merely, this is one of those times in American history when 1) Capitalism needs a reboot; and 2) Large national investments--this time in health care and infrastructure--need to be made.
Really, this is nothing so new, and certainly nothing so evil.
And it is nothing new that lunatic fringe--they've been around since at least the Whisky Rebellion--bitches that it has to pay taxes. Unfortunately, the fringe can only bitch and moan, and can offer no alternatives beyond--in this case--PR releases disguised as serious budgets. For instance, you still have not identified what spending you would cut to make up for decreased revenues. And please spare me the Laffer Curve crap--The massive deficits under Reagan and Bush II should leave any Laffer enthusiast embarrassed at the shortcomings of that theory. Frankly, I expect something better from a person who claims to have studied business and finances.
Quit constructing straw men and willfully misstating the arguments of others. You kicked off this crap by terming everyone who opposed you here as a leftwing, even though I am sure that not all of us are--in fact, on national security issues, I would wager that I am to the right of you.
In case you get your feelings hurt by all the names, read again about why I think you deserve them. Seriously, you're not even arguing with other people so much as with yourself and the shadows you have created.
I don't feel sorry for you. I feel angry at your kind, your foolishness and short-sighted ideas that rarely go beyond tax cuts all the time. Your kind has done tremendous damage to the long-term health of the country, on a scale rivaled only by the reckless and idiotic guns-and-butter polices of LBJ (see, I am angry as Dems, too).
Haha. The anger in your response just goes to show that you are not able to have a reasonable discussion and can't stand it when people disagree with you.
The reason I cite liberalism and socialism is because nobody else on here seems to want to define what the hell it is that they believe in, so I am forced to make small assumptions. So "capitalism needs to be rebooted." I didn't realize it was that simple. Bravo. I guess all of you are just for "what's right", or "sensible" or "fair", correct? What a comfortable position. I am all for "world peace" and "economic justice", but unfortunately those terms have to be defined and a strategy to acheive them has to be deemed feasible. It is so easy to sit on the sidelines, as you are doing, and point out that people are wrong in your eyes and if only we listen to someone as smart and non-partisan as you, the world would be a better place. Its also easy to blame people like me for this whole crisis, much easier than having to think about it.
Tax cuts increase revenue to the federal government. Do you hear me? They INCREASE revenue to the government. The problem is that entitlements are growing at a much faster rate than revenue and our politicians cannot control themselves when it comes to spending. Revenue is more closely correlated to income levels than tax rates. You can deny it all you want, that doesn't mean its not true. And great refutation of the Laffer Curve -"spare me the Laffer Curve crap." Very intelligent response. Do you really think that high taxes don't influence behavior? I'm sorry, that's was probably too specific for you. You probably don't even know what the Laffer Curve is, you just saw someone ripping it on The Daily Kos.
I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me, I was just pointing out the pehchant for name calling on this board.
So keep enjoying life from your pedestal, looking down upon people like me and assigning blame without defining your own ideas. Man, I wish we could all be as smart as you. Does it make you feel good to be angry at others? I know, its much easier than looking at yourself for your unhappiness.
You do realize that anger often is the fuel of political change, and that many great leaders we admire were pretty freaking angry, right? No, I don't fashion myself a John Adams, but perhaps you get the point.
As well, I saw a good deal of anger among the teabaggers,
Finally, is your idea now that angry people can't be reasonable people?
Good luck with that.
"So keep enjoying life from your pedestal, looking down upon people like me and assigning blame without defining your own ideas."
Fucking Christ. Stop with the martyr act. First, you boast about your comfortable life, then you whine about your suffering at the hands of people that, I guess, include myself. Get the fuck over yourself. While you are entertaining enough to argue with, no one here really cares enough about you to look down on you. Presumably, no one here even knows you, or will ever meet you.
As well, are you really so weak that people such as myself can really look down upon you? Sounds like a problem of self-esteem on your part, my capitalist brother.
Most of us, time and time again in this thread, have offered specifics. You still don't have any spending cuts to offer to offset your revenue cuts. Again, how the fuck does an MBA not realize this?
Yes, I believe in evolution and gravity and those have nothing to do with global warming. There is a large contingent of scientists who do not believe it and the number is growing every day. They are not all funded by evil corporations. Al Gore is more invested in the global warming farce than anyone, its made him a rich man. I would think that you have a problem with that, but I'm sure you don't.
I shouldn't have gotten sucked in to arguing with someone who is incapable of defending their ideas. You state that my ideas are "poorly thought out" and "have been refuted", and by saying it you think it becomes true. I can tell you don't have much more than that.
So go on, keep following like a good little lemming. Never bother to question conventional wisdom, and keep labeling people who disagree with you to avoid debating them. Also, when you throw these names at people and speak in general terms like saying "I'm for helpig people", continue to claim you've debunked their arguments. You're really pathetic. I would bet you don't amount to much in the real world, which is why you name-call and hold yourself above others morally. You don't get any personal satisfaction out of anything you do in life, so that is what you do.
"There is a large contingent of scientists who do not believe it and the number is growing every day."
That is a shameless lie.
Are there scientists unsure about the effects of global warming?
Of course.
Is there a growing number who dismiss that human activity is playing the major role in current global warming?
No fucking way. No fucking way. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence about our role in current global warming. Why don't you actually talk to some scientists, as I've been lucky enough to do thanks to family and friend connections, or read some literature from the scientific community instead of right-wing propaganda sites?
FINALLY, that your kind keeps getting their panties in a bunch about Al Gore only proves you are unable to separate message from messenger, something many school kids can accomplish but the right wing cannot.
The BBC has a nice, simple refutation of the climate change denial mob.
Craig, read that. Really, eye-opening science stuff there.
But it's British, and they're all dirty socialists.
"The BBC has a nice, simple refutation of the climate change denial mob."
Oh, the BBC says so? Well then, it must be true. The BBC is complete liberal rag. What would your reaction be if I posted something from Fox News? This is the same thing.
This is why I don't post anything. Every time I have done so (before entering this forum), I am accused of posting right wing propaganda and the conversation devolves even further than this one has.
Good to see you take your marching orders from the BBC. I'm sure the New York Times is high on your list as well.
There are not two sides to the story in your opinion. This shows how arrogant and dismissive you are.
I have this image of 2050 with Craig and a bunch of other Teabaggers in the flooded ruins of Old Chicago demanding more evidence from the rising tide.
Anyone who thinks that Al Gore is manipulating tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientists into some massive global conspiracy has popped a screw.
"There is a large contingent of scientists who do not believe it and the number is growing every day."
That is a shameless lie.
Are there scientists unsure about the effects of global warming?
Of course.
Is there a growing number who dismiss that human activity is playing the major role in current global warming?
No fucking way. No fucking way. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence about our role in current global warming. Why don't you actually talk to some scientists, as I've been lucky enough to do thanks to family and friend connections, or read some literature from the scientific community instead of right-wing propaganda sites?
FINALLY, that your kind keeps getting their panties in a bunch about Al Gore only proves you are unable to separate message from messenger, something many school kids can accomplish but the right wing cannot.
Love how Craig's opening gambit here was an attempt to claim that most of the teabaggers such as himself aren't extremists or nutters, just wisened libertarians...............
And then he proceeds to parrot every single feeble bumper sticker slogan that all these other mouthbreathers do.
Wow, "mouthbreathers." How intellectual.
This is all you liberals know how to do. Generalize, demonize and insult. All you can do is attempt to gang up on someone and then hurl juvenile names. Nice work.
"This is all you liberals know how to do. Generalize, demonize and insult. All you can do is attempt to gang up on someone and then hurl juvenile names. Nice work."
Don't sell yourself short--the GOP was damn good as this over the last eight years, and continues to show its talents.
Are you even trying to pretend you are not a rank partisan at this point? Or has this turned in a form of self-satisfaction for your? One would think an MBA--well, one smart enough to save his money before the layoff--could afford better Internet gratification.
At least I know what the defecit actually is eh Craig? No response to that from you or any of Matilda inconvenient facts. Ashamed at all that your entire political beliefs are rooted in intellectual dishonesty?
Craig, now play nice.
-You called obama "the messiah"
-You ranted against Al Gore
-You don't believe in Climate Change
This is bumper sticker thinking Craig. It's not factual, it's not an argument, it's just a "gut reaction".
That's no way to have a discussion Craig. Try again.
Maybe you guys could meet at the next rally and talk about it.
Craig Evans, your patience and resilience in the face of such utter sophistry is truly commendable. Clearly, Karl Rove must be giving both talking points and moral support (had to throw that in there as Fox News, Bush, talk radio, etc… had already been used ad nauseum).
Oh, and as a UK citizen I’d like to state for the record that our rail service is a dreadful FAILure.
Thanks. Its not as much patience and resilience as it is boredom. I've been home sick the last two days. This has passed the time quite nicely. I do not expect people like this who are brainwashed, conforming followers to be converted to, or even respect, my point of view. Its just funny to see what dismissive, know-it-alls they think they are. Everything is everybody else's fault, people who don't think like them are idiots, etc. They are huge hypocrites as well. Obama has left many of Bush's policies in place, yet now they are just fine. He is for faith-based initiatives, he is keeping the troops in Iraq, he is escalating Afghanistan, he is deficit spending and increasing the debt, and he killed a couple of downtrodden, misunderstood victims that the media so cruelly label as "pirates." Maybe these people are just "complex."
These people think they are intelligent because they say they are, yet their arguments are steeped in name-calling, foul language and vague, flowery statements.
I guess your comments are just steeped in hypocrisy then. Two threads down from your little defense here you're calling people "stupid", "shallow", "spilling vitriol", etc.
There are plenty of great points to be made against excessive government spending. But your personal attacks juxtaposed with your criticisms of others for the same aren't helping your case any.
"Everything is everybody else's fault, people who don't think like them are idiots, etc. "
And your kind doesn't seen to know the meaning of accountability or blame. Do you not think people in leadership positions make mistakes or get things horribly wrong or even game the system?
Before you try to dismiss me as a hopeless leftwinger just trying to mooch off your glorious success (actually, I've made a decent living since college, one that has given me ample chance, for instance, to travel the world in comfort), I realize that many of these mistakes go back to previous administrations, including Dems.
I love your arguments, though: You tend to project your own bias onto others, making up assumed motives as you go along.
"These people think they are intelligent because they say they are, yet their arguments are steeped in name-calling, foul language and vague, flowery statements."
Again, have you been living on Mars for the last eight years? Are you really this ignorant and obtuse?
Still waiting for what spending you would cut to offset your proposed revenue declines .... waiting ..... waiting ... waiting for specifics beyond your own vague, flowery statements ....
I'll ignore all of your highly intellectual ramblings about me living on Mars, being ignorant/obtuse, projecting my bias unto others, etc, and move on to this:
"Still waiting for what spending you would cut to offset your proposed revenue declines .... waiting ..... waiting ... waiting for specifics beyond your own vague, flowery statements ...."
You have to be making an effort to skip over the approximately six times I have stated that TAX CUTS INCREASE REVENUE. Either that, or you just refuse to believe it. Reagan nearly doubled revenue to the federal government in his 2 terms. As awful as Bush was, some of the largest monthly tax receipts came in the aftermath of his tax cuts. I do not accept your premise that GDP/production is flat and tax cuts just provide less revenue from a fixed amount of GDP/production.
Second, this question is a trap. You want me to come out and say that I would cut social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, welfare, and allow people to die on the streets. At that point, you would jump in and say "See! People like you don't care about the poor! I do! I care more than you! How can you let all of these people die!", etc. Its very predictable.
I will partially bite though, just to give you an answer. The government is so bloated, there are many, many departments/programs that can be axed, reduced or reformed. I think entitlements, government salaries/pensions, earmarks, the EPA, Education Department, and useless government studies (cow flatulence and tattoo removal are two examples) provide plenty of opportunities to cut. The thing is, these obligations aren't just there, they didn't just appear. Government keeps making commitments to them to further themselves in most cases. It has gone beyond the point of helping the helpless. They are now buying votes and handing out more and more to people who don't need it.
So this is where you say that I am anti-education, anti-environment, racist, and want people to die rather than help them. I know its coming.
Yeah Craig,
You've really been reasonable here, I loved it when you basically said that anybody who disagrees with you obviously wants to live in Cuba, which would also imply that we're "Communists". That's some real honest discourse there man, anybody who doesn't agree is a communist. Nevermind that I personally think communism is as much of a farce as libertarianism, in fact I always find it hilarious that both libertarians *and* communists are always talking about how "the conditions were never right" for either or their dogmas to be successful...
Craig,
I know how you like to put a halo around Reagan's head, but the truth is that the halo is somewhat tarnished.
Reagan's 1981 tax cuts paved the way for massive budget deficits.(remember the increase in defense spending?)
So, in the end, Benevolent Ronnie was forced to RAISE taxes. Twice. It is Obama's stimulus plan that has given us the largest two year tax cut in history.
And please stop with the harping on useless government studies. You sound like Palin when she was squawking, ignorantly, about fruit fly studies in her usual dismissive and contentious manner. Like she would know anything about the importance of scientific studies.
And isn't it nice that Reagan got to live out the end of his days in comfort, with the best of health care and family around him? When so many who don't have the resources live their days out in abusive and neglectful nursing homes. As long as he is comfortable that's all that matters. I wonder how many studies done on alzheimers would have been called wasteful earmarks if he were still alive and in power today?
"Reagan's 1981 tax cuts paved the way for massive budget deficits.(remember the increase in defense spending?)"
Wow. I have never thought you were particularly bright, but you really can't be this stupid. Have you been reading my replies? Do you ignore them or just refuse to address them? Reagan's tax cuts INCREASED revenue by nearly double. Do you know what an increase is? Do you know what revenue is? Defense spending was ramped up to combat the USSR (a country you probably admire), but REVENUE ALMOST DOUBLED. So, holding spending equal, he would have had a much bigger deficit had he not cut taxes. I know, all this talk of revenue is a bit complex.
"It is Obama's stimulus plan that has given us the largest two year tax cut in history."
Oh, good to see that you are now pro-tax cut. My time has not been completely wasted. Where did you get this stat? I would love to see how someone massaged those numbers.
"And please stop with the harping on useless government studies. You sound like Palin when she was squawking, ignorantly, about fruit fly studies in her usual dismissive and contentious manner. Like she would know anything about the importance of scientific studies."
Oh, yes. How could I forget? I am shocked that Palin has not been brought up to this point. That is another person you libs love to demonize. I have no use for her, I don't think she'll be relevant much longer, however I do not hate her and I do not come unhinged at the very sight of her. The only theory I can come up with for the depth of your hatred is jealousy. She came from modest means, raised five kids and became a mayor and governor. You would think that women would at least admire her rise, but no. You love someone like Hillary who had to ride her husband's coattails to where she is and does not have one substantive accomplishment in all of her years in public service.
"And isn't it nice that Reagan got to live out the end of his days in comfort, with the best of health care and family around him?"
Haha. So you found someone I admire and now you focus in on them and attack. Seriously, you should really work on coming up with actual reasons why you are a liberal. This tactic of just attacking others is not going to work forever, eventually the Democrats are going to be held responsible for what happens in the country. The vast majority of Americans have access to health care. If you were to die, you would probably get similar treatment. Nationalizing health care and reducing the quality and availablity for everyone is not the answer.
"When so many who don't have the resources live their days out in abusive and neglectful nursing homes. As long as he is comfortable that's all that matters."
And there it is. This completes the typical liberal "argument". A emotion-based reflection on the cruelty of our society and pat-on-the-back for being such a caring person.
Did you know that a study by Arthur Brooks found that liberals are very stingy when it comes to charitable giving? Conservatives are much more giving. My theory on that is that it is because nobody is present for liberals to show how compassionate they are. When nobody is watching for them to "show off" their compassion, they are not very giving. Liberalism and over-emotional compassion is more about you than the people you feel sorry for.
But there were deficits that Bush 1 had to raise taxes to help fight. Sorry, but defense spending, no matter how much it is needed--I think the 600-ship Navy effort was worthwhile, for instance, and even Star Wars because it scared the hell out of the USSR--is part of government spending. You can't just pretend it does not exist as part of the overall budget. Fucking christ.
You really have an MBA?
From what? Iowa Barber College?
"But there were deficits that Bush 1 had to raise taxes to help fight. Sorry, but defense spending, no matter how much it is needed--I think the 600-ship Navy effort was worthwhile, for instance, and even Star Wars because it scared the hell out of the USSR--is part of government spending. You can't just pretend it does not exist as part of the overall budget. Fucking christ."
All this time, you finally answer me, and this is what you come up with? Very disappointing. My point was that it was an extraordinary time that required significant increases in defense spending, so hence we had a deficit. However, his deficit as a % of GDP was tiny, and not nearly what it is today and will be when Obama takes it to 11-15%. You're awfully hung up on deficits, hard to see how you reconcile your support for Obama's multi-trillion deficits with your fiscal conservatism.
"You really have an MBA? From what? Iowa Barber College?"
Actually, Iowa Barber turned me away. I'm still pretty bitter about it. I had to settle for DePaul.
Well, DePaul's just about as bad, so my sympathies.
Listen, now is also an extraordinary time by any historical or economic measure. The challenges we face now are every bit as great as those faced during the last 'hot' days of the Cold War. Our current form of capitalism--as happens every so often, the last time in the 1930s--is broken, requiring repair. Our infrastructure needs updating. Our health care system is too expensive and inefficient. S.Security and Medicaid/Medicaire need massive repair, and unless you think you can go against decades of political will and voter expression and simply scrap those programs, we have to find a way to fix them.
AND IN THE MIDST OF ALL THIS all you can offer is the simplistic drum beat of no new taxes, not even increases of SINGLE FUCKING PERCENTAGE POINTS. And I find it odd that none of you people did any teabagging under Bush, whose deficits resulted from far more than a response to 9-11 (you've heard of the prescription drug benefit, right)?
WHY DO YOU PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE AMERICA WEAKER, THEN? That is what I don't understand. You have this idea that the free market solves all problems, when history , including US history, shows a different story.
Again, sorry about the DePaul MBA thing. Some things can't be helped.
Haha. You have really hit bottom. You are so intellectually shallow and desperate, you have gone to ripping on the school that I received my MBA. Bravo. Can't you see that all you liberals and your friends do is spew vitriol? You have no base for your beliefs so you have to attack. The truth is, your arguments are so devoid of fact and/or reason, they are almost impossible to respond to. I really have to blame myself for carrying on for so long with such idiocy.
"Our current form of capitalism--as happens every so often, the last time in the 1930s--is broken, requiring repair."
This is an opinion, not a fact. I believe that the main player in the crisis was government, who distorted the housing market by encouraging bad loans and by allowing Fannie/Freddie to basically buy up anything, good or bad.
"Our infrastructure needs updating."
Very general statement. Like what? Let me guess, this is where you bring up the Minnesota bridge collapse.
"Our health care system is too expensive and inefficient."
Oh yes, and we need a healthy dose of government control, the ultimate model of efficiency.
"S.Security and Medicaid/Medicaire need massive repair, and unless you think you can go against decades of political will and voter expression and simply scrap those programs, we have to find a way to fix them."
Wow. Massive repair, huh? Very specific. I assume by that you mean raise taxes on the evil, selfish wealthy, which will be defined as $50k in a few years.
"AND IN THE MIDST OF ALL THIS all you can offer is the simplistic drum beat of no new taxes, not even increases of SINGLE FUCKING PERCENTAGE POINTS. And I find it odd that none of you people did any teabagging under Bush, whose deficits resulted from far more than a response to 9-11 (you've heard of the prescription drug benefit, right)?"
Well, we agree on something. The prescription drug benefit is a disaster. However, i would think a compassionate little liberal like you would like that program. You are very passionate about raising taxes. Maybe you should take some of that passion and try to better yourself.
"WHY DO YOU PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE AMERICA WEAKER, THEN? That is what I don't understand. You have this idea that the free market solves all problems, when history , including US history, shows a different story."
Again, no examples, just mindless babble. The free market allocates resources a hell of alot more efficiently than government. Just what is it that gives you such a blind faith in govt? You appear to have a belief that government solves all problems, which to me completely removes any credibility you have. Transit systems, DMV, public schools, public housing, war on poverty, etc. The list goes on. The fact that you advocate increased government activity shows how ignorant you really are.
"Again, sorry about the DePaul MBA thing. Some things can't be helped."
Haha. Again, so desperate.
You sound like a broken record with your insults and calls for "more government." How brilliant you must be to suggest that as the solution to everything. I'd love to see what a pathetic, dependent little slug you really are. It would prove my point nicely.
I see you've fallen for the myth of Reagan as well.
Reagan = massive spending and deficits and low revenue. Abysmal employment rates, high rate of failed business and so on. George Bush the elder became very unpopular having to clean up Reagan's failed voodoo economics experiment.
Actually you've really played your hand here. Any *real* serious Libertarian would be very critical of Reagan's massive spending. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa013.html
"I see you've fallen for the myth of Reagan as well."
He's one of the most popular presidents of all time and has actually come the closest to advocating freedom and less government involvement in our lives. You are the one who has fallen for a myth, a man who reads off of a teleprompter and hypnotizes you robots with such depth as "hope" and "change".
Reagan = massive spending and deficits and low revenue. Abysmal employment rates, high rate of failed business and so on. George Bush the elder became very unpopular having to clean up Reagan's failed voodoo economics experiment.
I don't even know where to begin with this. Revenue under Reagan doubled. It is documented. You have ignored it and now you are just plain lying.
You people are following the liberal playbook to perfection. Rip on others, take attention off of your big government ideas, don't offer any justification for your stances and insult, insult, insult. Nice job.
So since you are also such a deficit hawk, you must be concerned about Obama's deficits and increase of the national debt, right? Try to answer without using the following words: "Bush", "Foxnews", "Reagan", "Cheney". Think you can do it?
I have no use for her,
What a loving sentiment.
I don't think she'll be relevant much longer,
Yes, we need great thinkers like Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee and...
God you people on the right are so fucked.
however I do not hate her and I do not come unhinged at the very sight of her.
More terrified that a person who was going to be a heartbeat away from the presidency could not handle a softball interview with Katie Couric
Or the Bund Rallies she held.
Or her ridiculous personal makeover expenses.
The only theory I can come up with for the depth of your hatred is jealousy.
I really do think you're pulling an Andy Kaufman on us baby.
She came from modest means, raised five kids and became a mayor and governor. You would think that women would at least admire her rise, but no.
Yeah, not like the commie pinko Barack Obama. He had everything handed to him with a silver spoon. Elitist.
No one hated her for her ability to get elected or give birth. They were mortified by her complete lack of cogency and the hard right stance she had on pretty much everything.
Nationalizing health care and reducing the quality and availablity for everyone is not the answer.
Ok last chance before the weekend Craig, what is the answer?
Dazzle us.
I just picked my nose and the result was more productive than this discussion.
I you dug all the way back into the comments just to say that. Congrats, you're lamer than all of us.
Jesus, take a fricking joke. At this point, this discussion has become a study in the futility of arguing online. It's like rocks throwing rocks at other rocks.
i don’t see what all this fuss is about with you libs… just lie back, light up your favorite intoxicating substance, and be content that the chinese will always be there to fund our nation’s largess. you should also be soothed that barney frank, chris dodd, harry waxman, et al. should really be able build some rock solid, economic underpinnings under this nation with their phalanx of well funded bureaucrats, trail lawyers, unions and academics. please don’t let a bunch of racist, fiscal conservatives and an irrelevant gop stand in the way of your future outlays. clearly, a massive government which is leveraged up to its eyeballs is the way to "to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity". this strategy worked so very well when employed by the proletariat and their corporate oppressors over the past several years. i guess it’s a bit different when you control the monetary printing press but what’s a little double digit inflation between friends?!? since you’re obviously so worked up about these pesky little tea parties, you guys should tweet all your favorite soros funded 501(c)s and urge them to organize 'asset forfeiture' parties all over the country. i’d like to recommend fashioning these events after burning man and touching a large effigy of saint matthew (the patron Saint of bankers) at the climax of the event.
And the award for cramming the most stereotypes into 1,000 words or less goes to Sinep. Congratulations. Not sure what the prize is, though.
Sinep,
If characterizing us as frivolous hippies and Democrats makes you feel better for not being able to piece together a coherent argument I guess you have to do what you've got to do. I'm not a Democrat myself and Matilda's more of a conservative than a liberal. Personally I'm amused/befuddled by your interest in Frank, Dodd and Waxman, considering that you're a "UK citizen".
"... Matilda's more of a conservative than a liberal."
On some things. On mass transit I am a raging socialist (though I think investing in mass transit makes fiscal sense in the long run, so maybe that makes me conservative, or maybe not)
See, labels aren't really any good in the long run, are they?
You know you've got a Che' poster on your wall!
Nah, just a T-shirt under my business suit
I'm still waiting to hear anything from the right wing other than yelling about lower taxes, "teh gays" and generalized paranoia.
The Reagan era is over, praise Allah.
uh...oh...
Craig,
Wow...the knives are starting to fly now, eh? And now I'm not too bright and actually downright stupid.
That really hurts.
Not.
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001445.htm
Nationalizing health care and reducing the quality and availablity for everyone is not the answer.
Both Canada and the UK, for example have nationalized care that's cheaper and better than ours and as a result they have a healthier population. This is a fact. Full Stop. People in both countries are living better lives because of their health systems.
Bill Moyers did a show highlighting health care systems around the world. It was interesting and horrifying to see how abysmal our health care system here is compared to other countries.
An anecdotal reference: recently someone very close to me was diagnosed with kidney disease. He and his wife have insurance through her work. But he had to miss an apt. last week that was going to lead to him getting on the kidney donor list...that is until the insurance company called to tell them that they wouldn't be covering him anymore.
So now, this young couple who were just recently married and bought their first house is contemplating bankruptcy, and mortality. They already owe the hospital over $10,000 from when he did not have health insurance. They work hard, and have insurance and STILL have to worry like this. This is NOT acceptable.
It is just not acceptable.
I,myself, cannot get health insurance because of a so-called pre existing condition that never even existed. It's insane. It's not acceptable. We need universal health care in this country.
Bill Moyers? Nice source. I'd be hard pressed to find a more far-left commentator. That website you provided is also a liberal website. Of course, you are such a follower and so easily brainwashed, you probably think that those sources are objective. This is why I don't post anything. It is immediately accused of being right-wing. What would you say if I posted an article from Fox News?
All those facts are liberal facts!
This is how people who are losing arguments try to stay in the game. They don't address the facts, the impugn the messenger, claim bias and dissemble.
Still waiting on your health care ideas?
Of course, we've been waiting on those from the right for years...
Actually, the first one to claim the other is "losing the argument" is usually the one who loses. Do I need to define the word "facts" for you? I dont think you know what it means. I don't see any facts in your posts. Anecdotal references do not equal facts.
Try again.
I can't read it for you Craig. I'm not mom and you are not in you jammies.
There are stacks of links, books, articles and authors in my and others posts. Ignore them all you like. Again, I hear it's bliss.
This isn't even an argument anymore, it's Navin and Matilda and Ingrid and I seeing just how deep your rabbit hole goes. Apparently, it's infinite.
Is that what you think? You are pretty detached from reality. I know that liberals can't handle themselves in a one-on-one argument and need to outnumber, but this collective effort it really bad on your end. You don't have an original thought in your collective brains. Its really sad that there are three of you spewing such garbage and you still can't put a coherent, reasoned argument forth.
I am sad to say I must leave you at this time. I was hoping my flu could get me out of going to a wedding in Milwaukee this weekend, but my wife isn't going for it and I've got to pick her up to go. I'll log back on when I get back Sunday. Have a great weekend liberals, and please try to study up a little bit so you are able to actually articulate why it is you believe what you believe rather than just saying that everyone not a leftist is stupid and more government is the answer to everything. I know it'll be hard, but why don't you (GASP) try reading a non-leftist source/study. Probably too much to expect.
How about you try reading the Cato link I put up for you about Reagan? Or do you think Cato isn't Libertarian enough? You're a buffoon.
Canada and the UK have better systems than ours? Is that what you really believe? Wow, you are so easily led. Do you ever question anything or do you just spout what you hear from liberal sources?
Our friend from the UK would know better than any of us, but those systems are saddled with long waits for basic services, a shortage of doctors, government approval for medical conditions, and many other inefficiencies. People from Canada and the UK often come here for medical procedures. I would think the opposite would be true if their care were so stellar.
I assume you're confused, because you just described HMOs here in the US much more aptly than the national health care in either the UK or Canada.
Are the perfect? No, and no one claims that. But people choosing between basic medical care and bankruptcy is not a model for success.
In addition, under a national plan, preventative health care is a priority, meaning you can see a doctor before you need a much more costly and invasive procedure.
Think of it like a car. Yes, oil changes can be a hassle, but if you don't get them you're going to be paying a mechanic a lot more.
1. Our healthcare is way more expensive.
2. Millions of U.S. citizens have no care.
3. Yes some people do come here for some kind of special operation here and there. Big whoop? What good are those private high priced doctors if 99.9% of our citizenry can't afford them?
4. If you get cancer today in the U.K. you'll be taken care of, in the U.S. no such luck.
Awaiting your brilliant response about 'socialists' and the 'media'.
i was just trying to point out that those of you who believe that these economic policies are grand should be elated instead of spewing so much vitriol against an apparently insignificant minority.
"Personally I'm amused/befuddled by your interest in Frank, Dodd and Waxman, considering that you're a "UK citizen"." - because i currently pay taxes here and i've watched the same policies they espouse eviscerate my county's productivity and economic competitiveness.
"I'm still waiting to hear anything from the right wing other than yelling about lower taxes" - instead of cutting them, how about just simplifying them!?! or maybe cutting spending a tad by eliminating redundant/non-essential federal agencies/programs (eg: japan-us friendship commission. an interesting cause, but probably not essential right now?).
That's your problem, you see criticism of extremists as tacit approval of Obama's policies, never mind that I didn't vote for him precisely because of his policies. Thing is that their criticisms of Obama are comically stupid: "Socialist!" "Fascist!" and so on. This is why most of the population's laughing at/creeped out by these folks. There are legitimate complaints about the stimulus etc. They just aren't making them.
Haha. You crack me up. All you do is say "universal health care" and it solves everything. Wow, that is easy. Have you ever taken five seconds to think about whether or not it would improve the care in this country? Or are you more interested in bringing everyone who pays insurance down to be as miserable as you are?
Another non-response from Craig the brilliant debater!
I have had many reasoned responses through this whole two-day extravaganza. A parrot can be taught to debate in the same depth as you. Your answer for everything is "Government! Government! Government!" That way you don't have to get involved in all of the messy specifics of whether or not it would work.
So are you worried about Obama's trillion dollar deficit spending and debt increase or is it OK with you because it will bring the tax increases you so desire? Its very easy for someone like you to demand things be taken from others.
I am worried about it, but not because of taxes, as you know we are all getting tax breaks unless you make over $250,000 a year. More proof that you're a blinkered idiot.
I'd like to see you answer Matilda about how you'd handle this all as well. For such a sharp debater you sure have a bad habit of ignoring her on that. Here's a hint, 'letting the market sort it' isn't an answer.
Is that what you think? You are pretty detached from reality. I know that liberals can't handle themselves in a one-on-one argument and need to outnumber, but this collective effort it really bad on your end. You don't have an original thought in your collective brains. Its really sad that there are three of you spewing such garbage and you still can't put a coherent, reasoned argument forth.
I am sad to say I must leave you at this time. I was hoping my flu could get me out of going to a wedding in Milwaukee this weekend, but my wife isn't going for it and I've got to pick her up to go. I'll log back on when I get back Sunday. Have a great weekend liberals, and please try to study up a little bit so you are able to actually articulate why it is you believe what you believe rather than just saying that everyone not a leftist is stupid and more government is the answer to everything. I know it'll be hard, but why don't you (GASP) try reading a non-leftist source/study. Probably too much to expect.
Craig, speaking of reading sources outside your world view... I was reading some Camille Paglia (a self professed liberal) earlier today and was struck by how 90% of this discussion thread conforms to her critique...
“Yes, something very ugly has surfaced in contemporary American liberalism, as evidenced by the irrational and sometimes infantile abuse directed toward anyone who strays from a strict party line. Liberalism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new religion for those who profess contempt for religion. It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of government power.” – Camille Paglia
I guess it takes one to know one eh!
By "reading" I suppose you mean surfing one of the thousands of conservative blogs that have latched on to that quote, lol.
Anyway excellent red herring Sinep.
What is really sad about these guys is just how ill-formed their arguments are.
I'm happy to concede that conservatism has great thinkers (George Will, Buckley, some of the more lucid CATO folks, many of the editors at Reason) but these right-winger just scream "GAH! LIB-ER-AL!" and think that's a response.
The reason Fox and Rush and O'Reilly and Hannity and (dear god) Beck are mentioned time and again is that they have so shaped the arguments on the right for the past decade. Honestly, since 9/11 the "Panic/React" mode has been the default for the right in this country. The left got craven for a good long while too (John Kerry? Really?) and only since the 2006 elections has there been anything approaching a functional left wing to the democratic party.
I want healthy debate, I want good argument, but people who think that euphamisms about bootstraps and slogans about American exceptionalism are good arguments are bringing knives to a gun fight.
Seriously, I get more of a kick out of listening to a libertarian like Penn Jillette, whom I disagree with utterly, because the guy knows how to structure an argument.
Good graces and facts are wasted on people who just want to shout cause they like shouting.
I couldn't agree with you more, JessNevins...not that you need my praise.
I am not so mired in any kind of liberal ideology, as Craig would think, that I cannot listen to solid points from the other side. But what I hate most is when people just deny facts. It's straight up frustrating.
When, for instance, you find out that in some Asian countries they don't even have a word in their vocabulary for being 'denied coverage' for health insurance, how is that 'leftist'? And if it is leftist, then how is it wrong?
How is it that some people die from lack of health care, and others get to have whatever they want and need from their health care providers? Why is it wrong/leftist/socialist to want everyone to have access to health care?
And why in the hell is socialist such a bad word anyway?
Ack. I should not drink alcohol and write on blogs.