What Have We Done?

A great deal was decided yesterday.  I’m not sure the vast majority of the country quite realizes the new gravity of our situation.  I’m likely the only one in my little gay family here in Arizona that voted for John McCain, and likely the only one who understands enough of history to realize what we’re facing.  That’s not a dog on my friends, because even though we wholeheartedly disagree I still love them all dearly; what’s far scarier than that is the fact that there are millions upon millions who, unlike my friends, had absolutely no clue why they wanted to vote for Obama, except for the fact that they wanted change.

But what change have we just voted for?  In 1959, a young upstart led his guerilla army into Havana, Cuba and overthrew the government.  Fidel Castro assumed power, promising change and prosperity without ever making concrete plans known to the public.  Before they knew it, the public wasn’t allowed to speak freely and the government controlled every facet of life, including the media.  The slightest public disagreement could land a Cuban in squalid prison conditions without a trial.  Sure, everyone had something.  But even to this day, in that society (as well as in China) one group does all the work and the lazy ones still get a share.  All this was Castro’s promised “change.”

Barack Obama has already admitted a desire to affect socialist ideals in American society.  When the now-infamous Joe the Plumber forced him to admit, “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” not only was he admitting a firm belief in wealth redistribution, but in the days that followed he openly castigated the major news outlets involved in spreading the story.  He banned them from his campaign jet and refused to give interviews to them ever again.  If this is a precursor to what we can expect during his presidency (including both his and Nancy Pelosi’s vocalized desire to bring back the fairness doctrine, essentially gutting the First Amendment freedom of speech), then maybe we deserve it.

Maybe we deserve four years of unadulterated liberal assault on our Constitutional freedoms.  Maybe the overwhelming millions who voted for any change regardless of reality will wake up the first time we’re attacked again, which I predict will happen within the first year of Obama’s presidency.  If not then, hopefully they’ll wake up after the second attack, which will be inevitable because Obama will do exactly what he promises–he’ll try to be diplomatic with murdering terrorists who believe it is their mandate from God to kill all the infidels of the world.

Maybe Steve is right, but if he is, and McCain’s liberal policies would have only made things worse, I still think Hillary Clinton is far less scary than Barack Obama.  I feel a dread as though we’re dancing our way to our destruction with smiles on our faces and nary a clue, happy all the while.  I’ve told my friends that I hope I’m wrong, and I don’t think they understand just how badly I’m hanging on to that hope.  For now, while I’m still free to say it, I’m going to take a page out of the Democrat playbook:

He’s NOT my president, nor will he ever be.

(PS: watch out this weekend for my first-ever vidblog.  I’ve got some choice words for the gay community’s role in this disaster, and I’m done being nice.)

Advertisements

123 thoughts on “What Have We Done?

  1. I am hopeful that 2010 will be a repeat of 1994 without the follow-on effects which may have resulted in the pain felt today.

  2. Chris, unfortunately, more Republican seats are up in 2010 than Democrat seats. At least that’s what I hear.

  3. Hi Mel,

    I’m looking forward to seeing your vidblog.

    The biggest problem with Obama is all the power he has. With no Republicans to stop him he can do a lot of damage.

    Even if he only lasts four years, I doubt a Republican will give us back anything we lose. Mainly because people will become dependent on any social programs he dumps on them.

    Since living in Australia I have seen first hand how people can despise a program but not be willing to give it up. Once they have you… they have you!

  4. “Since living in Australia I have seen first hand how people can despise a program but not be willing to give it up. Once they have you… they have you!”

    It the same way here. Very few people in America want to share the pain. They want the other guy or gal to take the blows.

  5. “Chris, unfortunately, more Republican seats are up in 2010 than Democrat seats. At least that’s what I hear.”

    Historically speaking, doesn’t the ruling party lose seats during a mid term election? We stand to make gains in 2010. We won’t win it all back in one election. But we will make gains.

  6. Yes, John, I believe you are correct. I also know that the dems do not have a full 60 seats in the senate, which is a good thing. And really, I think that the country is pretty evenly divided between dems and repubs; plus I think that conservatism is on the rise. I truly believe that. Maybe I am simply naive.

  7. Well, I am not that much of a political nerd to study both the House and Senate state-by-state like Michael Barone does.

    However; elecion morning, Bob Beckel and Ann Coulter were on Fox News. Annie said that 2010 would not be like 1994 because more Republican-held seats are up than Democratics seats. Therefore; Democrats stand to inherit more than Republicans could.

  8. I think it at least partially depends on what BHO does in his first two years. If he pulls a Carter and makes it his first mission to immediately cut military spending, the first time we’re hit and he does nothing, every Democrat up for reelection that year will be GONE. I predict even Massachusetts could go Repub if it’s bad enough.

    I’m not hoping that it’s bad enough, I’m just sayin’…

  9. @Kati—-you are correct in your fear….the programs that he starts will be impossible to take away. Once Americans get their hands on that pie….good luck taking it away…we will be stuck with MORE social programs…..gggrrrr

  10. “what’s far scarier than that is the fact that there are millions upon millions who, unlike my friends, had absolutely no clue why they wanted to vote for Obama, except for the fact that they wanted change.”

    amen, sistah

  11. Anyone else wondering if Mel knows the difference between taking power in a violent coup d’etat and a democratically decided election? Conservatives shouldn’t be so quick to melodrama, because after all, George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler acquired power in a similar fashion. (See, sounds stupid doesn’t it?)

    I’m also wondering if Mel has actually bothered to read the Fairness Doctrine, although, judging from her “gutting the first amendment” rant, she has not. Why exactly are conservatives so afraid that people may actually get to hear an opposing viewpoint?

    And this one was my favorite:
    “Maybe we deserve four years of unadulterated liberal assault on our Constitutional freedom”
    I’m sorry, Mel, but have you been sleeping for the last eight years? Because the last time I checked, the current president has violated, in some way, every constitutional amendment short of the 22nd (but there’s less than a month left, so who knows?), the most egregious being Bush giving himself the authority to spy on American citizens without even so much as the formality of seeking FISA’s approval. Not to mention the darling Patriot Act submitting everyday people to unreasonable searches and seizures at the FBI’s whim.

    So, you can sit there and pout that your ideology has lost its mesmerizing appeal (whatever that was) in this election, but dramatic blubbering about Obama not being your president should really be relegated to a tertiary response in light of the fact that your candidate and your party were trounced fair and square. Until the democratic candidate has to disenfranchise an entire race of people in any region of the country, I’d keep that type of crazy speech to myself…

  12. Actually, Robert – Obama is not our first choice. So Mel is correct that he isn’t “our President” but I have to say it’s only fair that we treat your President with the same loving and kindness as you treated ours for eight years, don’t you agree?

    Moreover; all the left wing blogs are ripping him apart.

    Suddenly, he’s not going to raise taxes.

    Suddenly, he’s not going to close Gitmo. (Well, perhaps he will as soon as one of his insane constituents offers up the local jail in their district – say, can he count on you for your support on that one?)

    Suddenly, he’s shying away from talk about immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq.

    His cabinet members are mainly centrists adopted from the Clinton administration and holdovers from the Bush administration.

    It appears he’s trying to get the Republicans to like him by coming over to our side.

    It appears maybe he did his homework after being shown around the Oval office by President Bush.

    It appears he’s doing his best to come around to our side now!

    And to think, you could have had John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Both of which have insane liberal voting records. Both voted against the Bush tax cuts, both voted against Bush’s Supreme Court nominees. Both voted in favor of amnesty for 20 million illegals. Both vote in sync with the New York Times editorial page (apparently the NY Times definition of “Maverick” compared to that of a retired army general are two different things since it wasn’t until after McCain won the primary and started pretending to act like a Republican with judges, taxes, and illegals that they stopped calling him that) and the Daily Kos.

    With McCain or Clinton, they at least had the executive knowledge required to do more of the damage that you think is great policy and to do it more effectively and faster than Obama has. As a matter of fact, it seems he’s taken a more conservative stance on these issues than both Hillary or John combined.

    So, in the end, “losing” feels a lot like “winning.”

    Finally, I think it’s great Barack wants to use his middle name of “Hussein” after MONTHS of liberals whining about everytime Ann Coulter used it. He wants to reach out to Muslim countries. This is great! Especially since lately he’s reminding us of how much of a Christian he is.

    Maybe it’s the beginning of finally getting those folks to convert. “Hussein the Christian” — I am ecstatic about that!

    Barack is making Christianity a good thing again. Sign up today!

    Midnight Mass was beautiful tonight by the way.

    Merry Christmas!

  13. Robert, I’m pretty sure I know the difference between a democratic vote and a coup d’etat. I brought it up to emphasize that the Cuban people could easily have fought back and beaten the usurpers out of Havana. They didn’t fight at all because Castro promised them change would come.

    I also know perfectly well what the Fairness Doctrine is. And yes, it DOES gut the First Amendment. Since when does the freedom to speak my mind mean that I’m required to present an opposing viewpoint? If I am allowed to speak freely, then I’m going to say what I think regardless of what everyone else thinks. Would you want to present conservative viewpoints like ours without being completely sarcastic and deriding about it? Who the hell said that life and politics were fair? Free speech means exactly that, and nobody should be required to say anything they don’t want to say. It’s that simple.

    I love how you bring up Bush’s supposed assaults on our freedoms. How many times have you or your loved ones been searched by the FBI? I’ve never had that problem, nor has anyone I know. Do you really think they have the manpower to listen to every phone call every American makes? Please! You wanna know why they didn’t do anything to stop 9/11? Because if they had, it wouldn’t have been legal. The FBI knew about terror cells in the US long ago, but because of the way criminal law was re-written by the Warren Court, their hands were tied. If the 9/11 hijackers had been arrested, they would have had to be released very quickly and would have gone right back to planning that day. All the Patriot Act did was close the loopholes that bound the government from protecting us from these creeps.

    And I never said the election wasn’t fair. I had problems with Black Panther enforcers showing up at some polling sites with nightsticks, but the election was perfectly fair. My gripe is that the American people are too fickle now to understand what they’re doing, and many of them didn’t even understand the issues behind what they were voting for.

    Please, don’t call my sanity or my intelligence into question without knowing what you’re talking about.

    (Steve, I’m with you on all that, buddy!)

  14. Sure, it’s all well and fine that you mention that Castro promised change to Cuba, AFTER he overthrew the government. My point is, Castro was not elected by the people of Cuba to replace Batista, so any comparisons of Castro to Obama are asinine and I’m fairly certain you know that. But hey, if drama’s your thing, preach on…

    And reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would not gut any right to free speech. The Fairness Doctrine doesn’t force radio stations to stop presenting any side of an argument, so I don’t know how you came to the conclusion that it would stifle free speech. I’m sensing that you may be mistaken in regards to what the Doctrine calls for. Plenty (if not all) of people think that it requires the allotment of equal time to an opposing viewpoint. It does not. Clear Channel can broadcast Rush Limbaugh for twenty three hours a day, so long as SOME time is spent giving people the other side of the argument. Hell, even an hour of progressive talk would suffice. Again, what are you people so afraid of? If people are as “center right” as your side likes to claim they are, then what’s the harm in them getting to hear the other side of the story? It’s almost as if Hannity and Co. are worried that they may actually have to stop lying and be honest with people (::gasp::). And yes, you and I can agree on the premise that people should be able to say whatever they like, but seeing as how radio is using publicly owned airwaves to broadcast hate and ignorance, they most certainly should be required to present, again, SOME time to the inverse of the excrement that’s currently being spewed out of my car’s speakers. And if free speech is something you value, why not campaign against the censorship of obscenity laws? Free speech is free speech, right? Fuck yes.

    And just because I or my family haven’t been subjected to unreasonable search and seizure or warrantless wiretaps doesn’t mean I shouldn’t call attention to it. There used to be a term for people who saw injustice happening and chose to remain silent. What were they called, oh yeah, good Germans. The notion that one should shut up unless it happened to them is ridiculous. It’s just as ridiculous as the argument “I don’t have anything to hide, so I don’t care if I’m wiretapped.” We’re supposed to have protections against these very sorts of things from the Constitution. I DON’T have anything to hide, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to sit back and say it’s okay for the President of the United States to violate a constitutional amendment, his feigning interest in catching terrorists aside. Try to imagine how uncomfortable that power in the hands of President Obama would make any conservative feel.

    And if your contention is that people didn’t understand what they were voting for, welcome to democracy. We can’t honestly expect people to care enough to be educated as you or me. Sure there were plenty of folks who voted for “change”, but I’m certain that it’s merely because they were tired of being shat on or ignored for the last eight years. If ignorance is your beef, look no further than McCain/Palin voters. Some of these yokels were idiotic enough to believe that if elected, Obama would enslave the white race. Or the hate mongers who conflate democrats with gay rights, as if it’s a bad thing. Then of course you have the racists, at the height of ignorance, who simply couldn’t bring themselves to vote for an African-American. But I’m sure you had no problem with the vote they cast. My point is, the argument you are making can more than easily be used against your party, so why bother?

  15. “Clear Channel can broadcast Rush Limbaugh for twenty three hours a day, so long as SOME time is spent giving people the other side of the argument.”

    Then let those people who want to give the other side of the argument buy their own air time.

  16. First off, I have to re-iterate what John just said. We buy our airtime, if you want some buy your own. Oh, wait…you DO have your own airtime, on Air America. So why is it that it’s failing? Hmmm…couldn’t possibly be because you hardly have any interested listeners, could it? The fact remains that any requirement on what to say is a boon to free speech.

    I’m amazed that you can claim the fairness doctrine isn’t government intrusion into free citizens’ lives, yet you’re so against the Patriot Act. I wasn’t just talking about you or I. When was the last time you heard anything on the news about anybody complaining that they were being unfairly detained and searched? Don’t give me Gitmo as an excuse, every soul in that place was captured on the battlefield (and every single one released has been found going right back to it). Even the Patriot Act has it’s rules. The government has to have a reason to listen in, and you still haven’t answered the question as to how you think they’re going to have the manpower to listen to every one of the billions of calls in the US every day. They follow the terrorist chatter. That’s all it’s for.

    And if I hear one more liberal zealot compare all of this to Nazi Germany, I’m going to freakin’ puke. The first thing to be taken away by the Nazis was the citizen’s right to own guns privately, and the vast majority of liberals want either strict gun control laws or across-the-board confiscation. You wanna talk about Nazi comparisons? They can be made everywhere, including on your side of the fence.

    I never heard anybody claim that Obama would enslave the white race, however I DID hear Whoopi Goldberg ask the ridiculous question of McCain whether she was going to be a slave again. Please don’t go there. I know far more black people who are racists than I do white people, so don’t go there, either.

  17. Well, first….it’s much like work in general.

    No, they cannot get listeners on Air America. But they’d love nothing more than to have their stuff listened to on Rush’s network. Honestly, people would stop listening.

    Obama is learning the right things. He now understands that raising taxes is the wrong choice which is why he’s extending the Bush tax cuts to 2010.

    He knows that ripping troops out of Iraq immediately would be a stupid decision.

    As I said, he’s making more conservative decisions that are far more pleasing the Rush or to Ann than anything McCain or Clinton would have done.

    “Hussein the Christian” knows he got the majority of the vote. He knows he was able to promise change.

    We know Hillary is a liberal. That’s why voters rejected her.

    We know McCain is a liberal. That’s why voters rejected him.

    Voters knew that Palin would have had little power (which is why they had no problem electing Biden, the gaffe King) so in lieu of having Palin’s name drug in the McCain liberal-mud, they took a pass.

    But Obama did a very Republican thing. He did what Duncan Hunter did in California. He did what Mitt Romney did in Mass. He tricked radical liberals into voting for him promising the craziest things. Taxing wealthy more is not an option, but somehow liberals believed him when he said he could and he would.

    Taxing corporations is not a option but someone liberals believed him when he said he could and he would.

    Only time will tell in this first year. But if the first year is going to go at all like the last month and a half has gone, then I’m one very happy guy.

    Obama knows it doesn’t take a Fairness Doctrine to get yourself heard. It takes free market (as he used) and it takes interest from the public.

    Liberals should be prepared to be disappointed.

    Hey, don’t get mad at us. You guys picked him.

  18. Of course any airtime broadcast on is going to have to be paid for, and any attempts to conflate what I am saying to giving away free airtime is merely a straw man, as I said nothing of the sort. I was explaining what the Fairness Doctrine is and why it doesn’t have any conflict whatsoever with the first amendment. And claims of failing networks notwithstanding, the message that you support, the one that’s been drilled into the heads of people for twenty five long years, has finally fallen on deaf ears. Or smarter ears, should I say?

    “I’m amazed that you can claim the fairness doctrine isn’t government intrusion into free citizens’ lives, yet you’re so against the Patriot Act.”
    Kind of how people on your side of the aisle want as little government intrusion as possible, with the requisite exceptions of what goes on in your bedroom and/or womb? The difference here is, the airwaves are publicly owned, unlike my sexual behavior, so you’re really comparing Apples to Oranges on this one. And I hardly view giving people the opportunity to hear multiple sides of an issue as government intrusion. It would appear to me that people of your persuasion aren’t really interested in a level playing field (hell, it doesn’t even have to be level, as long as it’s not as lopsided as it currently is), and want a monopoly on information. When it’s a fair fight, your ideology has been proven to be a failure. Besides, aren’t conservatives supposed to encourage competition?

    And I didn’t realize that I needed to explain the science behind monitoring people’s phone calls, or how it can be that the country that figured out how to transport human beings to the moon could possibly listen in on multiple conversations. Forgive me…

    And the last time I heard anything on the news about wiretapping people who weren’t terrorists was in October of this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0_15c4Qjbo
    Terrorist chatter. Got it.

    Why are conservatives so nuts about their guns? You people seem very afraid. I, for one, have no interest in seeing anyone’s guns taken away, but you people appear to have some inexplicable fetish with having an inordinate amount of destructive power. The only ban that makes any sense to me is for assault weapons. I mean, not to be nitpicky, but how many guns do you need? And I know the requisite response is “it’s not about that”, but really? And a line’s got to be drawn somewhere, or would you rather people be allowed to own rocket launchers and hand grenades?

    And I do so love the phony argument that Steve is trying to make. After months of calling Obama the most liberal Senator in America, he now wants us to believe that Obama won because he was the more conservative candidate. Ha! That’s rich. Anything to avoid admitting actual defeat, huh?

    P.S. Here’s ignorant racists afraid of a black president:

  19. Robert,

    Just as Obama is shying away from the rest of the radical ideas he used to trick you into voting for him, I guarantee you, he will not legislate a Fairness Doctrine. He didn’t need a Fairness Doctrine to get elected, did he?

    He used the resources available to him through this great nation that have been and that will always be there to introduce himself to the people (while radicals like you still think there should me more).

    Moreover; you cannot make the racist claim anymore. Please, he won! Obama’s not even 100% African American. Moreover; there are just as many black folks as there are white folks that say unkind things about the man because he isn’t black enough to make them happy.

    I wrote an entire post on it. The articles, the liberals own comments, and when the “People for the American Way” start voicing outrage over choices he makes, you know you’ve struck gold.

    As I said, he merely did what good Republicans have been doing for years. He tricked liberals into voting for him, and now the radical ones are going to have a long and frustrating four years.

    🙂

  20. You don’t see “fairness” as a government intrusion? Man, how many times do I have to bitch about BEING REQUIRED TO SAY WHAT I DON’T WANT TO SAY before that gets across? Like it or not, that IS an affront to our First Amendment rights. Publicly-owned land can be used for protests (i.e. the National Mall) and nobody requires protesters to do that, so why should publicly-owned airwaves be treated in such a manner? I’d love to have a level playing field. We’ll start by demanding that ABC, NBC, CNN and all the others start actually abiding by journalistic ethics instead of picking and choosing those they wish to obey at the moment. I say again, you libs have Air America. Why isn’t that doing as well as conservative talk radio? Are you even going to try to answer that one?

    I hate to tell you this, but going to the moon is a much smaller job in comparison to peeping on trillions of phone calls. If that report is correct, then those involved are guilty of doing things that people in every walk of society do. I know people who have cell phone scanners that they use in their own homes to listen in on and laugh at peoples’ phone conversations, and apparently that’s not illegal. Again, I say, IF it’s true. I’d want to see further evidence rather than just one news story from one network. The last time a single network brought accusations of this magnitude that everyone else ignored, it was a disaster. Remember memogate?

    And none of us are “nuts about our guns.” We’re just nuts about people like you trying to take them from us. I don’t want an arsenal, nor do 99% of the other gun owners I associate with. I don’t want automatic weapons, rocket launchers or grenades. That is a ridiculous statement, and it proves your ignorance. Please, tell me your definition of an “assault weapon.” As I understand guns (and I understand quite a lot, I’m professionally trained), they are ALL supposed to be assault weapons to a degree. Any of them can be used in this manner. I keep one handgun and one shotgun for personal protection. I’m trained in the use of M4’s and M16’s. Outside of military use, I don’t advocate civilian ownership of fully-automatic weapons. I tell you what…you tell me what you think an assault weapon is, and we’ll go from there. And please don’t just thumb through a gun magazine the way your Democrat leaders did.

    And Al-Jazeera would pick a backwater town in Ohio to report on, wouldn’t they? The only problem, though, is that the vast majority of those folks had issues with suspected terror ties, not his race. The THREE who talked about his race were very old and are probably still stuck somewhere in the 1950’s. You’re hardly proving that racism is still a problem here. Come up with something more substantial.

  21. You keep saying fairness as if it’s a bad thing. Again, not much of a fan of a level playing field are you? Would you agree with the concept of having a presidential debate with only one candidate? How can you you expect people to make informed decisions with only one side of an issue being presented?

    So, you want these networks to abide by journalistic ethics? I’m curious if you were demanding that when they were all clamoring for war based on lies. I’m also curious to know how they violate ethics in their reporting, although I suspect that any network that isn’t owned by Rupert Murdoch, and therefore doesn’t espouse your backwards way of thinking, is guilty of these supposed ethics violations. And if you honestly expect me to answer an asinine question as to why one network isn’t as successful as another, I suppose I should respond by asking why Thom Hartmann consistently gets higher ratings for his radio program than Sean Hannity, or why, on any given day, Bill O’Reilly’s rating suffer at the hands of Keith Olbermann. Perhaps we should stick to questions of substance that don’t require us to have intimate knowledge of how the Nielsen system operates.

    So, seeing as how I explicitly said I have no interest in tearing you away from your precious guns, you have basically admitted that you are just plain nuts for no apparent reason. If you don’t want an arsenal, and only own one handgun and one shotgun (for protection of course), then are you advocating for those that do want arsenals? And asking a pertinent question about just how much destructive power you need does not demonstrate any ignorance on my part, but your tacit refusal to answer the question kind of goes full circle and brings me back to the just plain nuts theory…

    Call me crazy, but I don’t think a fully automatic weapon (which is what I consider an assault weapon – the sole reason for its creation is to cause as much destruction as possible) is necessary for either hunting or self defense (the most widely used excuses for gun enthusiasts). And you can open up a whole new can of worms by asking who am I to say what’s necessary, and that’s a debate that will never be resolved. And seeing as how a rational response would be to ask you to use your best judgment, I’d rather not trust a gun nut’s judgment. (Although you are much more rational than most people I have this conversation with. You’ve only got two guns for crying out loud, they just might kick you out of the NRA!)

    Is your contention that because only three racists were found on a two minute tape at one rally, it should be overlooked because they’re old? Sure that’s okay, ignore racism and xenophobia because they’re old! This speaks volumes to the mind frame of conservatives, not the elderly. You didn’t see any old democrats refusing to vote for an African American candidate. Richard Nixon made a very calculated move by employing his southern strategy, so it should surprise no one that this is this the constituency that your party banks on. Do you honestly think that the RNC doesn’t thrive on this type of ignorance? The Secret Service publicly claimed that Sarah Palin was responsible for the rise in death threats against Barack Obama, what with her running around claiming that Obama was unpatriotic and pals around with terrorists. Agents have said, and I quote: “Palin’s demagogic tone encouraged white supremacists to plan attacks on the future president”

    http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20081115/UPDATE/81115007

    But you’re right Mel, there’s no substance there, it’s only a few geriatrics, it’s really not a problem…

  22. Oh, I don’t know, Robert…how do we get all sides of an issue so we can make an informed decision? It sure as hell ain’t by watching Keith Olbermann, one of the most bleeding-heart libs in the biz. Speaking of that whiny bastard, what planet are you living on? If Olbermann was doing so well in the ratings, then why was he removed from his prime-time slot and shuffled off elsewhere? It is NOT up to the government to help anyone make up their minds, which goes back to my original assertion that you’re as two-faced about government intervention as you say we are. There are several different places to go to get the information one needs. If you’re only paying attention to one source (as you obviously do), you’re never going to get all the angles. I listen to many sources, including those I likely won’t agree with. This is how I educate myself. Or do you not have that much faith in your fellow Democrats?

    It’s hilarious how you just basically called your own party incapable of finding information on their own. Classic.

    Journalistic ethics mean you aren’t supposed to inject your own personal feelings or ideologies into the news while you’re reporting it. If you’re reporting a story, generally you’re supposed to present the facts–not leave out a few here and there or downplay the ones you don’t like to get your own spin across to your readership. Olbermann is horrible about that kind of thing. If you’re writing an editorial, it’s required that you give your opinion. However, when your job is to present the news, as a journalist you’re supposed to be unbiased. I see nothing but liberal bias across the board in the media (except maybe on FOX, where following said ethics gets you branded a racist).

    Exactly how have I admitted to being nuts? You just don’t like the fact that I made a good point. You don’t want the government telling you what you can’t do in your bedroom? I don’t want the government telling me I’m not allowed to defend myself. It’s that simple. How many people do you see that have arsenals? And did I or did I not just say that I DON’T BELIEVE FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS SHOULD BE LEGAL FOR CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP?!? Read the whole thing, please. Your candidates want to ban any weapon that “appears menacing.” Dianne Feinstein has openly called for across-the-board confiscation. If someone wants to have eight or ten guns, that’s up to them. Unless they’re prohibited from owning firearms, nobody has any right to tell anyone what number of weapons they can have. I also have four different swords for martial arts practice and competition. Does that number make me dangerous?

    As for the geriatrics on the video, yes, overlook it because they’re old. You’re not going to change their mind, and in this day and age the vast majority of the populace is going to simply write them off just as I do, anyway. Why get your hackles up because of a handful of people? Please don’t tell me you go counter Fred Phelps’ protests red in the face and screaming at them.

    As for that article? I’d be interested in hearing the entire quotes that look for all the world like they’ve been taken out of context. The Secret Service would not be investigating Sarah Palin for deliberately instigating those threats unless they had some solid quotes, and I’m sorry, but calling Obama’s patriotism into question isn’t enough. I’d be willing to bet they said something more along the lines that they were investigating some of the people around her and at her rallies because they heard those comments and took them too seriously. People always do that.

    And 2,000 joining Stormfront? Out of a country of billions? In the professions I’ve been in, that may be a higher number than usual but it’s still pretty well nothing in the grand scheme of things. Go work on the SORT or gang squads in a prison system and come back and tell me about how much substance that really has.

  23. Oh, I almost forgot…did you know that three black people that I work with all called me a racist for saying that I didn’t care what color Obama’s skin was, that I was refusing to vote for him because of his lack of experience?

    Apparently they took issue with me saying that I didn’t care what color his skin was. I guess that’s racist now, too. Talking politics while white is the new crime, and it’s perfectly acceptable for black racism to be so pervasive. We deserve it, right?

  24. Well, let’s just say I have far more faith in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, which is more than I could say for you, hence your stridently anti information attitude. And when did I assert any position on government intervention? I think it’s a fine thing, where it’s needed. I find it particularly amusing that for the past twenty eight years, people on your side of the aisle have been running on a platform of trying to destroy the very institution that they seek to be a part of. It’s why I chuckle when I hear the old clips of Reagan saying the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. It’s not a mystery why conservatives suck at governing, they don’t even believe in government.

    So, you’re all for journalistic ethics except in the case of FOX News? You may want to do a little research, and find out the difference between a journalist and a pundit. Do you have some idea how many people on the TV actually have journalism degrees? You see liberal bias because reality tends to have a liberal bias, just like free and fair elections.

    When has any member of the United States Government told you that you don’t have a right to defend yourself? And your weapons aren’t what make you dangerous, it’s your way of thinking. And I see you dabble in sarcasm, Mel. Perhaps you should have read your OWN question, because you asked me what I considered an assault weapon, and when I answered the question for you, you used it as an in to make snide attempts at being smarmy for your rabid readers. It isn’t necessary to try to demean someone, especially when it only succeeds in making you look foolish.

    You want entire quotes from idiotic racists? As if you can take “kill him” out of context?! Are you serious?

  25. If reality had a liberal bias, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War.

    Sheesh.

    Mel, it doesn’t seem that Robert is very good at arguing. If you said the sky was blue, Robert would tell say, “HAH! The sky is blue because it’s LIBERAL!”

    And as for members of the government telling people that they don’t have a right to defend themselves… That was the purpose of the governments in 15 states enacting laws that specifically stated individuals did NOT have a “duty to retreat”. The reason those laws were deemed necessary was because the courts were finding people guilty of murder and assault for defending themselves against invaders.

    Also a point of fact, several municipalities have made specific mentions of my dog in their codes – and if my dog (a staff terrier/shar pei mix, and often lumped in as a “pit bull”) attacks someone who invades my home the police department is legally obliged to seize him and put him to sleep. Never mind that for four years the dog has been sleeping with my kids at night and helped them through the roller coaster of emotions that comes when their Dad spends more time deployed than at home. Never mind that the person would not have been harmed had they not been in my house illegally in the first place.

    So, you asked who in the government told us we don’t have a right to defend ourselves? The answer is quite a few judges who find ways to interpret the constitution into legislation from the bench and some who make a profession of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the “safety” of everything under the sun.

  26. airforcewife, you may want to check that and/or give a source, because if what you’re saying is accurate, that people do not have a duty to retreat, it would seem that the only logical inference to draw would be that they have a duty to defend themselves. Do me a favor and find me a case where a pet attacked an intruder and was destroyed as a result. And that’s not a challenge, I’m actually curious to know if and when that happened.

    And what the hell do stockpiling arms and trying to get to the moon first have to do with political ideology? The Soviets weren’t liberals either, but it would appear that incorrect generalities are your thing, so lead on…

  27. Robert, I have done my research. I watch three different news agencies daily, and the only one that actually gives ALL the facts is FOX. All it takes is for a couple of details to be left out here and there in the narrative and voila! You have spin.

    As a matter of fact, Dianne Feinstein (as I said previously) has called for full-scale confiscation. She has gone on the record as saying that if she had the ability, she would say, “mr. and mrs. American, turn your guns in.” Her words. I have no trouble believing that other bleeding heart libs would take the same stance if it wouldn’t piss off at least half of their constituency.

    Exactly what is it about my way of thinking that makes me dangerous? Are we the thought police now? Here’s what I think: if I am accosted by a person, whether on the street or in my home, and I have reason to believe that person intends to do me harm, I’m going to shoot them before they can harm or kill me. Same goes for any of my loved ones. There’s nothing dangerous about that. What’s far more dangerous is the air of entitlement that criminals have, that because you have more, they have the right to take it.

    Here’s what you said about assault weapons: first, you said you wanted to see assault weapons banned. THEN you defined assault weapons as fully-automatic. I hate to break this to you, but you have to have a federal firearms license–not easy to obtain, I know this from experience–to legally own a fully-automatic firearm. Automatic weapons are already illegal. I was perfectly justified in everything I said because I was responding to the definitions that YOU gave me. And I’m not kidding about the appearance thing; Biden himself admitted back in the 90’s, when they were deciding which guns to include in the assault gun ban, that all they did was pick through an NRA magazine and decide which guns looked the most menacing. Case in point, you have the same Remington 12-gauge shotgun; one has a full buttstock, the other a pistol grip. One is legal, the other is banned. Why? The pistol grip looked scarier.

    Now please, tell me I’m being irrational about the subject.

    Reality, actually, tends to be unpolitical. We make it political with our own biases and ideals. Reality has no liberal bias.

    And if you’re saying “kill him” is a racist comment, then I’m going to use the same argument from now on with all those folks who can’t stand Bush and call for his execution for war crimes. That’s just plain ludicrous, Robert.

  28. “Reality, actually, tends to be unpolitical. We make it political with our own biases and ideals. Reality has no liberal bias. ”

    That’s true, Mel. The same goes with gun control as goes with abortion. In reality, I believe 100% of Americans would like a drastic drop in abortions.

    But here’s the intention of both sides:

    Christians believe life begins at the moment of conception (something, we admittedly have to work on with Hussein, the Christian). We believe that by preventing abortions, we are saving an INNOCENT life.

    Liberals believe that nobody knows when life begins (as admitted by Hussein, the Christian during the Saddleback debate) so in lieu of erring on the side of life, they err on the side of killing it immediately because in the short term they are doing a favor for someone who may be inconvenienced or they scramble to grant that mother some kind of noble victim status.

    In terms of equality, fairness, free and open market for all, opportunity for education, etc. Those things are indeed qualities that people like Robert like to take credit for by crediting liberalism for.

    In essense, it is the Republican side that promotes all of those things. Whenever an African-American was appointed to a position of higher power by a Republican administration, a negative connotation was automatically assigned. Liberals believe today that Hillary Clinton is going to be a an amazing Secretary of State; however, Hussein, the Christian called the wonderful Condoleezza Rice just last week for 90 minutes to get her insights on Gaza. Condoleezza Rice was a qualified person – it didn’t matter that she was African-American (and not just 50% either like Hussein is), it did not matter that she was a woman.

    It mattered that unlike Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice had an in-depth study and understanding of international affairs, plus surviving the riots in Birmingham as a child gave her a personal perspective of what folks can overcome with hard work and determination.

    While liberals cry “we deserve this no matter what!”, Condoleezza Rice-types cry “we’re going to work for this and earn it.”

    Equality, democracy, peace, and love and acceptance are anything BUT a liberal idea. The respect required to understand what any of that is about is not attainable by half of the Godless crowd within the radical-liberal base. Now, during FDR’s time, it was a time where Republicans and Democrats understood those basics together. But, both parties also went to church back then.

    I hope – with all my heart – that these latest reports of liberals becoming so angry with Hussein proves to be something that only repeats itself. With hope, maybe he can clean up the Democratic party by re-introducing them to the idea of being a centrist.

    Then idiotic statements like “let’s withdraw troops immediately” or “let’s take away all their guns” or “let that 13-year old have an abortion without her mother’s consent” would be idiotic all across the board.

    Not just with half of us.

  29. You asked what makes you dangerous, and I said it was your way of thinking, not so much on the gun issue (although I do disagree with you), just as a whole. Case in point: you sincerely believe that FOX News gives any semblance of fact. Pontification and slamming anyone who speaks ill of Bush does not make for integrity in journalism. But broadcasting talking points from the White House just screams integrity, right?

    As for the gun issue, I don’t think irrational best describes you. I would say you’re being rigid, perhaps because of an irrational fear of what COULD happen to you. Sure, it’s admirable that you have a desire to protect your family if someone were to break into your home, but who doesn’t have that same desire? And I agree that if someone does break into your home, all bets are off and the intruder has no rights. But again, “difficult” as it may be to obtain a fully automatic weapon, what purpose do they serve? They only exist to kill and destroy. And while I do believe the privelege of owning a gun should be left intact, I also believe that there is much to be said for common sense. I am not so naive as to belive that I will ever change your mind on this issue, nor will I try, NOR was it my intent. I suppose I merely wanted some insight as to why people feel the need to posess such destructive power in light of the fact they are MOST often used to murder and debilitate others.

    And yelling “kill him”, while probably racially motivated, does not stand alone as a racist remark, it’s more in the death threat neighborhood. And for the record, I simply cannot believe that anyone has ever called for the execution of the President for war crimes. Trial and imprisonment, sure, but execution, no…

  30. Oh Steve, let’s not pretend that Republicans have a monopoly on religion, becuase it’s quite nauseating the way your party has hijacked Christianity, making those of us who actually obey the teachings of Christ look like assholes.

    Republican and Christian should not be synonymous, because most Republicans I know are mean spirited, close minded bigots, whereas no one in my church is like that.

    Republicans promote equality, fairness and opportunity for education? Need I remind you that a Republican disenfranchised thousands of blacks in Florida to “win” an election? A sitting Republican President who has yet to appoint ONE democrat to any position? Or a former Republican Governor of California who abolished free college education? Who are you kidding here, man?

    And I love the attempts by Republicans to prove how not racist they aren’t in a very “I have black friends” sort of way. It’s not even in the same ballpark to say Republicans appointed blacks, because those same Republicans never nominated a black for president. Those blacks that were appointed were never elected by the people.

    And you made a huge mistake mentioning abortion from a “religious” stance. I’m anti abortion, but I’m also anti you-freaks-trying-to-impose-your-moral-beliefs-on-the-rest-of-society. You think abortion is wrong? Great, we finally agree on something. You think the government should have dominion over a woman’s body? We’ve got a problem. You are 100% correct in the notion that everyone would like to see a drastic drop in abortions (which is a complete reversal of previous statments from you, where you’ve tossed out idiotic phrases like “pro abortion”), but I guarantee you that outlawing abortion would not solve the problem. Much like the case would be if I were arguing for an across the board gun ban. Criminals would still manage to get their hands on them, and it’s just as certain that women would once again resort to back alley procedures that are unsafe and routinely end up with dead mothers as well. I don’t think it’s okay for women to have abortions, I truly don’t. But it should never be up to me to tell her what she can’t do with her body. The only common ground we may find is with late term and/or “partial birth” abortions, simply because at that point, just give it up for adoption if you don’t want it. My beef is with people that seek to legislate morality, especially on religious grounds. As much as people on your side may love to claim, this is NOT a Christian nation, it is a secular one. We are free to worship one God, a thousand, or none, and to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of society, regardless of their beliefs, is just wrong. And as admirable as it is to fight for an innocent life, the fact remains that you can never force anyone to do what you believe to be the right thing. Everything in life is a choice Steve, and abortion, as much as it breaks my heart that I have friends who have had them, is also a choice. And it’s a choice that should be between a woman, her husband or boyfriend, and her God. It’s not the government’s job to dictate morality, as much as you’d like it to be. To try to pass a law based on your personal religious beliefs that many don’t share, is exclusionary, and therefore wrong. Plus, you’ll never get everyone to see the world like you do, so why try? I know your intentions are honest and pure Steve, and for that, I tip my non existant hat to you, but I just think you’re going about it in the wrong way.

  31. “You think the government should have dominion over a woman’s body?”

    Why not? It has dominion over a man’s body and men put up with it.

    When a man is done having sex with a woman, he is stuck with the outcome if a pregnancy results from that sex. A woman gets choices. The man gets to live with the choices the woman makes.

    Abortion needs to be banned because in addition to being an act of murder, the mere concept of my body my choice discrminiates against men.

    When a man gains the right to tell a woman he impregnantes, “I am out of this. Keep the baby if you like. But, I am out of here.” then you’ll see the number of abortions grind to a halt.

  32. Robert,

    When racism was revealed by your own party with Byrd and when Jeff Danziger made up racist cartoons of Condoleezza Rice and when liberals use the blacks to accuse them of being stupid with regard to the butterfly ballot in 2000 and Katrina just a few short months ago, you guys defended all of these positions by “having black friends.”

    You guys suddenly knew how to get jiggy, Al Gore learned how to sing the blues in a phony film about Global Warming, and Howard Dean was immeidately fitted for a pair of jazz shoes.

    I do believe in that same year, Howard Dean also bought a Bible. He later proclaimed that “Job” was his favorite book of the New Testament.

    After learning that Job was part of the Old Testament, Dean requested to get back with us on that one.

    And don’t be angry at us….your President who you thought was going to be a radical leftie has dissed William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and other Chicago pals to make room for Bush holdovers in his cabinet and centrist Clinton cabinet members. I admit, during the campaign when he was pretending to be a radical lefty in order to keep you quiet and happy, I was worried.

    But guess what Robert?

    No Fairness Doctrine.
    He’s not raising taxes.
    He’s hanging out with Rick Warren (the “anti-gay” pastor, proclaimed by the radical crazies).

    Life is pretty good.

    See, Bill and Hillary convinced Christians to vote for them by showing pictures of themselves walking into a church with a 50-pound Bible. But after selling out every single special interest group but the abortion ladies on partial-birth abortions, Christians wisened up.

    Sleazy horndog and pulling a fully formed baby out in chunks aside, Bill Clinton was probably the best example of a “centrist” Democrat you would find.

    Hopefully Obama won’t be sleazy. But I am indeed starting to buy the “Christian” thing (even though some friends around aren’t yet) a little seeings as he’s going further than Bill and Hillary by actually giving a credible Christian Pastor a podium at the inauguration for the invocation.

    Christians don’t like phonies. The fact that Sarah Palin can actually be seen in a church (ala the youtube videos) actually gets it burned down by radical lefties. The fact that George and Laura actually can be seen in a church while behaving like they actually learned something is why you hate them.

    Your party has just moved away from Christianity in everyway it possibly could. But; thankfully, Hussein is about to change that – hopefully for good.

  33. Bush in church, that’s hilarious! This is the only worthy mention of Bush and church in the same sentence:

    http://www.poleconanalysis.org/2008/04/man-who-excommunicated-bush-and-blair.html

    And I’m not the one who needs to defend himself against accusations of racism. African Americans vote 98% Democratic. Try and explain that without more racist remarks about welfare. Look, we both know the truth, and if you can’t even admit that your party welcomes racists with open (white) arms, then there’s no hope in resolving this ridiculous argument.

    What you’re telling me, Steve, is that you’re happy that Obama is fulfilling his campaign promises. Obama ran a very inclusive campaign and promised that he would bring people together and be your president too, despite your radical views. Obama actually IS a uniter, unlike some other asshole who ran on that notion. Obama isn’t capitulating to you and he isn’t coming to the right. He’s always been fairly centrist, it’s just that you’re so far to the right that anything less than that is considered by you to be gratuitously liberal. It’s why you even call John McCain a liberal. Look, I know it must be hard to conceive of an instance where conservatism failed, so it’s merely easier for you to redefine conservative. Your own party is now writing off George Bush as “not a real conservative”, after years of hailing him as the new Reagan, it’s really quite astonishing.

    Oh, and by the way, Obama’s never mentioned a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, so it won’t be a disappointment if nothing comes of that. I mean, we already won an election, I don’t see the need to punish you guys anymore. But, taxes will be raised. Just yesterday, his campaign was stressing the importance of either repealing the Bush tax cuts or letting them expire. Which brings me to a funny point. History proves that every times taxes are raised on those who earn more, the economy improves. So I find the argument of “you can’t raise taxes during a recession” a bit odd. And I’m fairly certain that I’ll get an extra long rant for a rebuttal, so go ahead, I’ll give you first shot…

  34. John, I’d like you to explain how government has dominion over a man’s body. I think if anything, you just strengthened my argument. You claim that “my body my choice” discriminates against men, though you admit that many men are irresponsible cowards that refuse to take care of the children they father. If the man has a choice to walk away from it, and the woman has the choice to terminate the pregnancy, how is the man discriminated against?

  35. “I mean, we already won an election, I don’t see the need to punish you guys anymore.”

    So, it was about winning rather than voting for a candidate that represented you? You do realize that McCain winning would have only granted us gloating privaleges as long as Katie Couric continued to come up with stupid questions about Palin, right?

    McCain would have gotten more done for you – as would Hillary – than Hussein seems to be moving towards. As I said, if that’s what you call “winning” and you are confident in that proclamation, then I am happy for you.

    “Conservatism” didn’t fail. This is why McCain and Hillary lost. These folks – along with Biden – voted for insane liberal policies for quite sometime now. Lefties loved Hussein during the campaign because of his ties with Ayers and radical black groups were excited because of his ties with Wright. But, in the end, he tossed those folks aside along with his Iraq, taxes, and Gitmo pre-election talk. As long as he moves around to the common-sense as he seems to be doing, then I’m fine with that.

    Sarah Palin would have been no different – actually she passed a fairly comprehensive healthcare plan within her own state as part of her budget that gets enacted in 2009. But, you folks were convinced that if she ever were to be elected that the entire country would be forced to go to church and suddenly abortion would be overturned. Oh wait, and that women would be forced to pay for rape kits all over the country!

    Nah, no radicalism on the side of the left.

    Blacks are coming around slowly. They are beginning to understand, like Rice, like Steele, like Clarence Thomas, etc. (you know, all the ones appointed by racist Republicans) – that liberals love blacks to be poor and oppressed because it allows the Democratic party to serve as sort of a hero-platform. Just like they do with the gays.

    As Mel pointed out, the states that voted Prop. 8 also voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. Ellen knew Obama and Biden were against gay marriage. But when Obama came on her show, she danced joyously with him but then used Sarah Palin as a punching bag to let her feelings out on politicians who were against gay marriage.

    It’s embarrassing as a gay person for me to see such transparency as I am sure it is embarrassing for a black person to see the same transparency among their race.

    And I can say that because by Hollywood standards I am technically a bigger victim today than a black person!

    Lastly, Americans voted for Barack Obama because they wanted “change.” Fine. But many criticize Bush (though we was magnificent at protecting us) for not being a good conservative when it came to spending. Of course there was also those bailout and amnesty for illegal issues as well. If Americans wanted a guaranteed crazy liberal who wanted to nationalize healthcare, raise taxes immediately, and grant amnesty to illegals, they would have voted for one of the two candidates who had the record of voting pro-amnesty and anti-tax cuts: McCain or Clinton.

    A vote for Obama does anything but transcend a message from the American people of “more liberalism.” Obama was a guy with little experience and not much to go on and it was the moderates that gave him the election.

    Of course there were the radicals and the welfare cases who thought he was going to re-distribute wealth. Now, he’s not going to do that, so it’ll be fun to watch them get angry, admittedly.

    Finally, Robert, it doesn’t matter that men are “irresponsible cowards” – it is no difference than some women acting as “irresponsible tramps.”

    Lousy moral character is lousy, I don’t care which way it flies. But if the woman has a choice after conception, then so should the man. John’s point was that if the woman chose to have the baby, the man would be trapped. In other words, if the father did not want the baby, he could not force the mother to kill it.

    “Choice” was never meant to be sexist or one-sided.

  36. LEts fight to gay…!!!!
    Avoid this community..!!!!!
    FIght…FIght To the gay community…

    this is a big Cruel community…
    we have to eliminate it….!!!!

  37. “John, I’d like you to explain how government has dominion over a man’s body.”

    Let’s begin with paternity tests. On nothing more than the word of a woman a man can be compelled to take a paternity test. Doesn’t he have a right to privacy?

    You call men cowards who don’t want to step up to their responsibilities? Isn’t a woman ditching her responsibility by getting an abortion? When a woman tells a man she is on the pill or can’t have kids and she is lying, the guy is stuck with being a father. He’s burdened by her lie. He can’t walk away. He can’t compel her to get an abortion or give the baby up for adoption.

    I know none of this will convince you but I thought it was worth a shot.

  38. “It’s just kinda dumb.”

    Kinda dumb? You are being way too polite?

    Here in CA with all of the Prop 8 fallout and the like I shouldn’t get up and go to work each day but somehow I muster the energy in spite of this great Golden State oppression I live under.

  39. Yes, Steven, I gave my vote and dedicated time and energy to the Obama campaign in a fiendish plot to punish right wing wack jobs. It really had nothing to do with him being clearly the superior candidate. And why are you attacking Katie Couric and not that bimbo Palin for not being able to answer the simplest of questions? She made her own decision to do ZERO prep for either of her interviews, and you all you people can do is attack the “liberal” media? Are you kidding me? Even a fucking six year old can tell you what they like to read, why the hell can’t your “savior”? And before you get up in arms about me calling her a bimbo, just remember that she asserted that she had foreign policy experience because she was the governor of the state where Russian aircraft supposedly entered our airspace. In case you don’t see where I’m going with this, it never happened. Russians don’t come into US airspace. She’s a bimbo.
    McCain would have done more for me? In terms of what, giving me more reasons to hate your party? ‘Cause I’ve got to tell you, keeping us bogged down in Iraq for another hundred years, making insane tax cuts for the richest among us permanent, and installing right wing psychos on the Supreme Court doesn’t really do much for me. I am happy with my choice, and moreover, I am brimming with pride, something I haven’t felt in quite some time.
    Conservatism most certainly failed, just as it failed in 2006, and just as it has been a failure for the past eight years. “Lefties” love Obama because he is everything George Bush is not – intelligent, compassionate, worthy of respect, and thoughtful in his responses as well as his decisions. No one in their right mind was excited when they learned of what Ayers did in his past, which is more than I can say for your side of the aisle, who seem genuinely indignant when you mention the glaring fact that a right wing hero, Oliver North, was convicted of crimes against this country, or seek to downplay psychos like G. Gordon Liddy, who has never seen the inside of a jail cell for offering advice to fellow psychos on the best place to aim if you want to kill federal agents. Obama has not tossed anyone aside, unfortunately not even people like you. If you pay rational attention to things, plans are still in place to remove troops from Iraq, plans have already been drawn up to close Guantanamo Bay, and as I said before, as recently as Sunday, David Axelrod stressed the importance of ending the free ride for the rich.
    Blacks are coming around slowly? Really, Steve? Then perhaps you can explain why whenever I tune in to the Sunday shows, the conversation inevitably turns to what the Republican Party can do to woo minority voters. You’re not gaining any new fans. As a matter of fact, you’re losing staples like the Cuban community in Florida. People aren’t stupid, Steve. There’s a huge stigma surrounding your party regarding race for a very valid reason, and your argument is completely ridiculous. The only party interested in keeping people poor is yours, it’s why they’ve fought against every worker protection and anti poverty measure put forth since the 1930’s, and it’s why they are more than willing to let the domestic auto industry die in a concerted effort to destroy organized labor. Tell me how putting three million people out of work can be spun to convey Republicans wanting people to be lifted out of poverty. Nobody was more pissed off at LBJ for cutting poverty in half in just four years than Republicans. When people better themselves, and contribute to the building of a strong middle class, Republicans always pay at the polls.
    And you are unfortunately correct about a large number of blacks voting in favor of Prop (h)8. I’ve already displayed my disappointment on my blog. Apparently there is a huge double standard regarding who deserves civil rights among the black community. It’s sad, and it’s something that definitely needs to be worked on.
    Steve, we’ve had this argument countless times, and you do no service to yourself to proclaim that George Bush was magnificent at protecting us, because to do so would be to ignore the nearly 3,000 lives that were lost on his watch. It makes no sense to say we only got attacked once while he was president. It’s just ridiculous, and you really should just stay away from it. And please spare me several paragraphs of blathering about nonexistent “liberal legislation” that forced Bush to stare blankly into space for minutes on end while people were dying, because you still to this day have not mentioned any specific legislation that prevented the president from acting.

  40. “and as I said before, as recently as Sunday, David Axelrod stressed the importance of ending the free ride for the rich.”

    That’s very annoying. According to the most current data I have from taxfoundation.org:

    In 2005 it went down this way:

    The top 10% paid a staggering 70.3% of federal income taxes collected in 2005. They accouted for 46.4% of total adjusted gross income.

    The bottom 50% paid a meager 3.1%. They earned 12.8% of total adjusted gross income.

    Don’t tell me rich people get a free ride. They don’t get a free ride.

    Also, the rich unlike the poor take economic risks that create jobs. Jobs lead to payrolls. Payrolls lead to people buying things they want and need. Think about that the next time you cash your paycheck. Somebody invested money in the company you work for and took a risk.

  41. Also, Steve, Rick Warren has removed anti gay statements from his website, so if anyone’s capitulating, it’s the right…

  42. Wow, he removed anti-gay statements from his website? Now did he do that before or after Hussein invited him to the inauguration?

    🙂

    I’m working right now, but I laughed through your last post talking back to it in my mind. But you can rest assured, a good one’s coming.

    😉

  43. Well, first, the rich most certainly do get a free ride. The numbers you provide tell us that the rich pay more in tax dollars than most of us, and it’s because they make more than most of us, but as a percentage of income (not a percentage of total dollars), they pay less than everyone else. Everyone by now knows the infamous story of Warren Buffet paying a 17.3% tax rate as opposed to his receptionist paying a 32% tax rate, but he also offered to give $1 million to charity if any of the Forbes 400 richest people could prove that their tax rates were higher than those of their secretaries. Needless to say, Buffett hasn’t written any $1 million checks lately.

    And pray tell, if you happen to think that the current tax structure is fair, why is it that President Bush was urged by 450 economists, including 10 Nobel Prize Laureates not to implement his tax cuts, saying that the tax cuts were reverse government redistribution of wealth (what you people love to laud Obama for), “shifting the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes”? (source: http://www.epi.org/stmt/2003/statement_signed.pdf)

    This nonsensical tax cut has increased the federal budget deficit by $258 billion, bringing it to somewhere around $550 billion. This is something that cons(ervatives) have never learned to unlearn after Reagan’s completely insane tax cuts, when he dropped the marginal tax rate from 70% to 27% (spanning two tax cuts), which resulted in two recessions, followed by massive borrowing and spending (Reagan managed to rack up more debt than all thirty nine presidents before him COMBINED), and a complete ceasing of investment in infrastructure. George Bush Sr. called it voodoo economics, and rightly so. And it’s always the same; every time taxes are cut, we see a boom, a bubble, and a recession. On the flip side, when taxes are raised, it provides long term growth, and allows government to create jobs by investing in infrastructure.

    It’s not rocket science, and the way you cons defend the rich and shit all over the poor is repugnant. I defy anyone who reads this to explain what the rich can do to earn the money they have . Someone please tell me why Mike Parker, President of Nike, made $3.6 million last year. Seriously, what could someone possibly do to earn $1,731 per hour? The disparity of income in this country is sickening, and while you cons are so concerned with the minimum wage not rising (the floor on earnings), nothing ever is said about the ceiling. You people are no different from Libertarians who don’t view this as a society, we’re just a group of individuals, aren’t we?

    And John, the ultra rich have done nothing more than create a service economy. If I wash your car in exchange for you mowing my lawn, we’re merely moving money around. If we want a healthy economy, one that creates wealth, we have to go back to a production based economy. But that seems very difficult at the moment, what with the cons’ twenty eight years of insane trade policies, and yes, Bill Clinton is included in that. We don’t make anything in this country anymore, we simply export all our raw materials to countries like China, who in turn produce finished goods and sell them right back to us. And no one has had the sense (or guts) to reinstate worthwhile import tariffs. Why not remove the incentive to outsource jobs to countries where labor is cheap. It’s almost as if the cons don’t value American jobs. This country is in the fucking toilet because of conservatism, and it’s about time the people got off their asses and did something about it.

    And for those who think the Bush tax cuts (or any tax cut for the rich) were a good thing, I’ll leave you with some numbers.
    Since Bush has been president:

    •over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;

    •nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;

    •median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;

    •three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;

    •three million American workers have lost their pensions;

    •home foreclosures are now the highest on record;

    •the personal savings rate is below zero – which hasn’t happened since the great depression;

    •the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;

    •entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;

    •wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.

    And let’s not forget that no Republican President in the last three decades has left office with under a 5% unemployment rate…

  44. Robert,

    Can you answer me one simple question?

    Why didn’t Katie Couric ask Barack Obama, John McCain, or Joe Biden what magazines they read?

    Why didn’t Katie Couric demand a book report on Supreme Court Justices from Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John McCain?

    You cannot say it is because we knew more about Barack Obama than we knew about Sarah Palin. I think it would have been completely fair to demand a book report from Obama on Ayers’ book written in 2000 where he said he didn’t so enough bombing.

    To further prove my point of the “non-existant” liberal media, your point of racism among Republicans is stated as follows:

    “Then perhaps you can explain why whenever I tune in to the Sunday shows, the conversation inevitably turns to what the Republican Party can do to woo minority voters.”

    Of course, the fair and balanced media at MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC want to bring to the forefront of what specifically Republicans have and have not done for the blacks. Moving ahead, I also have a feeling they failed to recite every African American appointment by Republican administrations like both Bush administrations, like the fact that it was Republicans that have had their hands in every massive reform of the blacks and their rights from ending slavery to actually promoting them based on their individual merits and rights. That always works among folks who work for what they want, not those who misconstrue tax code to make a case for why the rich don’t pay enough income tax (the most preposterous thing I have heard).

    What you didn’t tell us about the fair fellows at MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC is what episode did they discuss what the Democrats have specifically done for the blacks? Especially recently.

    Say, who was the most prominent black individual in the Clinton administration?

    Of course, I am certain you can give me a link to the transcripts of one of those shows that fully and fairly inform the American people about the liberal shortcomings with regard to gays and blacks can’t you?

    Hey, thank God there’s not a liberal media huh?

  45. “Well, first, the rich most certainly do get a free ride.”

    In America Robert, nobody who is successful gets it free.

    “The numbers you provide tell us that the rich pay more in tax dollars than most of us, and it’s because they make more than most of us, but as a percentage of income (not a percentage of total dollars), they pay less than everyone else. ”

    Are you dreaming? The reason I have been so busy for the last three weeks is because year end is approaching and I do so well this time of year because my successful clients have to work with me to find out ways to reduce their tax liability.

    For example; a client of mine who owns a small business and profits about a million dollars a year also employs 10 individuals. Through his gross earnings, he puts more money into the pockets of those employees, pays for their pensions, health insurance, etc. You are absolutely smoking crack if you believe those employees are paying a higher percentage of their income than my client is.

    We work hard to legally use his profits that benefit him for tax season. We’re allowed to do that. You see, he’s going to pay over $400K in income taxes.

    Gee, what is $1M and $400K? IT’S 40% It’s the federal tax rate plus the state tax rate. Everyone pays a percentage of their income Robert, but because of child tax credits, AND EARNED INCOME CREDIT (as we have discussed before) – poor people wind up paying NOTHING.

    No, my client pays it for them thank you very much.

    Moreover; my client has to match their social security, pension contributions, and pays their premiums for their health insurance. Add all those expenses up, I think we have a winner, folks!

    You cannot ignore reality with idiotic blather.

    Being an American means you work. You decide right now what you want and you go out there and get it.

    What a pompous attitude to come here and say you want to decide now how much everyone should make?

    What the hell kind of moronic crap is that? The president of Nike I am certain spent more time in school and probably conducted his life with a lot more discipline than you have, Robert. He doesn’t have time to sit around all day like you do spicing up his MySpace page.

    He works weekends, he made sacrifices. You don’t say how much or how little success he gets because you aren’t making his decisions.

    That attitude in and of itself proves your love of communism. That is not what being an American is about.

    How about we regulate the salaries of Hollywood celebrities? I can see Matt Damon’s face now.

    Can we tell George Clooney how much he should make?

    Guess what Robert? If you don’t like the President of Nike making money, don’t buy Nike shoes.

    This is why I refuse to watch George Clooney movies (aside from the fact that he and Damon are wash-ups and quite boring).

    Frankly, and I am sorry to say it – the only reason people talk like you are because they don’t have the backbone required to fairly compete.

    You don’t get it because it’s your right.

    You get it because you work for it.

    Bush did not cause anyone to go into poverty or lose their health insurance or lose their homes. Bush inherited the Clinton slump and millions of Americans who had homes under liberal policies that they could not afford.

    Here’s a recipe for success:

    1.) Pay your bills on time.
    2.) Save your money. Cook your own food and stop going out to eat all the time. You aren’t “entitled.”
    3.) Save up 20% of the down payment like those evil rich had to.
    4.) Work weekends.
    5.) Go to school and take advantage of the opportunities this country gives you.

    If you want to be a CEO, get a degree in economics. If you want to own your own business and have the backbone and discipline to take those risks like my clients have to, then leave the confines of your comfortable job to put your neck on the line like they do.

    For Christ Sake, be an American.

    Celebrate that Hussein has backed away from tax hikes. In fact, he’s keeping the Bush tax cuts that your liberal economists cited above said were bad.

    Say why did Hussein say he was doing that? Why I do believe he said it was because it would hurt the economy. All the horrible things you hated John McCain for!

    You didn’t want to be in Iraq any longer? Say, why did Hussein pull away suddenly from his position on that?

    Frankly Robert, you don’t have the luxury of looking at a college graduate who went on to become a mother (with kids by one man), a mayor, a Governor, and a VP Candidate, and calling her a “bimbo.”

    That; in and of itself, makes you the hairiest bimbo in the history of this country.

  46. “Frankly, and I am sorry to say it – the only reason people talk like you are because they don’t have the backbone required to fairly compete. ”

    Amen!!!

    They want it all but they don’t want to lift a finger to get it.

  47. “Why didn’t Katie Couric ask Barack Obama, John McCain, or Joe Biden what magazines they read? “

    Who knows? More importantly, who cares? She got the softest of softball questions and still couldn’t answer it. That’s pathetic.

    “Why didn’t Katie Couric demand a book report on Supreme Court Justices from Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John McCain?”

    Obama, Biden, and McCain were all Senators with fair amounts of governmental experience, one of which actually taught constitutional law. The question was put to Palin so that the public could get some insight as to her thoughts on substantive issues. Unfortunately, we found out she really has no thoughts. And ONE court case is hardly a book report. Ayers never said he didn’t do enough bombing, and you know it. But it would be a bit much of me to expect a con to be anything shy of disingenuous.

    And explain to me again how whenever any media outlet reports on something you don’t agree with, they’re liberal. This is an old fallback of the right, and it’s never been explained. It’s a sad excuse to deflect attention from the incompetence of your party. You just did it with Palin. She’s an idiot, so it must be the media’s fault. She couldn’t give one example of McCain pushing for more regulation in 26 years, and oh no, it’s not that she’s not a maverick; it’s the media’s fault! When are you going to start laying blame at the feet of people who don’t prepare responses thoughtful enough to get past talking points? You can’t blame the media just because you don’t like the facts they report, that’s ridiculous. You people sit there and trash the New York Times for being liberal, but never mind the fact that they endorsed John McCain, never mind the fact that they were beating the drums for your bullshit war just as hard as anyone else, and never mind the fact that no one heard so much as a peep out of a single con when Dick Cheney had two staff writers at the New York Times leaking stories from the White House! Your double standards are so prevalent, it’s revolting. If the media is so liberal, then why the hell did I have an endless loop of Jeremiah Wright on my TV for three weeks, but did not hear one single story on Sarah Palin’s pastor claiming that terrorism was a just punishment from God to the Jews for turning their backs on Him? Or when John McCain actively sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, who said that Hitler was a hunter sent from God to incur His wrath on the Jews, that hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment against gays, and that Catholicism is the great whore of Revelation. Why didn’t the liberal media report any of that?

    Instead of bitching that the media isn’t as right wing as you’d like it to be, perhaps you should seek to nominate smarter people for office…

  48. “Who knows? More importantly, who cares? She got the softest of softball questions and still couldn’t answer it. That’s pathetic.”

    No, that’s not a “softball” question. It’s a stupid question and I understood Palin’s annoyance at the total unprofessional manner in which Couric conducted herself. If Palin wanted to win applause, she should have socked Katie in the mouth. Or perhaps she should invite Couric on a hunting trip.

    Tell me, why did you care – or why did Katie care (since she was asking these thoughtful questions on your behalf) what Sarah Palin read or what news outlets she uses? She said “all of them” – that the hell did you want, a detailed list?

    It’s simply not possible to be as stupid as someone when they are asking such a stupid question. Or even worse, someone who defends such a stupid question.

    So Palin wins on that basis alone.

    She did it so you could say Palin was stupid. That’s why she asked it.

    Thank God there’s not a liberal media, huh?

    “Obama, Biden, and McCain were all Senators with fair amounts of governmental experience, one of which actually taught constitutional law. The question was put to Palin so that the public could get some insight as to her thoughts on substantive issues. ”

    What a pathetic excuse. One who “actually taught constitutional law” should indeed have been subjected to the same question. He was actually running for President when Palin was running for VICE-President. Palin was 100% honest about the “substantive” issues such as saying “I am 100% unapologetic about my position as a pro-lifer” or “I do not agree with gay marriage” – if you knew what “substantive” meant, you’d know how ask a question that gets you a more-than relevant response. So, why don’t you save yourself a whole lot of time here and just say “abortion?”

    You knew Palin’s position. You know what her position is on everything! And guess what? Not one of those positions have changed since the election, Robert.

    Wish I could say the same for Hussein, the Christian. But thankfully and in the best interest of the country, I cannot.

    Jeremiah Wright blamed terrorism and 9/11 on the United States government. He blamed AIDS on a government conspiracy created by the United States government in the 1980’s to wipe out the black race.

    Of course, once he was reminded that Democrats and their klan-leaders weren’t around in the 80’s, and that it was Democrats like Gerry Studds having anal sex with 17-year old pages that actually promoted the spread of the virus, he suddenly shut up.

    The point is, all religious doctrine supports the ideology of believing that attacks and tragedy were going to happen in the final days once societies (much like ours) has stopped asking for God’s help.

    Or perhaps you missed the headlines last night? Suddenly, lefties want to know the content of Rick Warren’s prayer before he delievers it?

    Sarah Palin’s pastor, Rick Warren, Jerry Falwell, and every minister under the sun are responsible with delivering religious doctrine for those who want to hear it. There was nothing to be alarmed about from Sarah Palin’s pastor. In point of fact, liberals want anything but that kind of a message getting out. You can thank your liberals for stifling that message.

    There was no religious doctrine in the messages of Jeremiah Wright.

    It’s funny how you still speak of the man as a victim when it was Hussein HIMSELF that denounced him and tossed him under the bus! That’s MY President.

    YOUR President would have tossed him under the bus for political gain without any intention of doing the right thing.

    So, the moral of the story is – I suppose the next few months will determine just whose President Hussein really is.

    Yours or mine?

  49. “You are absolutely smoking crack if you believe those employees are paying a higher percentage of their income than my client is.”

    Is this client earning in excess of $3 million a year? Then that wouldn’t exactly put him on the Forbes list, now would it? I am talking about the richest of the rich, and $1 million a year isn’t anywhere close, sadly. And if this client is paying a percentage of HIS income, as you have asserted, how it that he is paying for someone else? And as I have already explained, poor people “pay nothing” because they make nothing. You can’t get blood from a turnip. And they aren’t paying nothing, they still pay FICA, payroll taxes. Proof that the rich benefitted while the poor got screwed: Reagan (the delightful one you people call hero) raised payroll taxes on the working poor to fund the cuts for the already wealthy.

    “What a pompous attitude to come here and say you want to decide now how much everyone should make?”

    Kind of like you and the minimum wage? We had certain laws in this country for a reason, and it was to prevent the kind of disparity we have now. It used to be illegal for a corporation to exist past forty years. We didn’t have dynastic wealth in this country from the 1930’s til the 1980’s. The American dream has recalibrated from owning a modest home and being able to raise a family on a single income to the celebration of wealth we see today. Ask 70+% what their dream is, I guarantee you their response contains some version of the word rich. That’s all people want these days. I say it’s far more pompous for you to protect and defend something that, in the end, hurts everybody. You cons are obviously more concerned with “me”, than with “we”, and it’s frankly a little sad. You put yourselves up on a pedestal, and look down on people who struggle just like you. You despise the poor and rail about what could be if they “worked a little harder”, completely ignoring the fact that the poor probably work harder than anyone, and yet they have nothing to show for it, except assholes who would deny them the chance at a living wage.

    “What the hell kind of moronic crap is that? The president of Nike I am certain spent more time in school and probably conducted his life with a lot more discipline than you have, Robert. He doesn’t have time to sit around all day like you do spicing up his MySpace page.”

    Tell me Steve, when was the last time I “spiced up my MySpace page”? Dumbass. And you still haven’t answered the question of what he could possibly do to earn the money he makes, and it’s because you can’t. You know damn well he makes more than he’s worth, and please don’t twist my words to say I’m quantifying someone’s life, you know exactly what I mean. Most of the ultra rich, if not all, do not genuinely deserve the money they have. They don’t work for it, they pay someone else pennies to do it for them. I hardly consider sitting around the pool waiting for the dividend check to arrive work. Sure, some work weekends, and make “sacrifices”, but why? If you think it’s not greed, then you’re naive. And you keep confusing success with excess. And when the President of Nike gets to rake in millions from exploiting children in China, I most certainly get to say how much “success” he has. It really is disgusting how you cons fight tooth and nail for the most fortunate among us, but poor people be damned. You treat the rich as if they’re God, and spit in the face of those who make an honest living. And since you’re clearly boned up on the subject, tell us Steve, what is it to be an American? Is it the scenario I describe above, where everyone’s out for theirs, fuck everyone else? Or is it a sense of community, where I AM my brother’s keeper, and no one gets left behind? There is a fucking chasm between the rich and the poor that’s only gotten wider these last eight years, and you love it that way. Please, for the love of all that is Holy, tell me why that is. You don’t value hard work, you value the end result, and I can see it clearly in my head how you treat that millionaire who walks into your office, and I can see a much different treatment of a working poor person, assuming they somehow had the money to afford your services that I am equally certain are overpriced.

    “How about we regulate the salaries of Hollywood celebrities? I can see Matt Damon’s face now.”

    Oh man, that would be awesome! There’s another prime example of assholes that get paid way too much for what they do. Professional athletes too! Why on earth does someone get paid $30 million to play a fucking game?

    “Frankly, and I am sorry to say it – the only reason people talk like you are because they don’t have the backbone required to fairly compete.”

    What a fucking joke you are. So, it’s your contention that it takes real spinal fortitude for me to tell thousands of Americans that their services are no longer needed because some kid in China whose name I can’t pronounce will do the same job for a mere forty cents per day? It’s real ballsy to increase the size of my bonus by knowingly allowing more toxic material into the toys I import into the country, isn’t it? This is exactly what I’m talking about; you value wealth, so you turn around and attack someone who makes a decent living without cutting anyone’s throat. You people make me sick, and so does the intellectually lazy person who agreed with you, by assuming that those of us who aren’t billionaires are looking for a handout. Buffett was right when he said “Class warfare does exist, and my class is winning.”

    There is no such thing as a Clinton slump, you lazy ass. I’m sure it had nothing to do with those tax cuts for the rich right? It has nothing to do with our trade policy with China, right? Clinton’s reasonable tax structure increased revenue to the government, creating a budget surplus that your guy gave away before being installed by the Supreme Court! Hey vote for me, I’ll give you $300! Never mind the fact that I’ve never had a balanced budget, and pay no attention to the $5 Trillion in debt I just added to the national credit card. That’s the problem with you cons, you love to borrow and spend, racking up debt and rewriting history by saying Reagan did great things for the economy. No, he just made it LOOK good, and now, we’re paying billions of dollars a year IN INTEREST on Regan’s debt. Yeah, that’s a good economy. Give ME a three trillion dollar credit card, and I’ll show you a good economy too.

    And as for your recipe for success, I, like countless others in this country, have done those things (with the exception of #3; I’m not a homeowner), and guess what, still not a millionaire. How do you propose we get past that, in light of the fact that wages have been steadily declining since 1981?

    Tax hikes for the rich are not being backed away from; neither is closing Gitmo or getting out of Iraq. Where the hell are you getting your news, Drudge?

    And forgive me for failing to realize the fact that a journalism major from five colleges who thinks Russians enter our airspace and can’t figure out which magazine entertains her more, “Cracked” or “Highlights”, is really a genius deserving of my admiration. “Ooh, you can actually see Russia from land here, don’tcha know?” She’s a bimbo, get over it.

  50. Again – psycho, what qualifies you as being the one to say “this one is too rich.”

    Robert, if someone makes $1 or $1 Trillion dollars, they pay income tax. The unfair factor is that they don’t pay the same percentage.

    So, here goes:

    For single persons (taxable income):

    0 – 7,825 = 10% minus 0.00=Tax
    7,826 – 31,850 = 15% minus 391.25=Tax
    31,851 – 77,100 = 25% minus 3,576.25=Tax
    77,101 – 160,850 = 28% minus 5,889.25=Tax
    160,851 – 349,700=33% minus13,931.75=Tax
    349,701 and over = 35% minus 20,925.75=Tax

    Okay, Robert, let’s pretend you are an average “hard-working” liberal American. You have an $80,000 loan on your own house (assuming you’ve moved out on your own) and your home loan gets interest expense of 5.8% annually. Your real estate taxes are 2,500.00 and you contributed 1,500.00 to your local church. Your income is 45,000.00.

    Ready?

    Gross Income $45,000

    Deductions:
    Mortage Int. -7,000
    Real Estate Tax -2,500
    Contributions -1,500
    Deduction for State Taxes -1,350

    Taxable Income 32,650.00

    Tax on 32,650.00 for a single person = 4,586.25

    4,586.25/45,000 = 11%

    That’s 11% Robert, get it?

    Okay, the President of Nike:

    He’s different. His annual income is 3 million, has a home worth 2 million at an interest rate of 5% as well. HOWEVER, because the IRS have so much regard for “the rich” “the hard-working and successful who hire, invest, and create the economy,” he can only deduct mortgage interest up to a principle loan amount of $1,100,000 (whereas you get 100% of your interest versus the mere 55% he gets to deduct WOW things are so easy for the rich, aren’t they?). Because he is rich, he donates $250,000 to various charitable organizations, he has real estate taxes for his big fancy mansion in the amount of $25K and his state income tax liability is $90K.

    Let’s do the math on that:

    Income: $3Million

    Deductions:

    Mortgage Interest: $75,000 (he cannot deduct the full $140,000 because he’s “too rich”)

    Real Estate Taxes = 25,000
    Contributions = 250,000
    State Tax = 90,000

    Total deductions = 440,000

    3,000,000 – 440,000 = 2,560,000.00

    You wanna know what the income tax on $2.6M in taxable income is?

    IT’S 868,206.00!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    868,206/3,000,000 = 29%

    Let’s see, Robert’s 11% versus President Nike’s 29%.

    Take into consideration that I did not take into consideration President Nike’s AMT liability (an extra tax that tells Mr. Nike he must pay a certain amount of tax on his gross income regardless his deductions) nor the limit on deductions he will receive.

    So, Robert, as you can see you are a factual liar. There is no way you could ever pay more in income tax (at a higher percentage) than the President of Nike.

    So, in conclusion, Mr. Nike goes to school more, works harder, contributes more to the economy, society, and employs people, works harder than you, AND STILL puts more into the overall pot of socialism you think he doesn’t put enough into already.

    Get over yourself and work harder. The answer is quite simple.

    Next – it is simply a fact you can see Russia from land in Alaska. And yes it is a fact that Russians enter airspace. Can you even give us a definition of “airspace.”

    Hey, and I am going to complain to Hussein about you. I’ll tell all those inner city kids to forget community college! It limits their dreams! Moreover; they wouldn’t want to work too hard anyway, someday you’d allege them having it easy, right?

    So much for the American Dream, so much for grabbing the brass ring.

    It’s funny you use the work “deserving” with regard to your admiration.

    If Sarah Palin looked at your life, do you think it really mattered to her either way whether or not she had it?

    So not only do you want to tell CEOS and other hardworkers how much value their hard work is worth. You immediately become a hypocrite by severly over-pricing your own “admiration.”

    Can we get the government to regulate that please? It’s undeserving. Plus we all know you never worked for it.

  51. “What a fucking joke you are. So, it’s your contention that it takes real spinal fortitude for me to tell thousands of Americans that their services are no longer needed because some kid in China whose name I can’t pronounce will do the same job for a mere forty cents per day?”

    No, it’s my contention that you tell everyone in the union to stop demanding they make the same amount of money someone with an MBA makes so that factories won’t have to turn to foreign sources like they have to.

    It’s the one smart thing Bill Clinton addressed with NAFTA.

    And yes, Hussein is keeping the Bush tax cuts until 2010 and will not be hiking anyone’s taxes. Also, he’s not giving speeches about Iraq now that we’ve already set a date for withdrawal in 2011. He did kind of set you up by saying “I might not be able to do everything in these next 4 years…..” (your job Robert is to believe him! Don’t disappoint us!)

  52. Oh and on Guantanamo, he’s simply waiting for one of the countries in Europe to offer up and allow the prisoners to stay with them.

    Or you can speed things up, Rob. Just call up Washington, give them your hometown’s local municipal numbers and tell them that on behalf of all citizens of your state, you’d be happy to have the detainees there with you.

  53. “And since you’re clearly boned up on the subject, tell us Steve, what is it to be an American? Is it the scenario I describe above, where everyone’s out for theirs, fuck everyone else? Or is it a sense of community, where I AM my brother’s keeper, and no one gets left behind?”

    It’s a mix. We all deserve and are entitled to a fair opportunity to pursue our goals and dreams. What we do with those opportunties is a matter of personal choice.

    Some gather grain like the ant. Others fiddle away like the grasshopper. Then winter comes.

    If you could have gathered grain and you chose to goof off, then freeze or starve to death. I owe you nothing. You had your opportunities. You made your choices. Live with the choices you made.

    Why should I become poorer to keep you from being poor?

    I’ve got a sister who chose to fiddle around instead of gathering grain. Her bad choices have come home to roost. I don’t help her out. She lives paycheck to paycheck and I am fine with that. She had the same chances I had. The only person she has to blame for her plight is herself.

  54. “Tell me Steve, when was the last time I “spiced up my MySpace page”? Dumbass. And you still haven’t answered the question of what he could possibly do to earn the money he makes, and it’s because you can’t.”

    The CEO of any Fortune 500 company makes decisions that can make or break a company. In the case of Nike, someone had to green light the Air Jordan basketball shoe program. The Air Jordan basketball shoe was a success. It could have flopped.

    The same decision had to made regarding signing Tiger Woods to a multi million dollar endorsement contract before he turned pro. Tiger Woods went on to become a major golf star. He could have also flopped as a professional too.

    CEO’s make decisions that not every person on the street can make. The right actions can produce an undesired result. There are no guarantees. Just ask anyone who runs a film studio. Great movies flop at the box office too.

    Wrong descisions can sink companies. When the companies fail, hard working people lose jobs. Just ask anyone who used to work for Montgomery Wards, Pan Am World Airways, and Woolworth. Those companies had their days in the sun.

    CEO’s make what the free market capitalist system dictates they make. Given the pressure, demands and the special talent required, the compensation is high. If running a company were easy, then compensation would go down due to competition for the jobs. You don’t see grocery baggers making $10 million a year because there are more than enough people who are willing and able to do that job.

    We can debate all day long if a teacher should earn more than a blackjack dealer or pro baseball player. What really is not up for debate is the fact we live in a free market capitalist system. The glory and gory that comes with this system is inherent. Other economic systems have their glory and gory sides too. If you want something fair that doesn’t discourage people from working then I am all ears.

  55. John –

    I have a personal touch to that, as liberal as that sounds.

    My own sister has a son. She is one of those who never took work seriously either. She parties all the time and has more-than-one boyfriend.

    She works as a massage therapist and is in her 30’s. Thankfully, she had only one child. I love him quite a bit as does my mom and the rest of us.

    For Christmas this year, she had no money. Basically, the rest of us were in charge of giving her and her boy a Christmas.

    And you’re right, even though I had the extra money, why was it my responsibility to replace her irresponsibility?

    Liberals exist solely to destroy what makes us true human beings.

    It was special for me to exude what Christmas was all about. It is indeed about giving and while I am annoyed year-round, it was more important for me to forget my annoyances and love my family. It makes me feel good to give. But liberals want to take that choice away from me and make it a government-mandated requirement to take away the instinctual nature of giving and helping that humans as Christians possess.

    Therefore; giving and being good people are replaced with robotic systematic behavior where each person is forced to give a certain sum while one person decides what it gets spent on.

    Liberals exist to undermine not only human existence exhibited by their love of abortion and defense of scumball criminals, but also to undermine human kindness in and of itself.

    This is why no liberal would ever tally up the financial help given by churches, Christians, and other religious organizations.

    I want my right to give when I see fit.

    You see, Robert has obviously lost trust in that. As most liberals have. People give. It’s their responsibilities as human beings. But not their responsibilities as Americans.

    Being a real American and working for what is yours without being discouraged of what the government is going to take from you is what gives us the opportunities to give by providing work, donating money, and taking care of our own families who sometimes fall under hard times.

    But the hard times are valuable. They remind us how good things are when they are good and teaches us to be thankful.

    We aren’t entitled to have things “good” all the time. That would be boring and we would truly lose the ability and need for being thankful under that type of communism.

  56. I have to respond to Robert’s “me” vs. “we” statement. You say conservatives despise the poor. That we wish they’d work a little harder.

    Robert, I’d be happy if some of them would work at all.

    My father got remarried in 2004. My stepmother’s family is great, all except her brother. I have no idea how they produced this leeching cad. He’s a meth addict. He stays with a woman named Bert and they go from camp to camp, happy to be homeless as long as they’ve got their next fix. He brags that he makes around $35,000 annually just by begging; I’ve seen him at it, and he knows how to look at people and what to write on his cardboard sign. As soon as he’s got money, he’s using the cell phone that my stepmother pays for to call his dealer to get more dope.

    It’s all he and his “girlfriend” care about. They think it’s absolutely hilarious when people give them new things like sleeping bags, blankets, clothes and tents; they just sell it and use the money for meth. They go to Church on the Street to get fed on those rare occasions when they do feel like eating, and they go to church services and put on the proper act to get what they need. They laugh about it. I was thoroughly disgusted when Bert showed my 12-year-old stepsister a tooth about to rot out of her head because of the drugs as if it were funny.

    Yes, Robert, they disgust me. They’re not the only ones I know like that. I had to respond to a call for a possible drug overdose over the holidays, and lemme tell you, the patient was a pain. He’d called from a payphone saying he’d smoked too much crack and he was afraid he was going to have a heart attack. As soon as we got him, he was refusing to cooperate. He didn’t want to be strapped down, but he insisted on going to the hospital. When we finally got him in and headed out, he started screaming at me for not having lights and sirens going and not driving fast enough (you should’ve heard the noise he made when I actually stopped at a red light). As soon as we got him to the hospital, he started demanding to be fed. He didn’t want his vitals taken and didn’t want to give any information until they gave him some food.

    I’ve certainly met some folks who were genuinely just down and out, but they’ve so far been few and far between; and yes, my heart does go out to them. I don’t despise anyone, and your assertion that all of us do is a stereotype that we don’t appreciate. Try seeing it from my perspective before you hurl baseless accusations.

  57. “I have a personal touch to that, as liberal as that sounds.”

    That’s not liberal at all and I get your point.

    I should clarify my point. I have it better than my sister because I’ve worked for it. I don’t feel guilty I have it better and I won’t let my liberal family browbeat me into feeling guilty.

    I do donate money to organizations that help (not enable) people in need. I believe we have a moral obligation to do this. I don’t believe we haev a legal one.

  58. “Robert, I’d be happy if some of them would work at all.”

    Ditto. Working the system is not work by the way.

  59. Wow, I’m gone a few days and everybody gets all catty and does what cons do best: beat up on the poor. Everyone who has made an argument here is prefacing that argument with an assertion that I, and liberals, want to take money away from hard working CEOs and give it to meth addicts. It’s a straw man, and it doesn’t hold water. First, I never advocated the above scenario; you people take it upon yourselves to draw ridiculous inferences based on my desire that tax cuts go to those who need them. And if it’s your contention that tax cuts for the lower and middle classes is somehow liberal Robin Hood-ism, I’d like to know where the outrage was that the rich were being stolen from in the 90’s when Clinton’s tax structure was in place. Or how about in the prosperous 50’s when Republican president Eisenhower had the marginal tax rate at 90%? It seems like a step in the right direction is enough to piss you people off. All Barack Obama is proposing is that we go back to the Clinton tax structure. Cons hear this and go ape shit for some reason. But I somehow doubt that if the cut went to those at the top, any of you would be complaining. Why, just the other day, the IMF recommended AGAINST tax cuts for the wealthy, arguing that tax cuts should go to those likely to spend, i.e. the middle class.

    Any taxation is a redistribution of wealth, and if you don’t get that, then this is hopeless. Once you come to the realization that taxes are a means to redistribute wealth, you then need to be confronted with the reality of your preference that wealth be distributed to the wealthy from the poor. Let’s take money from people who desperately need it, and give it to those who already own a disproportionate amount of wealth. Sound good? Of course. But nah, let’s pretend that the wealthiest among us did something to earn that, like say, “making decisions that make or break a company.” Instead of beating up on the poor, why don’t you turn to the rich and hold them accountable for the make or break decisions they made which forced them to come to us, the taxpayers, hat in hand, because they fucked up? The poor in this country aren’t bussing themselves down to Capitol Hill and asking for $700 billion! We funnel nearly a trillion dollars to fuck ups in nice suits who couldn’t manage their way out of a paper bag, but when the blue collar guys ask for a tenth of what those fuck ups got, oh no, let those guys go bankrupt instead. There is no doubt in my mind that there is an undeclared war against the middle class in this country. This is insane. And you people act so afraid of a socialist tide sweeping the nation? Guess what, it’s already hit. Your Republican president is a socialist. He thinks it’s a fine thing to internalize profit and externalize the cost. To you. And me. It’s ridiculous. So if you want to bitch about being forced to give to charity, blame yourselves and your shitty party for its laissez faire attitude and an illusion of a free market. There is no such thing. You people incessantly cry about government not interfering in the market, but fully ignore the fact that one can’t exist without the other; specifically that government creates the conditions in which a market can exist.

    Governments provide markets with a stable currency for financial transactions. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make the market possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, and airways provided by the government. Businesses that use the “free” market are protected by police and fire departments provided by the government, and they send their communications, from phone to e-mail, over lines that follow public rights of way maintained and protected by, that’s right, the government. I really would like to know where this myth of the free market comes from. What you people want is unregulated capitalism, which, as we know, FDR said, will ultimately destroy itself. I don’t know if any of you are sports fans, but try to imagine a football game with no rules. It’d be chaos. You see where I’m going with this; it’s not something that can last.

    So, to answer inane and asinine comments about liberals wanting to strip people of their humanity, get a fucking grip, really. I have no problem with churches helping people. I belong to a church that just sent two members on a missions trip to Kenya. But I digress; I know how threatening it must be to have a liberal penetrate your little faux monopoly on spirituality.

    And to Mel, I hate to point out the hypocrisy, but you said, of the poor you were seeking to justify despising, “Yes, Robert, they disgust me”, before you started on your way to broad generalizations of the poor being shiftless layabouts and junkies who designed the mess they’re in. Then you had the temerity to tell me that you hate being stereotyped as a typical con who hates the poor. People in glass houses, Mel…

  60. “And if it’s your contention that tax cuts for the lower and middle classes is somehow liberal Robin Hood-ism”

    No, it’s my contention, with the proof I gave you straight from the Internal Revenue Code that your own tax-dodging-rental-real-estate avoiding Democrat, Charles Rangel writes, that it’s not possible to cut the taxes anymore. The gap in percentage of income taxed between the alleged poor and the alleged rich is already ridiculously wide. You cannot ignore facts, Rob.

    Taxes are not meant to be a redistribution….FDR’s New Deal was never meant to be a permanent ideal. Just like these many stimuluses aren’t but miraculously they continue to do them.

    Hey Robert, you want to know what they are planning on doing now for the next stimulus straight from an IRS-seminar-attendee!? Instead of receiving a check in the mail, you’re more-than-likely to receive a giftcard where the “stimulus” MUST be spent on merchandise taking away your “choice” to invest your “tax cut” into a savings account or mutual fund. And to think, this is a free country huh?

    Finally, Mel, John, and I all gave examples of the types you fail to differentiate from what you’re calling the “poor.” Every person I know who struggles make choices like I do.

    Moreover; the truly needy have always been able to rely on the Christian institutions put forth to them. But the truth is, welfare, free health care, church shelters, etc….ALL HAVE RULES that must be lived by. Whinos on the street don’t want the rules, Rob. They want the handout, because afterall, it’s free, right?

    Mel isn’t making broad generalizations. If you don’t see this in your everyday life, then I invite you to step out of the bubble you are living in.

    But it’s easier for you to portray me, Mel, John, or anyone else who advocates personal responsibility as heartless folks who don’t care.

    We’ve been through it a million times. It’s wearing off. It’s like being poked with a fork to the point where there is no feeling.

    Know it’s not affecting me anymore. But if making those accusations makes you feel better about your position, then be my guest.

  61. “Any taxation is a redistribution of wealth, and if you don’t get that, then this is hopeless.”

    I do get that. There are many of us who want to limit that redistribution. The less of it the better.

  62. “But it’s easier for you to portray me, Mel, John, or anyone else who advocates personal responsibility as heartless folks who don’t care.”

    steveflesher

    I’ve been hearing that my entire adult life.

    People are like businesses. Some are worth investing in. Some are not. Resources need to be allocated to good risks. Bad risks must be ignored until they become good risks.

    It’s so easy even a 5th grader can understand it.

  63. “People are like businesses. Some are worth investing in. Some are not. Resources need to be allocated to good risks. Bad risks must be ignored until they become good risks.

    It’s so easy even a 5th grader can understand it.”

    You are correct, John. But the problem is, liberals will continue to ignore the simple answers that are uber-apparent. They are the reason why simple issues become complexed problems.

  64. “You are correct, John. But the problem is, liberals will continue to ignore the simple answers that are uber-apparent. They are the reason why simple issues become complexed problems.”

    You are so right. Too right for words. My grandpa often told me, ‘Never make simple things complex. Keep them simple.”

    He used to make his own barbecue sauce and it was very good. It wasn’t the best I ever had. But it was very good.

    If he had a receipe then it was in his head. He’d mix this with that and add a pinch of something and a dash of something else until it was just right. No measuring cups. No measuring spoons. He’d toss the ingrediants together until it came out right. That was simple to him. Trying to follow a receipe was complex.

  65. Robert, not one of us has yet to defend Bush’s bailouts. We’re no more happy about it than you are; you’re preaching to the choir on that issue. Bush first pissed me off by going to Saudi Arabia and doing the freakin’ sword dance with the royals. It’s all been downhill from there. I’ve lost a great deal of respect for his decisions of late.

    My hypocrisy? You are amazing. When I said “they disgust me,” I was referring TO THE SPECIFIC PEOPLE IN THE SPECIFIC CASES I HAD JUST MENTIONED. Are you that determined to find something to twist around? My whole point was that we understand perfectly well that there are poor people who do need a hand up, and to them we’re more than willing to give. Try googling the name “Sharon Jasper” and come back and tell me just why it is we tend to be hesitant to give indiscriminately to the poor in this country. “Poor” in this country is NOTHING like what “poor” means in the rest of the world.

  66. “No, it’s my contention, with the proof I gave you straight from the Internal Revenue Code that your own tax-dodging-rental-real-estate avoiding Democrat, Charles Rangel writes, that it’s not possible to cut the taxes anymore. The gap in percentage of income taxed between the alleged poor and the alleged rich is already ridiculously wide. You cannot ignore facts, Rob.”

    I’m sorry, you “proved” something to me with a hypothetical? Come on, Steve. What was proved was that Warren Buffet’s secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did. That was proven. I never claimed that every rich person pays less than every poor or working class person, but clearly, the law is skewed in their favor. They even had a marketing campaign for it, they called it “trickle down economics”. Why is it that the top tax rate for capital gains is 15%, while everyone else’s top tax rate is 36% for no capital gains? Tell me that benefits anyone but the rich, who can cash out stock options and only get taxed 15%. And again, Buffet’s offer of $1 million to any of the 400 richest people who could prove their tax rate was higher than their secretaries has not been taken up. If it were true, who wouldn’t want a million dollars free and clear?

    “Taxes are not meant to be a redistribution….FDR’s New Deal was never meant to be a permanent ideal.”

    Uh, yes they are, and yes it was. If taxes aren’t meant to be redistribution, then how do you expect public works to be paid for? Do you expect roads to pave themselves, and police officers to work for free? Tax is actually defined as “pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government”. If that isn’t redistribution, then I don’t know what is.

    “Whinos [sic] on the street don’t want the rules, Rob. They want the handout, because afterall, it’s free, right?”

    Yeah, but you’re choosing to assume that winos on the street make up the populace of the poor. I think it’s easier for you to view people like that, to say to yourself that these people got where they are by their own devices. It’s easier to do that than to take a real hard look at society and see the gap between rich and poor widening, and I would submit to you that it is due, in large part, to conservative economic policies. Starting with Reagan, unionized jobs have disappeared, the manufacturing base has been shipped overseas, and wages have fallen. But, more to the point, no one tells themselves “when I grow up, I want to beg for change from strangers”. Everyone wants to do well for themselves. And this is where the divide lies; I choose to give people the benefit of the doubt, and it would appear that you do not. And let’s not fool ourselves with faux gestures of a charitable heart, Steve. Let’s not forget that you once characterized poor people as lazy welfare recipients. Poor people in this country are not poor because they chose to be. True, we all make our own choices, but when the options put before you have assurances that they are good ones, when in reality, they are not, then it’s not so black and white. There is no choice made to either strike it rich or live in hotels by maxing out credit cards. Life takes us all on different journeys, and there is no one way to live, and there is no one way to end at your ideal destination. Some of us get lost along the way. I know people who have had the misfortune of ending up in poverty, and not one of them made any choice I would call stupid or irresponsible. And not one of those people chose to take a handout in lieu of finding a way of providing for themselves and their families. I know we’ve had different life experiences Steve, and I’m sorry that you choose to view the less fortunate among us through the prism of ‘everybody makes their own choices, and I refuse to have compassion for those who didn’t work as hard as I did.’ And believe me, I know that there are some people out there who abuse the safety nets designated for the needy, but I believe that that number is incredibly small. Like the person whom Mel asked me to look up, Sharon Jasper (which, by the way Mel, that story was satire, it’s not real), yeah there might be people like that out there, but your solution is to scrap the programs that help the needy to thwart the scumbags who would abuse them. I’m sorry, but you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

  67. First, at least we advocate keeping the baby around altogether. That’s your party you need to talk to. You really should think about your analogies.

    Robert, Warren Buffet’s Secretary did not pay a higher percentage of tax than he did. I spelled it out from beginning to end what your tax liability would be versus the President of Nike’s. Knowing that he winds up paying DOUBLE your percent, how do you figure that “the law” is still written in his favor?

    Sounds to me like Warren Buffet does not know the tax code that I do. It’s not humanly possible. Unless rich folks pay out a lot in contributions (charitable) that are deductible to the point where they decrease their tax liability. But I am here to tell you, the more money you make, the less deductible itemized deductions become. So that’s not possible either.

    But even if it were, it would simply mean that “the rich” re-distributed their money to charity in ways that they saw fit versus giving it to Hussein, the Christian and letting him decide where it goes.

    Not one Secretary, single mother, or welfare case pays more taxes than the rich, in dollars or percentages of income.

    Sorry, try again.

  68. Robert,

    I don’t have to justify to you whom I contribute to, I merely pointed out that I have.

    The two important points are:

    1.) You cannot seriously expect “the rich” to pay more than they pay.

    2.) While there are Sharon Jasper-like folks out there, you should never suggest raising them ever again.

    Americans have the right to what they earn and we can be the ones who decide are worthy to receive the aid needed.

    It’s really very simple.

  69. “I know people who have had the misfortune of ending up in poverty, and not one of them made any choice I would call stupid or irresponsible. ”

    Do share. I’d love to read your examples of people who ended up in poverty through no stupid or irresponsible choices of their own. In this country, I don’t think that is possible.

    I used to do homeless outreach work for my parish and I encountered plenty of people who ended up in poverty through very stupid and irresponsible choices of their own. Here is the worst example:

    “Dave” and “Mary” were homeless with six mouths to feed and one on the way. Mary could not work a wage paying job with six little ones at home and one more in her womb.

    They ended up homeless due to a series of rent hikes on their home and the overall high cost of living in the San Francisco area.

    The problem wasn’t Dave’s income from working as a carpenter. The problem was six mouths to feed and number seven on the way.

    Dave could have easily supported a family with 2 kids perhaps 3. But no, he and his wife had to keep pumping them out one after another with no plan on how they were going to pay for it all.

    Those two dug their own poverty grave and buried themselves and their kids in it.

    If their chioces are not stupid and irresponsible to you then you are a lost cause.

  70. I could not agree more, John!

    I have an aunt that has 13 kids, and they managed to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table and clothes on their backs. But it took a lot of doing on their part. They realized by doing what they did they were hedging their bets with the devil, I reckon. Though they didn’t believe in birth control (obviously) either.

    But they managed to not lose their house and pinch pennies where possible. They live in outside Chi Town and still have kids in the roost.

  71. Satire? Where on Earth did you get that? The story is, in fact, NOT satire. I used to live in that corner of the country, and I have friends and relatives who live in New Orleans. One that I went to high school with is a cop there now, and he had a run-in with Sharon Jasper. The story in question was run by the Picayune-Times and Jasper did, in fact, say all of those things. She was first spotted in a N.O. city hall meeting during which a vote was to be taken to tear down the temporary housing set up after Katrina (which I will be blogging about in the next few days, by the way, you folks are incredible for blaming Bush for that crap).

    Anyway, the temporary housing was to be taken down to allow for further reconstruction in the city. Jasper, along with a few hundred other welfare brats, stormed city hall. The chamber could only hold around 225 people, and when it was full they had to tell another 500 or so outside that they couldn’t come in by order of the fire marshall; they immediately started crying racism, saying they weren’t allowed in because they were black and poor. But Jasper and about fifty others DID get in, and they caused a ruckus that nearly shut the meeting down. It started with a white man asking her to calm down and sit so the meeting could start, and she was caught ON VIDEO shouting, “shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!”

    I agree with John, too. I’ve always disagreed with the Catholic church’s policy on birth control (no, I do not see abortion after the fourth week as a viable option). There are plenty of people out there who do, in fact, make a number of irresponsible choices that land them in poverty, but as long as they’re willing to prove that they’re working hard to make it there’s a hand up for them. I went to school with a group of kids, all from the same family unit, that always had the expensive gangsta clothes, jewelry, and equipment. One day, mom drove three of them to school in a brand-spankin’-new BMW. Know where they lived? HUD housing, in the projects.

    If they’ve got money for that kind of crap, they should have no problem paying rent in their own home and living a little more modestly.

  72. Jennifer,

    Many large families are indeed able to make ends meet without turning to welfare or poverty.

    Nobody is perfect. We cannot exempt ourselves from making an occasional irresponsible choice every now and hten. But what divides us is that some are willing to accept the victim status assigned to them by liberals while the others simply pull up their britches and get to work when they realize that nobody else is going to do it for them.

    By the way, Warren Buffet did not release his tax returns for that year.

    But, the jist of the articles on Buffet were not comparing earned income. Buffet also had many capital gains. It is preposterous to act as if capital gains (earnings from previous investments of previous years earned income that’s already been taxed) should be taxed at the same rate as earned income.

    Warren Buffet could in fact offer up to pick 100 Americans and pay their taxes for them in lieu of putting the burden on anyone who makes a mere $250K, couldn’t he?

    In lieu of being a dressed-up socialist, he could voluntarily give up his energy-sucking mansion, withdraw all of his investments (in lieu of buying up all the cheap stocks now like he is doing) and equally distribute his fortune to the poor.

    Don’t use your phony concern as a step-up for liberal politicians. Simply walk the walk. He could have also opted to not use his deductions in that tax year.

    But, from experience, if his secretary really did pay 30% on $60K, she needs a new tax preparer. I’d be thrilled to give her my card.

  73. “But, from experience, if his secretary really did pay 30% on $60K, she needs a new tax preparer. I’d be thrilled to give her my card.”

    30% income tax on $60K? Not possible even when that person does not itemize. Now if a person adds up the Federal, State, Social Secuirty, and Medicare taxes then maybe 30% might be reached if that person does not itemize.

    I have not looked it up but at worst $60K of taxable income for a single person will maybe hit the 28% Fedeal marginal bracket. But 25% is more likely and not all of that taxable income is taxed at 25%.

  74. Steve,

    “First, at least we advocate keeping the baby around altogether.”

    Yeah, and you don’t give a shit if it ends up in poverty. You people can’t have it both ways. You and John like to lambast people for having what you consider too many children, yet you claim that you advocate keeping them. This is why I have said, time and time again, that the cons’ slogan should be “love the fetus, hate the child”, because once it’s born, you couldn’t care less about what happens to it. You sit back and gleefully support the president’s decision to veto a bill for children’s health care. If you people were really pro life (instead of pro birth), it’d be a bit of a priority to ensure the children you care so deeply about were healthy, wouldn’t it?

    “Not one Secretary, single mother, or welfare case pays more taxes than the rich, in dollars or percentages of income.”

    You’re being disingenuous here, Steve. How many tax loopholes exist for the poor versus the rich? Do the poor have offshore tax havens to hide money in? You’re doing yourself and your supposed profession a disservice by pretending that any honest person could get that rich, let alone give his fair share. And again, you’re ignoring the Buffet case, where the man himself admits to the shameful tax law skewed to his benefit. I don’t know why you continue to ignore that in favor of standing up for the privileged.

    “I don’t have to justify to you whom I contribute to, I merely pointed out that I have.”

    I didn’t ask you to, nor do I care if you produce a list now.

    “You cannot seriously expect “the rich” to pay more than they pay.”

    Why not? They use more of the commons than anyone else, why shouldn’t they pay more? I use a tiny fraction of what the rich use to make themselves rich. They use more of that legal infrastructure and court system that I talked about, they use public rights of way and employ the services of law enforcement more than a majority of people in this country. Why is it again that they shouldn’t pay more when they use more? Explain how that’s fair.

    “Americans have the right to what they earn and we can be the ones who decide are worthy to receive the aid needed.”

    Sounds fair enough, but cons always love to tell you that it’s “your money”, when it’s not so black and white. I’ll give you an example I love to use, because it’s simple and it makes sense.

    “If I walk into a 7-Eleven store with a dollar in my pocket and say, “Gee, I’d really like that Hershey bar,” and if I tear it open and take a bite out of it, that Hershey bar now belongs to me. And that dollar belongs to 7-Eleven, even though it’s still in my pocket. It’s pretty simple. As soon as I used the candy bar, I’d entered into an agreement to pay for it. It’s a form of a contract even though I’ve never signed anything with a convenience store in my life. It’s not my money anymore, even though it’s still in my pocket, once I take possession of the candy bar.

    We make an agreement by staying in this country that we will live by its rules.

    I get up in the morning and the lights come on because my government is regulating the local utility for both safety and reliability. (FDR had to force electric utilities to serve many communities–thus the Rural Electrification Administration.) I open the tap to brush my teeth, and the water is pure because my government has purified it and delivered it to me from miles away in a safe fashion. The toothpaste I use isn’t poisonous because the government passed laws that make it possible for aggrieved consumers to sue if they’re harmed. Its ingredients are listed because the government requires it.

    When I drive to work, the streets are paved by my government, and the streetlights work because my government planned them right and keeps them in good working order. The radio station where I broadcast from can do business because my government provides a stable currency and a framework of contract laws that allow a corporation to exist and function. The food I eat for lunch at a nearby restaurant is safe both because it was inspected at its source by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and because the local government checks our restaurants for sanitary conditions. I can eat without worrying that bandits are going to run into the restaurant and demand everybody’s wallet because the police are on the job. And I can go about my day without worrying that we’ll be bombed by invaders from another country because the State Department and the U.S. Army both negotiate and protect our nation. With a little bit of thought, you can add dozens of other things to this list–all provided with taxpayer dollars.

    Living in this society and using these services is like picking up and biting into the Hershey bar at the 7-Eleven: I’ve agreed to pay for them because I live here and I use them. The form of my agreement is called taxes. Therefore the money from my paycheck that goes to pay my taxes is not my money. It’s the money I owe to cover the cost associated with the things I use each and every day. To suggest that it’s “my” money is to spit in the face of our Founders–to suggest that somehow each of us is above and separate from the social contract we’ve all agreed to by living in this great nation.” – Thom Hartmann

    It really IS very simple, Steve…

  75. John,

    “Do share. I’d love to read your examples of people who ended up in poverty through no stupid or irresponsible choices of their own. In this country, I don’t think that is possible.”

    That’s the con in you coming through. You want an example? Okay.

    My mother worked for a defense contractor (and my father, for an oil company – go figure, I’m a liberal!) for sixteen years before being “downsized” over a decade ago. With her income recently vanishing, this single mother could not afford to keep a roof over our heads, so we had to move out of our home. We stayed with a friend of hers for a while so I could continue to go to the same school, but eventually we bounced around from hotel to hotel until my mother could find another job. Through all of this, my mother never once begged anyone for anything. She didn’t look for any handouts, and she didn’t play on anyone’s sympathies. So go ahead and tell me, John, what stupid and irresponsible choices did my mother make?

    The company I work for now is on the verge of folding because some rich person couldn’t figure out how to run a business, pay vendors on time, or own up to her own mistakes. So, it’s very likely that I will be out of a job very soon, through no fault of my own. And it’s conceivable in this economy that I may end up poor. Am I stupid and irresponsible, John?

    You just look like an asshole when you make assertions that people should just be able to think themselves out of any undesirable position. People aren’t solely responsible for their situations. We’re an interconnected society, and more often than not, decisions made by those in positions greater than ours affect more than just themselves. Just look at the Enron mess. Are you willing to say that thousands of people lost their retirement, savings, and income because they were stupid and irresponsible? Sometimes, things are out of our control. Shit happens. And when some dipshit says that people end up in poverty through their own decisions, it irks me. It’s just easier to take that position when it’s never happened to you. So until it does, I suggest giving people the benefit of the doubt, and showing some compassion, rather than looking down on those less fortunate than yourself.

  76. http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/jasper.asp

    And Mel, this is where I found that it was satire. It took me four minutes. Notice the article says the piece first appeared on a satirist’s blog on the Word Press site.

    I’m not here to dispute the fact that there are people out there who abuse the system, it was bound to happen. But when you take one example of a tiny minority of assholes and portray it as the norm, that’s more than a little dishonest…

  77. There is one big hole in your 7-11 argument and I can build a ten lane freeway through it.

    The candy bar you mentioned costs $1 at the 7-11. Everyone who wants that candy bar has to pay $1. Nobody gets a discount and nobody has to pay more than $1.

    Under your wonderful liberal system the rich have to pay $10 for that candy bar because they can afford it and the poor get it for free. Never mind everyone is getting the same candy bar.

    Try coming up with a better example of why the rich should pay more. They can afford it is a very weak example. The rich can afford a lot of things but they all don’t acquire every single thing they can afford.

    If the government gives me $10 of services every single day then I’ll pay my $10 with a smile on my face. What I won’t do is pay $15 or more. No one should have to do that. I also won’t take it for free. Nobody should do that either. Any person with any sense of values, morality, and personal responsiblity would not take something for nothing and make everyone else pay their share.

  78. “And when some dipshit says that people end up in poverty through their own decisions, it irks me. It’s just easier to take that position when it’s never happened to you. ”

    March 1985. I told my parents I was gay. Things got too uncomfortable. They were not violent. But I did not like having a Bible tossed in my face day after day. A cooling off period was needed. I moved out.

    I lived in a scummy one bedroom apartment and worked three jobs to keep a roof over my head. That was better then being lectured day after day.

    I suppose I could have kept my mouth shut, finished college and then told my parents I was gay. It was pretty dumb of me to tell them when I did. But, it’s too late to second guess that move.

    Yeah shit happened and I took action. It’s easy for me to be an asshole or a dipshit as you put it because I have been there. I have little patience for people who stand there like a deer in the headlights and let the truck run them over.

  79. “It really IS very simple, Steve…”

    In your many well thought out examples, you focused on things I can’t take issue with. Of course I want paved roads, police, national defense and safe food to eat. That’s not the issue with me.

    What is an issue with me are people who expect other people through their income taxes to carry their load. As you have already called me a dipshit and an asshole I won’t take offense if the following causes you to come up with even more putrid names to call me.

    I do care my local schools are good. I don’t care about the schools in some city 200 miles away. I don’t want to pay to support those schools. I’ll pay for the ones in my school district. Those kids 200 miles away are getting the education their local voters think they deserve.

    If a 22 year old man decides to use the freeway as a racing track and ends up paralyzed in a car accident, then I don’t want to pay for his disability. He did that too himself. Why burden anyone with that? If someone wants to play Mario Adretti on the freeway then buy private disability insurance. Insurance companies live to take gambles like that.

    If two people wish to have 1 child or 14 children then go for it. Just pay your way as you reproduce. Don’t stick me with that tab.

    If you are too lazy to work, then be lazy and find some generous person to sponge off. Don’t sponge off of me.

    I’d love it if liberals like you stuck to the basics of goverment like you posted. But sadly you do not. You all want equal outcomes. Equal outcomes are expensive and they destroy the incentive to work let alone work hard.

    I want equal opportunities. Equal opportunities are fear cheaper and make America grow.

  80. Oh John, you can’t be serious. It was never my argument that the rich should pay more because they can afford it. My argument is that they use more of the commons to get rich. Since they’re using more, they should pay more. So your “ten lane freeway” has just halted construction, because yes, everyone should pay $1 for the candy bar. But, if you’re taking ten candy bars, you ought to pay $10. But the argument you’re making is that the rich take ten, fifty, or a hundred candy bars, and pay $1, so you are, in fact, advocating the rich get something for nothing, essentially.

  81. John, the story about you coming out to your parents proves your theory nicely. But, YOU made the decision to leave home and create a financial hardship on yourself. Not everyone has the luxury of choosing to put themselves in awkward situations. So, in reality, you still can’t relate to what I’m saying, because you haven’t been forced into poverty by circumstances out of your control, so you can’t say that you’ve “been there”.

  82. First of all, John, I never called you an asshole. I merely pointed out that the position you have chosen makes you appear to be one. I don’t know you, so calling you an asshole would be presumptuous. Second, I think you’d be hard pressed to make the case that your local tax dollars go to a school district whose children you admittedly do not care about (like I said, love the fetus, hate the child). But this is where we fundamentally disagree. You are making a conscious decision to assume the worst of people and of situations. Where most decent people would look at a horrendous car crash and think it was a terrible thing, and that hopefully he won’t end up financially screwed, cons see the same result, but assume the guy must have been racing or drunk, or some other excuse to blame the one in a body cast. Is it really just that easy to be so calloused? It’s the same thing with the poor. You chose to believe that someone is on welfare because they’re lazy, having no facts whatsoever to substantiate your claim, but it’s easier for you to assume the worst of people, isn’t it? It’s easier to put yourself on a pedestal and claim that the poor just don’t work as hard as John does. That’s a ridiculous claim, and a sad way of viewing the world…

  83. “My argument is that they use more of the commons to get rich. ”

    Ah a user based system. That’s not a bad concept. But where do we draw the line?

    If parents have the means, should they pay a sur-tax if their kids are enrolled in public school? We all benefit from having an educated populace. Shouldn’t we all pay the same rate? The challenge with user based taxation is where does the line get drawn?

  84. “It’s the same thing with the poor. You chose to believe that someone is on welfare because they’re lazy, having no facts whatsoever to substantiate your claim, but it’s easier for you to assume the worst of people, isn’t it?”

    Mid 1970’s my decidely lower middle class parents moved us from one state to another. The house escrow fell through. We had no place to live.

    We ended up in an apartment complex peppered with welfare mothers and hardworking people. Mom said, “It will only be a few weeks.” A few weeks turned into 4 months!!! Had she known how long it would take to resolve the escrow mess, then we would have lived somewhere else.

    What an eye opener that was. At dinner time these welfare kids would be gathering around our apartment because they were hungry. They wanted our crayons, pencils and paper because they did not have any when school started.

    I asked my dad if we should help out. My dad asked me who was going to take over after we moved away?

    Their moms had money to buy cigarettes. Dear welfare mommy could not spend 60 cents to buy a box of crayons. But she forked that over every day for a pack of smokes. Her priorities were skewed to say the least.

    Two years later one of my uncles was sentenced to prison for drug trafficing. His wife (my aunt) and her two small children had to go on welfare. But, she was on it for two years. She used those two years to go to trade school and learn a trade. And, her kids had crayons for school too. She transitioned into the workforce where she belongs. The last time I looked, that is what welfare is for. It’s a hand up not a lifestyle.

  85. “Two years later one of my uncles was sentenced to prison for drug trafficing [sic]. His wife (my aunt) and her two small children had to go on welfare. But, she was on it for two years. She used those two years to go to trade school and learn a trade. And, her kids had crayons for school too. She transitioned into the workforce where she belongs. The last time I looked, that is what welfare is for. It’s a hand up not a lifestyle.”

    John, you’re singing my song. Losing gainful employment or having a similar scenario to that of your aunt does terrible things to one’s dignity. If they need a helping hand, I guarantee it is accepted reluctantly. No one likes to feel that they’re a charity case. Once you’re on your feet, earn your own, I completely agree. But I defy you to prove to me that a majority of welfare recipients are not like your aunt. As I said before, some people are bound to abuse the system, but that number’s gotta be incredibly small…

  86. The number’s gotta be incredibly small? Have you been to the projects lately? Visited an Indian reservation? I can tell you from personal experience–and no, I cannot give specific details because it is unprofessional and I could lose my job for doing so–a majority of those who are on welfare LIKE IT. They like not having to work.

    John’s example is actually not your song. What he’s trying to point out is that while they were using the hand up for what it was meant for, everyone else around them was happy being in that situation. Trust me, Robert, there are a great many professional victims in our society.

  87. Robert,

    When you have one person with millions of dollars in taxable income, and you have a single mother who makes 30,000 a year getting all her federal withholding back, child tax credit, and earned income credit (free money), how can you possible say that there are more “loop holes” and “breaks” for the rich?

    It is not “disingenuious” to say that “rich” pay MUCH higher percentages of income than the “poor.” It is simply a fact.

    That’s what is simple….the fact I keep mentioning over and over.

    All tax credits and deductions are limited to folks when they make over a certain amount of money, thus decreasing the “breaks” you say they have too much of.

    As Mel points out, sooner or later Americans as a whole will tire just as fast as we have of the victim game. If you work and have progressive views, then fine.

    But do not skew or twist facts on a massive problem we have in our society now. As it stands right now Robert, we are on a fast track of a society that has more taking from the government than putting in.

    When that happens, it will be hard to reverse.

  88. “John’s example is actually not your song. What he’s trying to point out is that while they were using the hand up for what it was meant for, everyone else around them was happy being in that situation. Trust me, Robert, there are a great many professional victims in our society.”

    I’m sorry, do you know me, Mel? No, you don’t, so please don’t fucking assign an opinion to me when I’m telling you my position, as we can clearly see yours. Again, you CHOOSE to assume the worst of people, and regardless of what you think you see on your job, you don’t know every person on welfare, so to say they love being on it is ludicrous. And this is a very effective game that cons play; try to make others seem as little like you as possible, it makes it easier to feel enmity toward them. But these people aren’t your enemy, and they aren’t the dregs of society, they’re people who have fallen on hard times, and more often than not, it’s not easy to get up on your own. So, while you’re happy condemning the poor to being lazy freeloaders, I will stick to my belief that a vast majority of those on welfare use it to get back on their feet, they use it for what it’s meant for, as a stepping stone to being a productive member of society.

  89. “As I said before, some people are bound to abuse the system, but that number’s gotta be incredibly small…”

    My aunt did not abuse the system. She used it for its intended purpose.

    The apartment complex I referenced in my last post had three moms on welfare. They liked it. None of them were taking job training.

    In spite of its best intentions the Welfare System creates dependency. Free health care, more money for more children, food stamps, and Sec. 8 housing. If someone has to take a job for $10-$15 a hour and start losing those benefits (or lose them entirely), then the incentive to take that job goes away. That creates people who turn the government dole into a lifestyle. On a financial level I don’t blame them.

    A better Welfare System would not be so generous. Sadly the one we have now is too generous.

  90. “They like not having to work. ”

    Or they understand a job paying $15 to $30K a year won’t cover the lost health insurance, Sec. 8 housing, food stamps, and other benefits that come with Welfare. If you take a job and lose $1 of benefits for every $1 you earn, then you are gaining nothing.

  91. “It is not “disingenuious” to say that “rich” pay MUCH higher percentages of income than the “poor.” It is simply a fact.”

    Also, some of those “loopholes” are available to everyone.

    I have a self employed client who earns over $500K per year. He is a mega saver. He has millions in tax free municipal bond investments.

    The interest income from the municipal bonds is exempt from federal and state income tax. When that interest in added to his total income, his effective tax rate is much lower than it would be if the interest came from a taxable account.

    If I wanted to, I could invest in municipal bonds. Anyone can do this.

    Should my client have to pay tax on his muncipal bond interest because he is wealthy? I think there is one poster here who says he should.

  92. “As I said before, some people are bound to abuse the system, but that number’s gotta be incredibly small…”

    Then prove it. Many vocational/job training programs take no more than two years. A person on welfare should be on it for no more than two years.

    If it truly is a transitional program, then the average welfare case should be no more than two years.

  93. “My aunt did not abuse the system. She used it for its intended purpose. ”

    Precisely my point. Most people do not abuse the system, but this points back to your warped way of thinking. You’d rather believe that everyone else in that apartment complex loved being on welfare. Meanwhile, you have no proof whatsoever to point to, so you instead rely on your conservative standby that people poor enough to need government assistance must enjoy it so much that they stay on it. It’s an apathetic and disgusting way of viewing your fellow human beings, but it’s obvious I won’t change your sick view, so I’ll stop trying. We’ll see how far you get being as cynical and negative as the rest of your brethren…

  94. “Then prove it. Many vocational/job training programs take no more than two years. A person on welfare should be on it for no more than two years.
    If it truly is a transitional program, then the average welfare case should be no more than two years.”

    According to the latest data from the Urban Institute (which, unfortunately, dates back to 1998), 56% of welfare recipients receive aid for 12 months or less. So, on average, a clear majority people on welfare stay on it for one year, not two, or five, or however long you imagine them being there.

    And, to go back to your theory that people end up in poverty as a result of stupid and/or irresponsible choices, the Economic Policy Institute identified wage decline as the crucial economic factor that has had the largest impact on poverty rates in the 1980s and 1990s. Nothing you have said regarding your attitude toward welfare programs or their recipients is true, you just have a problem with poor people, common among cons. It sounds like something you need to work on.

    And if you don’t like people being on welfare, I suggest you stop voting for Republicans, because they’re the ones residing over declines in wages and failing economies. I could be wrong (even though I’m not), but the number of welfare recipients was reduced pretty dramatically under Clinton. It’s odd isn’t it, that you cons always try to conflate welfare with Democrats, even though history proves that participation in welfare programs (consistent with the uptick in poverty) only goes UP when a Republican is in office.

    I just get a little sick of cons using the term welfare as a pejorative, considering that middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive “welfare” in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. But, rarely are these programs referred to as welfare. It’s a pretty aggressive double standard aimed at the poor in this country, and it would appear that a better place to start in regards to poverty would be to raise wages rather than bitch about people who can’t afford to feed themselves.

  95. “I could be wrong (even though I’m not), but the number of welfare recipients was reduced pretty dramatically under Clinton. ”

    The Republican controlled Congress had a part in that too. They gave him the law to sign. I don’t think Pelosi and Reid will deliver such a thing to Obama.

    If I had the time I’d dig up facts. But they would not convince you. If you have such a venemous problem with us being conservative then maybe you need to search within yourself and ask why? Perhaps you have unresolved conservative tendencies or you might be one of us and won’t admit it.

    I have no problem with you being a liberal. I agree to disagree with you. If you want to ascribe to that sort of mindset then have at it. But, when your next door neighbor gets Social Security Disability for a skinned knee then don’t complain to me about that. When your other next door neighbor gets unemployment benefits for 10 years instead of 26 weeks then don’t complain to me when your tax bill destroys your quality of life.

  96. “I just get a little sick of cons using the term welfare as a pejorative, considering that middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive “welfare” in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages…”,

    The home mortgage interest deduction encourages people to buy homes. Buying homes creates a demand for new homes. Building new homes creates jobs. Jobs create wages and wages create taxes. Those construction jobs are the kind of well paying jobs that lift people out of poverty and can’t be outsourced to India.

    “corporate and farm subsidies”

    Farmers and corporations pass on all production costs (taxes included) to their customers. You can pay now or later but you will pay. Take away the farm subsidy from my tomato farm and you’ll pay $7.00 per pound for my tomatoes.

    “capital gains tax limits”,

    Investing money in new businesses (money is needed to start new businesses) creates jobs, jobs create payrolls and payrolls create income taxes. Investing requires risk taking. Why discourage people from investing by nailing them with high capital gains taxes? They can do better tax wise by putting their money in a bank, earning a lower rate of return and not having any risk.

    “Social Security, Medicare”

    They are only welfare if you draw benefits without ever putting any money in.

    “and a multitude of other tax benefits. But, rarely are these programs referred to as welfare. ”

    We don’t call them welfare because they are not welfare. In order to get the above you have to do something to get the above. If you don’t invest then you don’t get a capital gains tax break. If you rent then you don’t get a mortgage interest deduction. If you don’t go to college or trade school then you don’t get a government subsidized student loan. But if your life goes sideways through no fault of your own or your own bad choices then you get welfare.

    Understand the difference?

  97. Robert said:

    “I could be wrong (even though I’m not), but the number of welfare recipients was reduced pretty dramatically under Clinton. ”

    Then John said:

    “The Republican controlled Congress had a part in that too. They gave him the law to sign. I don’t think Pelosi and Reid will deliver such a thing to Obama.”

    I just want to make sure Robert that you’re hoping Pelosi and Reid will in fact deliver that same bill to Obama, right?

    Obviously, Bill Clinton appealed to conservatives as a centrist with Welfare Reform and NAFTA which shouted down big unions.

    Nobody’s denying that. You simply just stated and confirmed why conservative ideas get the best results.

    Thanks!

  98. Getting people to contribute to a strong middle class (by putting them back to work) is not a conservative idea, Steve. I don’t know who the hell you’re kidding with that one…

  99. “Perhaps you have unresolved conservative tendencies or you might be one of us and won’t admit it.”

    Wow, that made me laugh out loud. So hard, in fact that my roommate came into my room and asked what was so funny, so I showed her and she laughed harder than I did. Let’s get one thing straight: I am damn proud to be everything you people hate, because I know it’s right.

    “When your other next door neighbor gets unemployment benefits for 10 years instead of 26 weeks then don’t complain to me when your tax bill destroys your quality of life.”

    People get out of unemployment what they pay into it, and no one’s ever got ten years of insurance to live off, so that argument is nonsense.

    Don’t think tax deductions, corporate and farm subsidies, and capital gains tax limits are welfare? You don’t because that’s a bad word for you. But if only you’d use that brain of yours for good. Welfare programs help people get back on their feet, renewing cash flow into the economy and tax revenues to the government. It is an investment, just like you choose to view those other forms of welfare. Don’t like it? Quit using welfare as pejorative. And Social Security can’t be collected if you don’t pay into it, that’s why they assign those little numbers to people at birth, so they can easily identify whether or not you’ve contributed…

  100. “Getting people to contribute to a strong middle class (by putting them back to work) is not a conservative idea, Steve. ”

    And just what solutions do you have to contribute to a strong middle class? I have a few:

    They start with a society of indians willing to work with aspirations of someday becoming chiefs.

    The chiefs who were once already “indians” “contribute to a strong middle class” by hiring employees, the chiefs spend money on new cars keeping the auto industry alive, they buy nice clothes from clothing stores keeping department stores in business which employ many more. They invest by putting their money into stocks which drive up a company’s public image to a buying public causing it to grow and prosper and by extension to its many hardworking employees.

    They keep the hospitality service hot by eating at expensive restaurants and by taking cruises and long vacations.

    Through their lives, they create opportunity for others. It’s the choice of folks to take it or leave it.

    On top of all this, they still pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than you do.

    So, enlighten us. What extra do you really want them to do?

    You haven’t been able to successfully portray any of us as evil or hateful or even selfish. Seeing as that hasn’t worked for you at all, what do you really think our motivations are here?

    Opportunities are out there. You just have to work.

    That’s the recipe. It will never change.

  101. “Don’t think tax deductions, corporate and farm subsidies, and capital gains tax limits are welfare?”

    Great Robert! I think you and your roommate ought to re-read that statement.

    In the liberals’ “re-distribution of wealth” plan, the IRC tried making the current joke-of-a-tax system “fair” by giving deductions.

    Your argument for your love of taxation (to all but your peeps on welfare) is that it helps others. So, if the President on Nike gives $50K to the American Cancer Society (giving to someone else), you’re telling me that he should not get a deduction for that portion of his wealth that he has already distributed on his own free will? Of course you are! You want those deductions stopped so that you can decide where his money goes.

    I agree with you – all tax deductions out the door at once. Once that happens, the tax rate would have to remain the same for anyone. “Tax deductions” exist solely because of FDR when a Democratic administration before him had the highest tax rate ever in the 1930’s. FDR understood that re-distributing wealth had to appear “fair” so in order to avoid coming out and calling it what it was – “A RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH,” they slapped together some tax laws, added tax deductions, and abracadabra, the Internal Revenue Code was born.

    But, you just made yourself look like an ass. So much of one, I can almost guarantee that your roommate can hear me laughing from here. Why?

    In a past debate you had with me, I told you that Earned Income Credit was welfare. Earned Income Credit gives single mothers with 10 kids billions of dollars of free money every year which is why at least 10 of your friends have raced off to H&R Block in the last week to get a “loan” on that big tax refund they’re going to be getting in a few weeks. That tax credit is not a “credit” because the bimbos aren’t paying any tax at all! It’s FREE MONEY.

    What did you tell me? Why I do believe you said it wasn’t welfare!

    So, just so we are on the same page, let me get this straight.

    Tax deductions for folks who pay higher percentages of tax than you do is welfare, but tax “credits” on welfare bimbos is perfectly fine and my calling it “welfare” makes me racist and evil?

    Robert, I think you’re very talented at creating one hell of a myspace page. But I guarantee, I worked a hell out a lot more hours than you did today (proven by your many number of long and blathering posts).

    I am sorry that the “poor” are under-achievers, but they don’t have the “right” to a better life at my expense.

    Work like me then they can live like me. Until then, don’t accuse me of loosely throwing around terms like “welfare” when you cannot even grasp the true meaning of the word or at least hold true to your own damn previous words.

    It’s sad that America’s youth and folks like you understood the phrase “yes we can!” solely in the case of electing what you thought was going to be a crazy socialist.

    Anbody can work as hard as me. “Yes, they can!”

  102. “And just what solutions do you have to contribute to a strong middle class?”

    Hmm, how about raising the wages that have been steadily declining since senile Reagan took office? How about building on the foundation of collective bargaining by, oh, I don’t know, NOT destroying labor unions. How about affordable heath care, free of scumbag insurance companies? Just a start, but I suspect it will do wonders.

    “The chiefs who were once already “indians” “contribute to a strong middle class” by hiring employees, the chiefs spend money on new cars keeping the auto industry alive, they buy nice clothes from clothing stores keeping department stores in business which employ many more. They invest by putting their money into stocks which drive up a company’s public image to a buying public causing it to grow and prosper and by extension to its many hardworking employees.
    They keep the hospitality service hot by eating at expensive restaurants and by taking cruises and long vacations.”

    Sounds like you want a service economy. I’m sorry, but asking “do you want fries with that?” does not create wealth, and does not lead to a strong middle class. Perhaps you should have taken some economic classes at the local community college, then you would have realized that only real way of creating wealth comes from a now vanished manufacturing base. If I can turn $10 worth of iron ore into a $2000 car door, I’ve created wealth. The scenarios you described which involve people eating at fancy restaurants and investing in the stock market are merely ways of moving money around in circles. In the end, it does the economy no good. If my scenario were to happen, the middle class would grow and eventually thrive. Wages would rise, driving demand, and you’d see quite a bit of cash flowing into a dying economy. But you don’t want that, and frankly it’s cute that you pretend that you want the auto industry to stick around, when in reality, it’s your party’s platform to eradicate democracy in the workplace, also known as unions. And if two or three auto companies have to go under to make that happen, then so be it. The little money that GM did receive from the treasury has, written into the agreement, a provision that states that as long as GM is receiving money from the government, the UAW workers are not allowed to go on strike, for any reason. If they do, the government calls in the debt, and GM has to file for bankruptcy. Still think unions aren’t being dismantled?

    “On top of all this, they still pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than you do.”

    You know this how? You don’t think people engage in tax evasion? You don’t think people have tax havens? You don’t think they deduct every miniscule living expense? Don’t bring that bullshit around here, please.

    “So, enlighten us. What extra do you really want them to do?”

    You’re mixing two different arguments here. First, you prattled on about a service economy, then you downshift into this nonsense. Let’s try to stay on the same page here, okay?

    “You haven’t been able to successfully portray any of us as evil or hateful or even selfish. ”

    Let’s just juxtapose that with this:

    “Earned Income Credit gives single mothers with 10 kids billions of dollars of free money every year which is why at least 10 of your friends have raced off to H&R Block in the last week to get a “loan” on that big tax refund they’re going to be getting in a few weeks. That tax credit is not a “credit” because the bimbos aren’t paying any tax at all!”

    Yeah, you just proved it right there for me. But I look like an ass, right? Prick.

    “Your argument for your love of taxation (to all but your peeps on welfare) is that it helps others. So, if the President on Nike gives $50K to the American Cancer Society (giving to someone else), you’re telling me that he should not get a deduction for that portion of his wealth that he has already distributed on his own free will? Of course you are! You want those deductions stopped so that you can decide where his money goes.”

    When did I ever say I want tax deductions stopped? Or for that matter, where I want other people’s mythical money to go? I’m inclined to let you keep putting your foot in your mouth, because it seems like you’ve been having this argument all by yourself. Me calling deductions what they are – welfare – and taking a page from your tired old book, does not imply that I want deductions to stop, I just want you to call it what you call this thing over here that looks exactly the same.

    “In a past debate you had with me, I told you that Earned Income Credit was welfare. It’s FREE MONEY.
    What did you tell me? Why I do believe you said it wasn’t welfare!”

    Apparently, some of us here are unfamiliar with irony. I’m calling it welfare to make you realize how shallow your argument is. If we call one thing welfare, why not the rest of it? Because you want a semantic war to continue to deride the downtrodden.

    “Tax deductions for folks who pay higher percentages of tax than you do is welfare, but tax “credits” on welfare bimbos is perfectly fine and my calling it “welfare” makes me racist and evil?”

    No, it’s two sides of the same coin. So while you think it’s some kind of crime to give a break to those who actually need it, I’ll stay on my side of the fence, thanks.

    “I guarantee, I worked a hell out a lot [sic] more hours than you did today”

    Good luck trying to convince anyone outside your neocon sanctuary that playing with calculators is actual work…

    “I am sorry that the “poor” are under-achievers, but they don’t have the “right” to a better life at my expense.”

    They aren’t under achievers, you crouton. It’s already been established that a decline in wages is the number one reason for poverty. This is the reason that people call you evil and heartless, and rightly so. If you refuse to acknowledge simple economic truths, then the only thing you have to fall back on is your tired rhetoric about “welfare queens” (who, oddly enough, have never been found) and those who don’t “work” as hard as you do.

    “It’s sad that America’s youth and folks like you understood the phrase “yes we can!” solely in the case of electing what you thought was going to be a crazy socialist.”

    What’s really sad is the way you see the world, and no amount of truth or fact will ever change that. You are officially a lost cause. “Yes, you are!”

  103. “People get out of unemployment what they pay into it,”

    Employers pay the unemployment insurance on their employees. Employees don’t pay into that period. Employees put in zero and get benefits if they experience job loss that is not of thier own choice. So, you are wrong about that one Robert.

    “And Social Security can’t be collected if you don’t pay into it”

    Wrong again.

    If one spouse stays home and never works a money paying job and the other spouse does, then the non working spouse gets a benefit equal to 50% of the working spouse’s benefit. If the husband gets $1,500 in benefits, then the wife gets $750 without ever putting one penny in.

    Mom and dad are poor. Their son however has done well in life. As a good son he helps his parents out. So Mom and Dad are not poor anymore.

    Sadly the son dies in his 30’s. If the parents can prove they were financially dependent on their son, then they can get their Social Security upped to what he would have received!!!!

    Jeffrey is a middle aged divorced man who remarries a much younger women. Jeffrey is 65. He gets her pregnant. Jeffrey is drawing his Social Security benefit after retirment. Guess what? Jeffrey’s baby also gets a monthly benefit becasue daddy is collecting benefits. Never mind if Jeffrey and his family need that additional money or not. They automatically get it.

    One final example. Reg is disabled due to kidney disease. He collects Social Security Disability because he worked more than 40 quarters before getting ill. Reg’s wife is employed and earns six figures. Their daughter is in the 6th grade. Because Reg is disabled, their daughter gets a monthly benefit too. Never mind if the family needs that extra money. There is no means test on this.

    Now you know why Social Security is going bust. It was supposed to be a fund to prevent widows, orphans, and old people from starving. It has turned into a gravy train we can’t afford. If Daddy is disabled and draws benefits, then I am fine with that. But, the family should have to apply for and prove financial need to get benefits for the kids.

  104. “Wow, that made me laugh out loud. So hard, in fact that my roommate came into my room and asked what was so funny,”

    Intense denial is the first sign. You’ll come out of the closet on this. The first thing you will need to learn is to not be afraid of it. If you like it now you’ll learn to love it later.

    I am not kidding here either. Flee the dark side that has corrupted you Robert. Come into the light son. Come into our wonderful light.

  105. “Sounds like you want a service economy. I’m sorry, but asking “do you want fries with that?” does not create wealth, and does not lead to a strong middle class. Perhaps you should have taken some economic classes at the local community college, then you would have realized that only real way of creating wealth comes from a now vanished manufacturing base. ”

    I don’t think you took any economics classes either.

    When I was in college I worked at a photo production company. We processed the photogrpahs taken at schools all over America. Chances are, your school photos went through this manufacturing site. It employed nearly 20o people.

    The jobs were skilled labor. They paid anywhere from minimum wage to $7.00 an hour tops. Also, no fringe benefits. We produced a product just like an automobile plant. ANyone who took at job at this place knew the score about pay and benefits.

    But, we were not in a union and that probably explains why the jobs paid what they paid. Free market capitalism set the offer rate for the wages and people applied for the jobs or not depending on their financial needs and work desires.

    Also in town were the canneries. They were full union. The starting union wage job at the canneries was $4.60 per hour. This was a buck and change over minimum wage. These jobs also had full on fringe benefits too.

    I wonder how much the cannery jobs would have paid if the free market were allowed to set wage rates?

    Yes our manufacturing jobs are vanishing. But I don’t blame that on greedy business owners alone. Perhaps if the free market were allowed to set wage rates we’d have more of those jobs in this country.

    As much as this pisses you off, some jobs are only worth minimum wage because they don’t require a high I.Q., PhD, and years of training to learn and do. But I bet you’d sure love to see unionized burger flippers at McDonald’s making $30 an hour.

    A business owner is required to pay the market rate wage that will attract the quality workforce the business owner seeks. Those that do get the work force they seek. Those that do not will not get the workforce they seek. They might not get any workers.

  106. “Intense denial is the first sign. You’ll come out of the closet on this. The first thing you will need to learn is to not be afraid of it. If you like it now you’ll learn to love it later.”

    Are you really so dense as to believe that I would come into, for all intents and purposes, an anonymous forum, and “pretend” to espouse thoughts and ideas I totally disagree with? Give me a break! Next you’ll try to convince me I’m gay as well. It’s absolutely a point of pride for me to stand for everything you rail against, it’s almost like a drug for me. If you knew anything at all about me, you’d know I’m as serious as one of Dick Cheney’s heart attacks.

    “I wonder how much the cannery jobs would have paid if the free market were allowed to set wage rates?”

    I’ve already explained that there is no such thing as the “free market”. But you’d never admit that, because then your weak argument would fall like a house of cards.

    “Yes our manufacturing jobs are vanishing. But I don’t blame that on greedy business owners alone. Perhaps if the free market were allowed to set wage rates we’d have more of those jobs in this country.”

    Would your free market save jobs, or would unprincipled people still send them to a foreign country for pennies a day? If you can answer that honestly, you’d have your source of blame. If you believe so strongly in this country’s “free market”, I assume that you’d have no problem imposing import tariffs on finished goods shipped from overseas, therefore removing any incentive to outsource jobs. Am I correct in my assumption, or does your faith in nonexistent principles prevent you from asking the question of yourself?

    “As much as this pisses you off, some jobs are only worth minimum wage because they don’t require a high I.Q., PhD, and years of training to learn and do.”

    So it’s fine that people live in poverty because wages aren’t consistent with inflation? A minimum wage is unfortunately NOT a living wage, and until that is fixed, poverty will continue to be a problem. But then again, I imagine you prefer it that way. If we took your enemy away, then what would you bitch about? You want it all, to complain that people who live in poverty get much needed assistance from the government (whose sole existence is to provide for the welfare of its people), but you don’t want to fix the underlying problem of poverty by adjusting wages to meet current economic conditions, not to mention the ridiculously high cost of higher learning. Seriously, do you just want an entire class of people wiped out of existence? What kind of sadist makes these arguments? You are perfectly fine with the poor being securely under the thumb of a societal hierarchy, and it’s making me a little nauseous…

  107. “So it’s fine that people live in poverty because wages aren’t consistent with inflation? A minimum wage is unfortunately NOT a living wage, and until that is fixed, poverty will continue to be a problem.”

    You are forgetting something important about minimum wage jobs. They are not intended to be lifetime careers. They are entry level jobs; not careers. People who choose to make them careers have something going on that I just don’t get. Maybe you get it but I don’t.

    My sister’s best friend started making fries and milkshakes at McDonald’s in the summer of 1976. She’s still there. She’s the manager of that McDonald’s and has been for over 15 years. With incentive compensation she makes enough money to easily afford a house too. Clearly, making fries and milkshakes was not her lone ambition in life.

    Her husband started out after high school as a bank teller trainee. He too has moved up in the ranks of banking to the position of branch manager. Clearly for him being a human ATM machine wasn’t his ambition either.

    My oldest sister at age 18 started bagging groceries for a grocery store chain. Tweleve years later she made it to assistant manger. Three years after that, store manager. She was the first woman in that chain to pull that off. Bagging groceries was never meant to be a career.

    Perhaps your anger at minimum wage needs to be directed towards the people who make careers out of them and bitch because they live in poverty.

  108. Steve:

    So, I just re-read my last five or so posts, and not only did I not use the word “alot”, I didn’t even use the correct usage, “a lot”. But hey, I understand you not being able to stand on any merits, so you attempt to dissect imagined grammatical errors. But I must keep in mind that this is coming from someone who quite recently wrote, “I guarantee, I worked a hell out a lot more hours than you did today”. If nitpicking is your deal, I should point out that you don’t need a comma in that sentence, and “hell out a lot” doesn’t make a whole hell OF A LOT of sense…

  109. I placed the word “out” in lieu of the word “of” – the [sic] should have been placed where it belonged.

    See, when you work like me, you have a valid excuse for an occasional slip.

    And actually the comma is necessary to explain the way the statement was being delivered.

    Seeings as you had to do the 3rd grade thing of pretending that my job isn’t real work (as opposed to spending hours on myspace), I’m confident you understood.

  110. In case I have not mentioned it, I enjoy these debates with Robert. I am not being sarcastic either. You are good man Robert. I respect your passion for what you believe in. I sure as hell disagree with what you believe in. But I admire you because unlike too many other people you stand for something. So, you won’t fall for anything.

    The trouble in this country is people won’t take a stand for anything and look where that has gotten us. We’ve become a nation of bystanders not participants.

  111. John, I too enjoy the passion in these debates. I love being able to talk to someone who isn’t just a Republican because their parents are. You’re thoughtful and articulate, and I appreciate a different point of view, even though I disagree with it. I think it makes me a better liberal. 😛

    And Steve, grow up. Seriously.

  112. “And Steve, grow up. Seriously.”

    Let me remind you that you are the one who comes around to talk to me. In the past, you’ve described me as hateful, childish, selfish, stupid, etc.

    And here you are yet again…I mention working tirelessly for 13-14 hours a day doing the kind of brain work required to accurately interpret the Internal Revenue Code that Charles Rangel himself works to avoid while simultaneously writing it.

    Everyone in this firm that my Uncle started 18 years ago have been to college, we pass annual exams, and cram in countless hours of seminars. We do it as Americans to make sure the ones you call “rich” are not paying anymore than they have to. It’s my job to take care of them while you stand back and call them selfish.

    The facts show I’ve earned my position, I do work honestly and hard, I’ve never had a problem intriguing you to the point where you always come around (not to mention the fine company I keep).

    Then you suggest I’m childish and that my job isn’t one a person can work hard at.

    I think you’re the one who needs to face some reality. You cannot argue the Internal Revenue Code with me because I know it – inside and out – up one way and down the next – and I’ve gone toe-to-toe with many IRS agents trying to squeeze more tax out of my acquaintances as they have been unfairly targeted for being successful.

    Just one as a matter of fact who makes sevn figures a year has been audited four times in seven years.

    We’re on number four right now. And in the previous three, the IRS has found absolutely nothing wrong.

    My clients are indeed considering harrassment charges at this point, and I support them.

    But I have the personal experience usually required by the left. And everytime you are clobbered over the head with it, you become more frustrated.

    All you have left is to say that I don’t work hard (when its abundantly clear that you have more free time for online play than I do) and that I’m childish.

    That’s okay. I’ll still be here for you to holler at. The only thing is you’re going to have to develop new monikers to describe me in the future.

  113. How about self aggrandizing gas bag? I don’t know anyone who pats themselves on the back more than you. You don’t see my posts bragging about how I’ve had a critical hand in some of the most creative architecture designs, providing hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space, retail outlets, and banking centers. I could claim credit for countless buildings standing because of the efforts of myself and those of my colleagues, but I choose not to. I don’t particularly care for the attention. I don’t need to build myself up to gain the admiration of strangers, something you obviously crave. If you need another pat on the back, you won’t find it here, friend. Sorry…

  114. I don’t believe for a second that Steve’s only here for a pat on the back, nor do I think he’s bragging on himself for the sake of bragging. He’s pointing out his experience and his expertise to show that he knows quite a bit about the subject of finances, and thus is qualified to comment on the subject, more so than most of us. My experience in corrections, EMS and fraud investigations has been utilized. If your experience in architecture would make a point, then by all means, use it.

    Using what you know to accentuate a point does not make you a braggart.

  115. Robert,

    I merely stated that I work longer hours than you. That’s based on the hours you have to play online versus mine.

    I have very talented friends who have degrees in architectual engineering and now have their own small corporation.

    I’m sorry. The main topic of our discussion is about tax law and issues. It just happens to be my specialty.

    Moreover; people visit this blog by choice.

    Most of the folks on here have their own jobs and lives that offer up experience, like Mel’s examples she has given you. The point is we all take care of ourselves and it never came easy for any of us.

    You’re the one talking about handouts from the government to “the poor” and the one who advocates giving to folks who don’t work.

    Like your “admiration” for Sarah Palin, you’re severely overstating the value of any “pat on the back” you have to offer.

    My relying on that type of recognition would make me a liberal.

    Think about it.

  116. “I merely stated that I work longer hours than you. That’s based on the hours you have to play online versus mine.”

    That’s fine, but if you expect me to apologize for being good enough at my job to finish faster than you can or taking a lunch break, it’s not going to happen.

    “Moreover; people visit this blog by choice.”

    As do I. But try to refrain from making veiled accusations of me stalking you or seeking you out in any way. Also try to keep in mind that my first foray into this forum was a comment directed nowhere near you. You injected yourself into this particular debate. Remember that when you start to deem yourself intriguing in the eyes of others.

    “You’re the one talking about handouts from the government to “the poor” and the one who advocates giving to folks who don’t work.”

    I really wish you could hear me sighing right now. You still don’t get it, and I’m through arguing the subject with a brick wall. It’d actually be funny if I didn’t think you weren’t serious.

    And not that I need to explain myself to you, but if you find that I have too much time to “play online” today, I’ve taken a vacation day, in case you needed that ran by you…

  117. Robert,

    I’ve sighed a thousand times debating with you here and elsewhere.

    Shall we all scroll up to the accusations you’ve made as well as some of the loving names you’ve called us?

    You’re the one with the audacity to decide who works harder, who makes too much money, and whose worthy of your admiration and pats on the back.

    Now you’re making these accusations against me.

    Something about taking one to imagine one.

  118. “John, I too enjoy the passion in these debates. I love being able to talk to someone who isn’t just a Republican because their parents are. ”

    My parents are Democrats. They turned me into a Republican. They did not intend to do that.

    “Each according to his ability. Each according to his need.” I grew to hate that expression before I was 12 years old. I had tons of ability and very little need. So you don’t have to guess how I became a Republican. I never wanted it all for myself. I just wanted it to be more even handed.

    Then one day Mr. Ability grew up, moved 1,000 miles away, and the entire family learned what happens when you over tax the resources of one person.

    It’s a cautionary tale for all of us.

  119. “It should also be pointed out that I used to be a Democrat.

    Then, I moved out of my parents house and started paying taxes.”

    I bet then you saw how it was being spent and your blood pressure went up 30 points in no time LOL.

  120. I used to be a Democrat too.
    Nah, I’m kidding, I was never a Democrat, I just thought I’d join the conversation…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s