Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, November 03, 2010

In his book Decision Points, former president George W. Bush writes that he briefly considered dropping Vice President Dick Cheney from his 2004 reelection ticket in favor of then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Bill Frist was a better shot,he should have.

At least Cheney was man enough to make the offer. I wish Bush would have taken him up on it, oh well.....

but then he realized cheney wouldnt let him

This is like a headline being "Truman considered not dropping the A-bomb"...doesn't have any real implications on our lives what someone considered doing.

The best part about Cheney was the fact that Kerry thought it was a good idea to bring his daughter's sexuality in to play, as if Kerry thought being a lesbian was a bad thing.

What an idiot.


This is like a headline being "Truman considered not dropping the A-bomb"...doesn't have any real implications on our lives what someone considered doing.
#4 | Posted by butthole_surfer

~Dems
We *thot* about not following Bush into the war based on WMD.

We thought about being against the war before we were for it.

Frist? The guy who dies medical diagnoses via videos? It might have been interesting, VP Dr. Bill might have had the inside track on the nomination, depending on whether or not the GOppers remembered who Dubya was.

Bush also considered defending the Pentagon, but then said fuck it, let the plane hit that 5 sided building, I never liked it anyway.

Bush also considered defending the Pentagon,

But then realized he'd be in Florida on 9-11.

Ya gotta love Dubya. Slept through 50 warnings about 9-11, clusterfucked 2 gimmee wars, Katrina and the economy and the worst thing that happened during his Presidency, according to him, was Kanye West calling him a racist.

As I read somewhere (probably here) Biden will bow out for medical reasons (too bad Bush did not use this excuse with Cheney) and Hillary will be his running mate next election. Hard combo to beat I would think as long as the economy improves between now and then

The best part about Cheney was the fact that Kerry thought it was a good idea to bring his daughter's sexuality in to play, as if Kerry thought being a lesbian was a bad thing.

What an idiot.

#5 | Posted by butthole_surfer at 2010-11-03 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kerry? That was John Edwards.

...and let's face it, he was simply pointing out that the man loves his daughter....his ugly butch daughter who he despised for being gay.

~Dems
We *thot* about not following Bush into the war based on WMD.

#6 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2010-11-03 07:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

YEAH!

Those dems sure were retarded for ACTUALLY believing their president when he lied to them abut Intelligence and the need for war. What a bunch of suckers!

p.s. FUCK the 5000 dead troops too!

-The Right

Kerry? That was John Edwards

Makes sense, because it was at the VP debate. I'm the idiot. D'oh!

Ya gotta love Dubya. Slept through 50 warnings about 9-11, clusterfucked 2 gimmee wars, Katrina and the economy and the worst thing that happened during his Presidency, according to him, was Kanye West calling him a racist.

And he won 2 Presidential elections. What does that say about the competition?

"Kerry? That was John Edwards"

No, it was Kerry.

"Kerry thought it was a good idea to bring his daughter's sexuality in to play, as if Kerry thought being a lesbian was a bad thing."

Nonsense. It was the Cheneys who pretended something bad had been said. Here are Kerry's exact words:

"We're all God's children," Kerry said. "And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

Aha! Thanks, Dan.

Why would the President want to take away the Majority leader? Frist was effective enough, why mess with a winning formula? He made the correct choice in keeping Cheney anyway, Bush won by a few million votes.

And he won 2 Presidential elections. What does that say about the competition?

#16 | Posted by butthole_surfer at 2010-11-03 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

that the average American was fooled?

that the average American was fooled?

When you use that argument, you are basically saying all of the modern Presidents were a result of a dumb electorate. Who was the last intellectual choice? Woodrow Wilson?

#20 | Posted by butthole_surfer at 2010-11-03 09:33 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

when you use that argument, please post the spread W. won by ... thank you in advance

when you use that argument, please post the spread W. won by ... thank you in advance

Well, President Bush actually won 2 elections, so there are 4 spreads (1 electoral, 1 popular vote per election) I will share with you:

2000:
Popular vote: Bush won although he picked up 500,000 less votes than Gore.
Electoral college: Bush won by getting 5 more electoral college votes than Gore. This is what determines the winner in Presidential elections.

2004:
Popular vote: Bush won with roughly 3 million more votes than Kerry. This is a great increase over the 2000 performance.
Electoral: Bush won with 35 more electoral college votes. Again, this is what determines the winner in Presidential elections.

Just because you asked (and can't use Google, apparently)...

Dubya changed his mind after Cheney said they should go hunting and talk it over.

Bush thinking of dropping Cheney would be like Kermit thinking of dropping Jim Hensen...

Dubya changed his mind after Cheney said they should go hunting and talk it over.

One of the greatest moments in Presidential history. When I heard the story that the sitting VP has shot a man in the face, I thought it was a joke. It sounds like something from the 1800s. What a great event, except for the lawyer of course.

#22 | POSTED BY BUTTHOLE_SURFER

Those facts are no more real than Bush jr. winning the Presidency.

You are told what to believe.

Do you think they would just put the truth on the internet for you dumb monkey ass to find?

#26 Why don't you post your own version then? Use facts to refute this, maybe?

Many of y'all voted for those two though many of you deny it today. I can honestly say I voted against them, I think many of the Republicans who post here today secretly wish they could claim the same thing though they still demonstrate the same stupidity which is demonstrated by their votes this past Tuesday. Y'all will never learn, I don't know if it is biological or if it's from your upbringing but you have serious problems in your thought processes. I honestly do not believe any intelligent, fair minded American could bring themselves to continue voting for Republicans. There is a contagious mental illness in America, it's the only explanation I can come up with.

I honestly do not believe any intelligent, fair minded American could bring themselves to continue voting for Republicans.

Not all intelligent, educated and reasonably well-read Americans are socialists at-heart, Danni.

Not by a longshot.

"fair minded American could bring themselves to continue voting for Republicans."

in maine, the democrats have fucked shit up...

you gotta go by the individuals and not the party.

"Not all intelligent, educated and reasonably well-read Americans are socialists "

not all democrats are socialists at heart either. :)

individuals not party.

and i have to agree.

cheney shooting the guy in the face was priceless.

Many of y'all voted for those two though many of you deny it today.
Posted by danni

I voted for them twice. I bet many others did too. That would go along way in explaining 2 terms. Why would I deny it? Because of a buch of clowns on the DR?

bunch.

"Why would I deny it?"

If you're too dumb to know then I can't help you. How many unnecessary, unfunded wars does it take to destroy a nation???

"Not all intelligent, educated and reasonably well-read Americans are socialists at-heart, Danni."

I don't know what the term is for those who cut taxes on their own generation, start unnecessary wars and then force their kids to pay for them. You're right is isn't socialism but there must be a term for it. I hope your kids realize someday what you have done to them and thank you appropriately.

"Why would I deny it?"

If you're too dumb to know then I can't help you.
Posted by danni

So in Danni world, you should deny something you've done based on how it's perceived by your peers.

Nice to know what you're made of. I guess I'm cut from a different piece of cloth.

"So in Danni world, you should deny something you've done based on how it's perceived by your peers."

No Wisgod, I actually respect your honesty but I'm embarrassed for you. It sucks to have to admit something like that.

It sucks to have to admit something like that.

#37 | Posted by danni

I have no more problem admitting that than I would admitting anything else. Successes, mistakes, anything. Any time you make a decision in life, you can't get it back.

Yeah too bad about all those soldiers killed or maimed due to your mistake. Too bad about the economy due to your mistake. Let me just ask you, don't you think with a record like yours it would be a good thing to sit out future elections? I mean, for your kids sake??? How many more mistakes like yours can we afford?

Wis,

Danni was furious (as was I) when in 2 fiscal years the Bush White House coupled with a GOP majority in the house racked up $800 billion in deficits.

Yet, when the Obama White House coupled with an even stronger majority in the house racks up $3 Trillion in deficits in 2 years she jumps up and down with pom poms.

It boggles the mind.


Yeah too bad about all those soldiers killed or maimed due to your mistake. Too bad about the economy due to your mistake. Let me just ask you, don't you think with a record like yours it would be a good thing to sit out future elections? I mean, for your kids sake??? How many more mistakes like yours can we afford?

#39 | Posted by danni

Your bullshit socialist, entitlement programs and their Ponzi-structure have FAR more conscribed my kids and future grandchildren to slavery to the state than any criminalities imposed on us by the GOP.

The attrocities bestowed upon us by your mistaken advocacies VASTLY outweigh ours.

I hope your grandchildren are happy with their future tax-rates that will be necessary to pay off the additional debt that your beloved Obama has saddled this country with.

Actually, more seriously, what does it take to get people like Wisgod to seriously question their thinking, the place they get their news, etc??? They just went to the polls and elected the same party that brought us the wars and the wrecked economy. What kind of thinking is that? There must be something that causes people to ignore real facts and believe things which are simply untrue on a purely emotional level. I believe Republicans along with Fox News and the right wing propaganda machine has figured out how to motivate people to ignore facts and believe things which are easily proven untrue and then they go vote on that belief instead of the honest facts. Until pure propaganda is no longer pumped into the minds of Americans nothing will get better in this country.

It's rich for you to focus your emotions on me Danni while supporting the guy who still has us in Afganistan and just deployed more troops to Iraq. You're fickleness is on display for all to see. And until this Country is no longer ruled by democracy, I'll vote when I want and for who I want.

"I hope your grandchildren are happy with their future tax-rates that will be necessary to pay off the additional debt that your beloved Obama has saddled this country with."

And what of the guy who turned surpluses into massive structural deficits he left behind, along with a melted-down economy?

Danni,

Seriously - get over yourself.

You are not nearly as smart as you think you are.

Philosophical debates have raged throughout ALL of mankind.

The fact that you somehow believe you are far more enlightened and intelligent than EVERYONE with whom you disagree is laughable.

"I hope your grandchildren are happy with their future tax-rates that will be necessary to pay off the additional debt that your beloved Obama has saddled this country with."

The very small percentage of that debt which will be attributable to Obama will probably anger them but the portion run up before he was ever elected will anger them far more. At least though, they will know that their grandmother did not support further tax cut extensions for millionaires while we still have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It isn't past tense on unfunded wars, it is still present tense, we are still borrowing every day to pay for unnecessary wars in the middle east and the same folks who wanted those wars and tax cuts also want to attack Iran. Don't even try to pretend your kids won't blame you, if they ever learn the truth they will blame you for their poor future.

Danni was furious (as was I) when in 2 fiscal years the Bush White House coupled with a GOP majority in the house racked up $800 billion in deficits.

Posted by JeffJ

The difference is you and I can't predict the future of what our elected leaders will do. Danni thinks she can and that makes her more guilty in relationship to Obama's massive spending.

"The fact that you somehow believe you are far more enlightened and intelligent than EVERYONE with whom you disagree is laughable."

The fact that you want to fight wars overseas and enact tax cuts at the same time isn't laughable, it's stealing from your kids.
I don't think I am more intelligent than you Jeff, just more honest with myself. I accept the responsibility for what I do especially when it effects the lives of my kids and grandkids while you firmly hold on to positions which any fool can see will leave future generations poorer.

"The difference is you and I can't predict the future of what our elected leaders will do."

Bull shit. Bush told you he intended to pass huge tax cuts to give back the surplus. By 2004 if you didn't know he was crazy and irresponsible then you just didn't want to listen to your own brain. You voted for Bush, like so many others did, from an emotional point of view completely seperated from the facts available to anyone willing to look at them. When you stop doing that you will change your voting habits but you haven't and I doubt you ever will. You pretend to admit mistakes but you don't really because you continue doing the exact same things.

"Bush told you he intended to pass huge tax cuts to give back the
surplus."

Link?

Bush Considered Dropping Cheney; Instead He Dropped Acid and Kept Cheney

And what of the guy who turned surpluses into massive structural deficits he left behind, along with a melted-down economy?

#44 | Posted by Danforth

I have relentlessly railed against Bush and his criminal fiscal policies. But when Obama takes what he is handed and makes it exponentially worse all I seem to get are excuses, rationalizations, deflections and outright lies.

How far back do you want to go?

Social Security and Medicare were concocted by leftist Democrats. They were set up as classic Ponzi schemes.
We are now facing a huge population bulge that is about to begin drawing benefits en masse.
This is on top of an already impossible ratio of debt-to-GDP as it stands now.

You can't blame the post-2000 GOP for this disaster; although you can certainly blame them for a number of other things, most of which I would agree with you on.

These 2 programs coupled with Medicaid currently consume about half of our budget and are set to double in a couple of decades. While I don't fully agree with all of his proposed solutions, Congressman Ryan is the only elected official willing to address this nightmare AND is offering up detailed solutions.

At what point do we drop the bullshit and honestly address what is indisuptable? The fact that Krugman pretends this is a fabricated problem only further tarnishes Nobel; as if their awarding the peace prize to Gore, Obama and Arafat wasn't bad enough.

"President-elect Bush said in an interview published Friday that he was open to the prospect of making tax cuts retroactive to Jan. 1, if that could spur growth in the faltering US economy. Bush called a recent suggestion by congressional Republicans to backdate the tax cut "encouraging" and described himself as "open-minded" to discussing it. But for now he planned to send Congress his original $1.3 trillion, nine-year tax relief package, which would not take effect until 2002. "It's the plan I campaigned on," he said."

www.issues2000.org

I see that Heffy has graduated from Glenn Beck U with a Masters in Beckonomics.

"Bush told you he intended to pass huge tax cuts to give back the
surplus."

Link?

#50 | Posted by wisgod at

"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget, he said.

Jeff, there is one fact you need to come to terms with. That is that Social Security does not contribute one cent to the deficit, never has. It instead funds the general operating expenses of the government because in the 80's under Ronald Reagan we drastically increased SS taxes to fund the retirements of the boomers. Unfortunately, Reagan had cut income taxes drastically before this was done which left the government operating in perpetual deficit since that time (except for several years of the Clinton presidency). Therefore while people like Ryan pretend, for selfish reasons, that SS is not viable what is really true is that due to irresponsible tax cuts we have borrowed all of the Social Security trust fund and now the Republicans want to just write off that debt and extend the tax cuts which force the government to borrow money. Until your side deals with those fact it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion about taxes and entitlements.

The fact that you want to fight wars overseas and enact tax cuts at the same time isn't laughable,

That's a falsely-assigned position.

I accept the responsibility for what I do especially when it effects the lives of my kids and grandkids while you firmly hold on to positions which any fool can see will leave future generations poorer.

I advocate a much smaller federal government so that me, my family and my community can make it or break it on our own.

I fully agree that What I voted for in 2000 and 2004 failed to fulfill those objectives. However, what we have gotten in 2006 and 2008 vastly exceeds the sins of that with which I voted in '00 and '04.

Regarding the 2 wars....I understand opposition to Iraq, but Afghanistan? What were we supposed to do - allow the Taliban to continue to provide land and resources for future Al Queada attacks indefinitely?

www.cbsnews.com

Mr. Bush said his budget plan proposes a "reasonable" 4 percent growth rate, which he said is "little more than inflation."

He pledged that his spending plans will not neglect the national debt, now totaling about $5.7 trillion.

"After paying the bills, my plan reduces the national debt, and fast," Mr. Bush said. "So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire. That would be a good worry to have."

"Along with funding our priorities and paying down debt, my plan returns about one of every four dollars of the surplus to the American taxpayers, who created the surplus in the first place," Mr. Bush said.

hahahaha

Bush=Wrong

And now you righties want more.

Dumbasses

Careful what you wish for.

"You can't blame the post-2000 GOP for this disaster"

They passed the tax cuts without Democratic support through reconciliation and I can't blame them???

What kool aide are you drinking??

I advocate a much smaller federal government so that me, my family and my community can make it or break it on our own.

meaningless bullshit

what EXACTLY would you cut that would have a meaningful impact on the size of the federal budget?

Social Security? Aint going to happen

Medicare? Aint going to happen

Defense Spending? Aint going to happen

Yay lets cut the $80 bill from the dept of education, that sure will accomplish alot.

Average Americans need to realize one simple fact about taxes and Social Security. You probably pay 20% or 25% income tax but you need to understand that your social security taxes which you pay are also being considered to be income taxes by REpublicans for all intents and purposes. Thus you pay your 20-25% income tax plus your social security tax while the wealthy pay a maximum of 15% on their capital gains an zero social security taxes. Nice deal for them, trust me on this, they think you're suckers. The fat cats laughed their asses of Tuesday.


I see that Heffy has graduated from Glenn Beck U with a Masters in Beckonomics.

#54 | Posted by Corky

Please take a look at Greece.

Then take a look at: Portugal, Ireland and Spain.

Krugman is clinging to untenable economics.

That is that Social Security does not contribute one cent to the deficit

It's a Ponzi-scheme and it consumes a 13% tax-rate on just under the first 100K of income. Even a sliver of that 13% could go a LONG way toward deficit, and dare I even say it, debt reduction.

in the 80's under Ronald Reagan we drastically increased SS taxes to fund the retirements of the boomers.

Even when we take it as stand-alone, in 10-30 years it becomes insolvent.

(except for several years of the Clinton presidency).

Which was a combination of:
*reduced military-spending resulting from the peace-dividend which he had no part of.
*The revenues associated with the dot-com bubble.
*An extremely hawkish GOP-lead house that ultimately controlled the purse-strings.

Until your side deals with those fact it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion about taxes and entitlements.

Don't play the guilt-by-assocation game. I disagree with the GOP FAR more than you disagree with your own party.

Social Security and Medicare, coupled with an already-ridiculous remaining budget and taxes that can barely go any higher before reaching the top of the Laffer-curve MUST be addressed and the longer we wait, the worse the problem gets.

I know Congressman Ryan is a Republican and thus you have a knee-jerk reaction to disagree with anything he puts forth...but I thought that even you could get behind the progressive means-testing that he is advocating for SS and Medicare.

And then to add insult to injury, those same fat cats took their millions and invested them overseas, while laughing at you at the same time.

They passed the tax cuts without Democratic support through reconciliation and I can't blame them???

The disaster I was referring to was the impossible trajectories of Medicare and SS.

"but you need to understand that your social security taxes which you pay are also being considered to be income taxes by BOTH PARTIES for all intents and purposes."

FIFY

The fat cats laughed their asses of Tuesday.

Fat Cats laugh their asses off at everybody who thinks there is a real difference made Tuesday.

that includes you.

#63 | Posted by danni at 2010-11-04 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag: perpetual victim of injury and insult

"Which was a combination of:
*reduced military-spending resulting from the peace-dividend which he had no part of.
*The revenues associated with the dot-com bubble.
*An extremely hawkish GOP-lead house that ultimately controlled the purse-strings."

Again, you ignore the facts. He and the Democrats passed tax increases in 1993 which funded the surplus. George Bush's tax cuts eliminated those increases and created the deficits.
I really don't want to insult you Jeff but you are just posting the predictable Republican talking points designed to distract you from the truth. Those points are a small part of the story and not in any stretch of the imagination the major portion of the story.

It's a Ponzi-scheme and it consumes a 13% tax-rate on just under the first 100K of income.

actually it has gone over $100K

www.ssa.gov

"Social Security a Ponzi scheme? No way
Some commentators are finding a tempting comparison between the Madoff scandal and the Social Security system. Here's why it's wrong."

money.cnn.com

"It's a Ponzi-scheme and it consumes a 13% tax-rate on just under the first 100K of income."

It's not a Ponsi-scheme but it does consume 13%, however that 13% over all the years since the 80's has accumulated several trillion in surplus over the cost of benefits and operating expenses. Where's that money??? Oh, it got used paying for wars and other government expenses after Reagan and Bush cut income taxes drastically (74% down to 28% REagan)(39% down to 34% Bush). So we should now accept an extension of those tax cuts and just accept that our SS dollars were just taxes???
Thus us average Americans weren't paying 20-25% income taxes but really 33-38%. The Republicans should have at least bought us dinner first.

Jeff,

You can't expect very many people who will be completely reliant on SS when they retire to consider it a Ponzi Scheme. they have to believe otherwise.

think of the alternative....they have to accept SS for what they want and need it to be.

I know Congressman Ryan is a Republican .... who proposes an 8.5 percent VAT tax to raise money for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, transferred from the middle class.

Again, you ignore the facts. He and the Democrats passed tax increases in 1993 which funded the surplus.

Actually, those tax increases were signed into law by George H.W. Bush but didn't take effect until after his first term expired.

Danni, the problem with this discussion is that you are making it far more partisan than I am. I KNOW the Bush-lead GOP royally screwed the pooch regarding fiscal policy. I have been literally screaming that fact for years now. What has happened in the last 2 years is FAR worse though - and let's ignore party-control regarding that fact for a moment.

Reality is that Medicare and SS, given current trajectories, are going to bankrupt this country. These programs have to be seriously reformed. I'd be willing to comprimise by expanding the FICA-income cutoff to a higher bracket IF you'd be willing to accept pushing back the age of recipients by 3-5 years (doled out over time) for anyone under the age of 55 coupled with a degree of means testing AND pushing Medicare into the same voucher-system that congress enjoys. I could propose the same for SS regarding the voucher-thingy, but that would probably be pushing my luck.

Is what I am suggesting really THAT unreasonable?

To be completely fair I have to admit that LBJ started the raid on SS though only a comparatively small amount, later Presidents did it much more.

Where's that money???

so you are admiting the money is NOT there and yet you won't question the stability of it?

Danni, the problem with this discussion is that you are making it far more partisan than I am.

FF

you'd be willing to accept pushing back the age of recipients by 3-5 years (doled out over time) for anyone under the age of 55

ummmm I have to work another 5 years so that the wealthiest 2% can keep their tax cuts?

you'd be willing to accept pushing back the age of recipients by 3-5 years (doled out over time) for anyone under the age of 55

Is what I am suggesting really THAT unreasonable?

ummmm I have to work another 5 years so that the wealthiest 2% can keep their tax cuts?

"Reality is that Medicare and SS, given current trajectories, are going to bankrupt this country."

REality is that when you lunp them together it's easy to mislead. They are not funded by the same taxes, one has a huge surplus the other needs fixing.

"I'd be willing to comprimise by expanding the FICA-income cutoff to a higher bracket IF you'd be willing to accept pushing back the age of recipients by 3-5 years (doled out over time) for anyone under the age of 55 coupled with a degree of means testing AND pushing Medicare into the same voucher-system that congress enjoys."

When you are my age you will understand why pushing back the age is a very bad idea. Most folks my age are lucky to have a job at all, if you move it to those 65 years old it would be even worse and there aren't enough jobs in the economy for the workers we have now. All you would end up doing is bankrupt most seniors before they are old enough to qualify for SS. Means testing will just be used by the right to portray SS as welfare.

Medicare as vouchers??? Why not just tell old folks to go to hell and die, again just another method of bankrupting the elderly with medical costs. Medicare works fine as it is, how about ending the overseas wars and restoring reasonable tax rates to pay the government's bills like Clinton did. It's not rocket science.


I know Congressman Ryan is a Republican .... who proposes an 8.5 percent VAT tax to raise money for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, transferred from the middle class.

#72 | Posted by Corky

Actually, it is not nearly as simple as you suggest:

The proposal eliminates the alternative minimum tax. It promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends. It eliminates the death tax. It replaces the corporate income tax -- currently the second highest in the industrialized world -- with a business consumption tax of 8.5%. This new rate is roughly half the average in the industrialized world and will put American companies and workers in a stronger position to compete in a global economy.

online.wsj.com

I don't agree with all of Ryan's ideas. But he is the ONLY politician who is seriously addressing our self-destructing debt trajectory and the role that the 3rd rail, among other things, is playing.

Regarding his proposed 'corporate consumption tax'...

First off, it is in tandem with eliminating the corporate income tax, which is a cost that gets passed to consumers in terms of pricing. Secondly, it creates an environment that is more enticing to doing business here in lieu of abroad. Admittedly, a fair amount of this allure is psychological on the part of the consumer: Look at the shelf-price and just assume that taxes will be tacked on without overly scrutinizing the amount of said taxes, at least on smaller purchases. It's basically a different way of packaging a similar thing except that the inaptly named 'VAT' by Corky actually guaruntees tax revenues with EVERY business transaction whereas a corporate income tax only guaruntess tax revenues if a given corporation is profitable.

"so you are admiting the money is NOT there and yet you won't question the stability of it?"

If Treasury Bonds are worthless then the money is not there, if they are valuable then the money is there. Consult the Chinese on that and get back to me.

Oops - my first paragraph was supposed to be in blockquote.

Sorry about that.

ummmm I have to work another 5 years so that the wealthiest 2% can keep their tax cuts?

you have decided to run your life in a manner that forces you to allow the FED govt to TELL you when you can retire?

-What has happened in the last 2 years is FAR worse though

What has happened in the last 2 years ... is not disconnected from what happened the previous 8 years, it is a function of what happened the previous 8 years.

For the umpteenth time, Obama did what Hilary would have done, what McCain would have done, what every top economist would have done, spend us out of a near Great Depression.

And it worked, albeit slowly. What you don't get about that is mind-boggling.

Perhaps you would have preferred the Second Great Depression?

Ah yes, Paul Ryan. Get rid of the corporate tax and put up a VAT tax. Brilliant.

ummmm I have to work another 5 years so that the wealthiest 2% can keep their tax cuts?

First off, if you had noticed I was proposing a comprimise - raising the FICA-ceiling in conjunction with the cuts I was proposing.

You are free to work as long as you want. You are free to retire as soon as you want. It's all your choice.

ummmm I have to work another 5 years so that the wealthiest 2% can keep their tax cuts?

you have decided to run your life in a manner that forces you to allow the FED govt to TELL you when you can retire?

#83 | Posted by eberly at

ummm worked for the past 25 years or so with the promise of SS for the 13% payment I have made. Now the righties want to change that contract so that the wealthiest 2% can keep their tax cuts.

Must be nice to not have to worry about SS to be financially secure enough to retire.

"But he is the ONLY politician who is seriously addressing our self-destructing debt trajectory and the role that the 3rd rail, among other things, is playing."

Absolutely not true. Ryan is just attempting to keep income taxes from rising for rich people. The VAT is a sales tax by a different name and will fall heavily on working class Americans.
Let capital gains rise to 28%, let income taxes rise to 39% for the highest income brackets and don't extend tax cuts for anyone. That's what we should be doing right now. It's not complicated unless you listen to those whose primary concern is that millionaires might have to start paying higher taxes.

Better still, let capital gains be considered income just like all they money you and I earn. Why do millionaires get to pretend it isn't income? The money ends up being lost anyway when the stock market bubble bursts...which it will.

ummmm I have to work another 5 years so that the wealthiest 2% can keep their tax cuts?

First off, if you had noticed I was proposing a comprimise - raising the FICA-ceiling in conjunction with the cuts I was proposing.

You are free to work as long as you want. You are free to retire as soon as you want. It's all your choice.

#86 | Posted by JeffJ

bullshit, for 25 years my planning has been based on a certain income from SS, now you want to change that contract, thanks for giving me that choice.

Of course the wealthiest 2% get to keep their tax cuts.


Ah yes, Paul Ryan. Get rid of the corporate tax and put up a VAT tax. Brilliant.

#85 | Posted by Corky

It has both positive and negative tradeoffs.

I personally think the positives outweigh the negatives.

You seem to think that it has ZERO positives and infinite negatives.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

For the umpteenth time, Obama did what Hilary would have done, what McCain would have done, what every top economist would have done, spend us out of a near Great Depression.

Bullshit. Japan tried the same thing (approximately) during the '90's and enjoyed an entire decade+ of zero-growth.

I used the word "approximately" because the Obama stimulus had a far-lower percentage of Keynesian-esque funds dedicated to actual infrastucture projects. Much of the stimulus was diverted toward lefty, social spending.

Now the righties want to change that contract so that the wealthiest 2% can keep their tax cuts.

whatever, the dems did what to help with SS?

the election was 2 days ago and the righties want to change the contract?

you are a loon. STFU and let adults try and solve YOUR problem.

It is YOUR problem, you know.

bullshit, for 25 years my planning has been based on a certain income from SS,

please don't tell me that you work with a planner who told you to do that?

please tell me that you devised this really good "plan" yourself.

Good fucking Grief. people make decisions like this and then they are stupid enough to play partisan politics with their lot in life.

some things never cease to amaze me.

taking the side of the wealthiest 2% while they laugh at you can be considered a mental illness fool.

the election was 2 days ago and the righties want to change the contract?

bush tried to privatize SS. tying a part of your retirement income to the Stock Market, how did that do in 2008?

we are talking about a republican plan to raise the retirement age eligibility requirements for SS, try to keep up.

"Much of the stimulus was diverted toward lefty, social spending."

IMHO Nancy Pelosi paid the price for the poorly concocted stimulus this week. Obama should have created the bill and presented it to Congress, as it was I agree, it was a lot of money which could have done a lot more good than it ended up doing. However, it did keep us from falling into an even deeper recession, it was necessary and I still support the concept if not the way it was done.

"you are a loon. STFU and let adults try and solve YOUR problem.

It is YOUR problem, you know."

The SS taxes have been paid in, we doubled them to pay for boomer retirments. That is our money. It is simply theft to now pretend that the Treasury Bonds which we were given as security for a loan to be declared worthless and that is what Ryan and other Republicans are conniving to do.

bullshit, for 25 years my planning has been based on a certain income from SS,

please don't tell me that you work with a planner who told you to do that?


My financial advisor was willing to offer a plan that incorporated projected SS income, but he strongly advised against doing so. He cautioned current assumptions regarding SS availability and instead advocated a plan that did NOT count on it and if it was actually available to me at all then it would only improve my standard of living during my retirment years.

-Bullshit.

I is not bullshit that Obama, Hillary, McCain and top economists would have done the same.

So you do prefer a Great depression. Interesting. A lot of Socially Darwinistic Rs do, as it culls out the weak.

And in case you haven't noticed, our economy and monetary system is so different from Greece and Japan to make the comparisons laughable.

-Much of the stimulus was diverted toward lefty, social spending.

You mean like the largest tax cut in American history?

Where do you think American seniors would be today had Bush or Ryan been able to privatize SS? Digging thru someone's garbage for food, most likely.

#96 | Posted by danni

Spot on.

Posted by JeffJ at 2010-11-04 10:41 AM | Reply

Same here... SS has a surplus of IOU's and that's about it.

It's all about self reliance, to rely on folks that become politicians because they are too fucking stupid to be a productive member of society is just folly.

"So you do prefer a Great depression."

The "Go To" strawman.

Did you see the "surprising" increase in jobless claims?

How many times to these idiots need to be surprised before they recognize a trend?

Mises to pieces!

With a tweak in eligibility age and means testing sometime in the next decade, SS is solvent for the rest of the century, making this BS about it's solvency a red herring.

bush tried to privatize SS. tying a part of your retirement income to the Stock Market, how did that do in 2008?

how did what do? we didn't come within a million miles of that becoming reality but don't let that get in the way of your partisan hatred.

we are talking about a republican plan to raise the retirement age eligibility requirements for SS, try to keep up.

how far apart are the 2 parties on the subject of raising the retirement age?

and more specifically, what is YOUR opinion on raising the age?

"It's all about self reliance, to rely on folks that become politicians because they are too fucking stupid to be a productive member of society is just folly."

To me stupid would be to know that you are the SS taxes you contributed all your working life be stolen so that rich folks don't have to pay taxes and do nothing about it. I honestly think Americans are going to get angry if they ever come out of the propaganda fog induced by highly paid right wing liars on radio and TV. Stupid would be to vote for anyone those shills support because their interests are not our interests.

"and more specifically, what is YOUR opinion on raising the age?"

Better and shorter way of expressing that would be "let's increase unemployment."

Where do you think American seniors would be today had Bush or Ryan been able to privatize SS? Digging thru someone's garbage for food, most likely.

depend.com

I swear to God, I am calling my Edward Jones Broker TODAY and buying stock in Kimberly-Clark.

the demand for this product HAS to rise significantly.

With a tweak in eligibility age and means testing sometime in the next decade, SS is solvent for the rest of the century

which is a vast majority of what Ryan is advocating; as am I!

I don't agree with his partial privatization thing because it not only exacerbates the debt problem in regards to the SS trust, but it's a political-loser as well. The window of opportunity for such a measure closed about 30 years ago - if it had been available to the boomers when they were fairly young, it would have been successful.

Cork, the problem is, the longer we wait to insert what you and I both agree on, the worse the problem gets and thus the more extreme the solution becomes. Ryan is outspoken on this subject and has at least a modicum of support from some of his colleagues. The Dems, as far as I have seen, prefer burying their heads in the sand on this.

Posted by Corky at 2010-11-04 10:46 AM | Reply

There seems to be fairly broad concensus about means testing. I don't really think "rich folks" will miss their SS income anyhow.

Great first small step... Only one problems, no matter which side brings up the legislation, will the other immediately oppose it for the sake of opposition?

bush tried to privatize SS. tying a part of your retirement income to the Stock Market, how did that do in 2008?

how did what do? we didn't come within a million miles of that becoming reality but don't let that get in the way of your partisan hatred.

TH: The Stock Market. Point being if the left and seniors didnt rise up and slap bush (and many righties) down this would have been a reality and look how it would have impacted people.

we are talking about a republican plan to raise the retirement age eligibility requirements for SS, try to keep up.

how far apart are the 2 parties on the subject of raising the retirement age?

TH: Again we are talking about the proposals of one congressman, please try to keepup.

and more specifically, what is YOUR opinion on raising the age?

#104 | Posted by eberly

TH: I think it pretty clear, increasing the retirement age so that the wealthiest 2% can keep their tax cuts is morally reprehensible.

"It is simply theft to now pretend that the Treasury Bonds which we were given as security for a loan to be declared worthless and that is what Ryan and other Republicans are conniving to do."

Gee, Danni...you seem to have forgotten that it was LBJ who BEGAN the theft of our Social Security. However, I know he was a democrat so he could do no wrong in your twisted mind. I'll go easy on you for a few days because I also know that you're suffering now due to the loss of your "Senator" Sestak AND Rep. Alan Grayson who you thought "rocked" so well. Coupled with the loss of your beloved Crist, it must all be quite devastating for you. If you sit around thinking about 2012 when there will be 23 democrat Senate seats up for reelection with only 10 rwepublicans, you may have a breakdown so just keep looking on the bright side...like Nancy Pelosi will still be in the House, at least for a little while.

The window of opportunity for such a measure closed about 30 years ago - if it had been available to the boomers when they were fairly young, it would have been successful.

were you asleep during the fall of 2008?

in the 2+ years my 401K stillhasnt recovered.

"With a tweak in eligibility age and means testing sometime in the next decade, SS is solvent for the rest of the century"

We can do the same thing using the technique used by Ronald Reagan. Raise the amount of income subject to SS tax and that way we dont' throw millions of 65-70 old people under a bus. When you can find jobs for all working age people then let's review the idea of raising the age of retirement, til then it's not realistic but it is cruel.

and means testing sometime in the next decade,

and lefties are complaining about how their hard earned $$$ are being stolen from them if anything gets changed that hurts them.

Means testing will result in more being "stolen" from me.

I expect this to happen and my financial plan is to be able to deal with this.

I am taking a favorable tax situation I have today and planning accordingly instead of wasting time pointing fingers at political parties and blaming them for my failures (unlike a host of douchnozzles on this site who pretend they know something)

To be completely fair I have to admit that LBJ started the raid on SS though only a comparatively small amount, later Presidents did it much more.

#74 | Posted by danni at

Gee, Danni...you seem to have forgotten that it was LBJ who BEGAN the theft of our Social Security.

SNIP
#111 | Posted by jestgettinalong

clearly doesnt read thread.

"Gee, Danni...you seem to have forgotten that it was LBJ who BEGAN the theft of our Social Security."

You didn't read the thread before posting. Go back, read, wash egg off face.

in the 2+ years my 401K stillhasnt recovered.

more examples of "success" planning from TH.

how old are you Truth? be honest.

To me stupid would be to know that you are the SS taxes you contributed all your working life be stolen so that rich folks don't have to pay taxes and do nothing about it.

Posted by danni at 2010-11-04 10:52 AM | Reply

Absolutely, I would love to be able to NOT have to pay SS taxes. I am 37 and already have a secure retirement even AFTER the bush depression.

I merely see SS as a payer of last resort, there is nothing that guarantees that it will be there, it is not a innate and natural right to have someone else pay for your retirement.

in the 2+ years my 401K stillhasnt recovered.

more examples of "success" planning from TH.

how old are you Truth? be honest.

#118 | Posted by eberly

44

I relied on the "experts" at our companies 401K investment firm.

Not sure how I could have done better with the dow losing 50% value but whatever.

I merely see SS as a payer of last resort, there is nothing that guarantees that it will be there, it is not a innate and natural right to have someone else pay for your retirement.

#119 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD

nope but I expect and demand that the other side of the contract fulfill their obligations.

I'm 59 and have been paying SS taxes since I was 16. I sort of think I deserve to receive the benefits I've paid for. The money was paid in good faith to be used for SS not to run the government, regular tax income is supposed to do that. The wealthy got their tax rates cut dramatically and now expect folks like me to quietly accept the theft of our SS taxes. That's what is going on here and so many Republicans refuse to stop and look at it with an open mind.

I wasn't a supporter of Ronald Reagan but I believe that he would agree with me on SS and call out his own party for this evil theft they are trying to accomplish.

TH: I think it pretty clear, increasing the retirement age so that the wealthiest 2% can keep their tax cuts is morally reprehensible.

I agree this is a problem and we are forced to mix the 2 issues together because of the decisions in the past to co-mingle SS in with the general fund.

But that wasn't my question. I was asking about the retirement age only. IMO, it doesn't have anything to do with the wealthies 2%. I realize you can't seperate the 2 because you have too much emotional baggage but try anyway.

If you can't...that's okay.

Personally, I don't support raising the age. Too many workers who are unemployable and are physically unable to do the work they have been doing throughout their life and they aren't able to do anything else productive. wow, call me a liberal.

I would prefer raising the RATE but keep the income cap subject to SS in check...raise it for inflation but keep a cap in place.

and yes, that solution will cost me a bundle.

But that wasn't my question. I was asking about the retirement age only. IMO, it doesn't have anything to do with the wealthies 2%. I realize you can't seperate the 2 because you have too much emotional baggage but try anyway.

and your buying into the lie that you can separate the two.

The reason we have a potential SS solvency issue as Danni has so eloquently communicated is because the trust fund has been raided. This can easily be undone by restoring the tax cuts that were given to the wealthiest 2% (which would also go a long way to restoring a sane balance of wealth in this country).

I would prefer raising the RATE but keep the income cap subject to SS in check...raise it for inflation but keep a cap in place.

Sooo a middle class person should pay more for the same benefit? Just so the wealthiest dont have to pay more?

Ok thanks

"I agree this is a problem and we are forced to mix the 2 issues together because of the decisions in the past to co-mingle SS in with the general fund."

It never mattered if we co-mingled the funds, what mattered was that we cut income taxes too low to pay government expenses so that rich folks wouldn't have to pay taxes. Now you want to pretend that we somehow agreed to convert SS taxes into income taxes which means that we increased taxes on working people to more than twice the level of capital gains taxes on rich folks. Riots should rightly be ongoing now.

The money was paid in good faith

no more than any other tax you have paid. you didn't have a choice in it any more than Federal, State, Sales, Property etc....

you can believe otherwise but, in reality, SS is no different from any other confisicatory tax that passes through your hands and you have no control of what happens to it when you release to the govt.

and btw what would be the impact of an increase in taxes on the wealthy?

Either they pay the taxes or take that income and invest it in our economy to avoid the taxes, win win.

#122 | Posted by danni at 2010-11-04 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

I agree with you and TH that we all should expect to be able to trust that the gummit will uphold its end of a contract. I was just raised with a hardy mistrust of government at all levels.

When I was young I was given a copy of Emerson's Essays I & II and it was his essay on Self-Reliance that heavily influenced my personal philosophies.

One more joke:

Bush considered dropping Cheney until he remembered Cheney already dropped a lawyer.

fair enough but the alternative to fighting to keep ss is to roll over and take it.

"This can easily be undone by restoring the tax cuts that were given to the wealthiest 2% (which would also go a long way to restoring a sane balance of wealth in this country)."

Of course and that explains the billions spent in this past election. Rich folks will give huge amounts to preserve their precious tax cuts and the country be damned. The flag pins should be ripped from their lapels and shoved.....never mind.

This can easily be undone by restoring the tax cuts that were given to the wealthiest 2% (which would also go a long way to restoring a sane balance of wealth in this country).

and you are just as stupid as Danni to believe that the same douchnozzles that raided the trust fund in the first place are to be trusted to take the extra revenue and place it into restoring SS and leave it alone?

how fucking naive can one be? it is bad enough but you asswipes are accusing other of "not getting it" when you 2 are, BY FAR, the slowest kids in the class.

#122 | Posted by danni

I couldn't agree more.

Please take note of a few issues though:

The early recipients received FAR more than they paid in; thus the accurate Ponzi-label. Eventually down-the-line a Ponzi-participant ends up holding the bag. While I don't want that to happen to you or anyone else, it is always a possibility given how this program was structured.

Please also consider your "I deserve mine" attitude when Congressman Ryan proposes increasing recipient-ages AND means-testing - both are measures that I support out of necessity; and NOT fairness. In short, it is OK for YOU to expect to be given back monies dumped into this program but if someone is younger AND/or more affluent - screw them. I don't assign that position to you, I just want you to consider it from a fairness-standpoint.

expect folks like me to quietly accept the theft of our SS taxes.

A significant portion of said theft was inherent in the Ponzi-structure of the program itself. What is worse is the return-on-investment. The taxes required to fund it are non-negotiable; people are simply not allowed to opt-out of the system.

Danni, I suspect that you and Corky consider me to be a roadmap syncophant, and that couldn't be further from the truth. I think what Ryan is proposing in terms of SS and Medicare is horribly-unfair in terms of means testing, and to a lesser extent, raising recipient-age. However, these 2 programs are on such a horrible trajectory that such unfairness is absolutely essential.

Danni and Cork - do you both seriously object to the progressive aspect of Ryan's Roadmap in terms of instituting means-testing for these 2 programs???

Wow!

I spend a few minutes composing a post and taking a leak and a shitload of posts showed up during my short absence.

This can easily be undone by restoring the tax cuts that were given to the wealthiest 2% (which would also go a long way to restoring a sane balance of wealth in this country).

and you are just as stupid as Danni to believe that the same douchnozzles that raided the trust fund in the first place are to be trusted to take the extra revenue and place it into restoring SS and leave it alone?

how fucking naive can one be? it is bad enough but you asswipes are accusing other of "not getting it" when you 2 are, BY FAR, the slowest kids in the class.

#134 | Posted by eberly

I may be naive but I will never willingly succumb to grizzly bear ass rape.

" I was just raised with a hardy mistrust of government at all levels."

I was raised with the same mistrust of the very wealthy who lived like kings during the Great Depression while their neighbors literally starved. Nothing has changed to alter my view of them. If anything Vietnam and Iraq have made me think many of them are even more evil than I previously believed because they ripped off SS to pay for both and yes JESTGETTINGALONG, I know LBJ was a Dem. I supported him until I realized how wrong Vietnam was, I believe he realized it too and felt remorse for it.

It never mattered if we co-mingled the funds,

it matters completely. when you consider the fools we elect to DC then it does. they need rules and we should expect them to be followed.

leaving something like this open to the dipshits in DC to be responsible for was a terrible idea. SS should always have and should always be a seperate fund whereby extremely limited access should be allowed.


in the 2+ years my 401K stillhasnt recovered.

#113 | Posted by truthhurts

Nor has mine.

But as meager as it is, my financial advisor warned me of the risk/reward of various investments. If his advice, which was based upon roughly 100 years of investment history, proves accurate; I should prove OK. But, elect a statist like Obama and who knows...


" I was just raised with a hardy mistrust of government at all levels."

I was raised with the same mistrust of the very wealthy who lived like kings during the Great Depression while their neighbors literally starved.

Watergate and Vietnam changed everything. I was born in 1971 and was raise to mistrust my government. After Watergate and Vietnam, government was viewed as the problem and not the solution.

I was raised with the same mistrust of the very wealthy

Danni reveals another obvious fact about herself.

"I should prove OK. But, elect a statist like Obama and who knows... "

Gee Jeff, can't you stop with the talking points???
That is nonsense and you're smarter than that.
Obama did not dig the economic hole we are in and his actions have actually shrunk the deficit as much as the Republicans pretend they can cut from spending.

I may be naive but I will never willingly succumb to grizzly bear ass rape.

really, all I see is you spreading your legs and wiping honey on your ass if you are going to sit around and expect your govt to provide your retirement to you and tell you when you will retire and expect "promises to be kept".....promises from career politicians.

I will do NONE of that.

grizzly bear ass rape is what's in store for anybody who seemingly follows your plan of action.

"Danni reveals another obvious fact about herself."

I live in the richest country in the world where we are told we can't afford SS, Medicare, education, etc. though the wealthy have accumulated so much wealth that it is mind boggling.

"Income Gaps Between Very Rich and Everyone Else More Than Tripled In Last Three Decades"

concentrationofwealth.blogspot
.com

Obama did not dig the economic hole we are in

No doubt. However, he appropriated 2 major, domestic auto companies in a manner that the GOP can't even remotely-boast AND that a lapdog MSM could barely be bothered to report upon.

and his actions have actually shrunk the deficit as much as the Republicans pretend they can cut from spending.

$3 trillion in less-than 2 years.

Obama did not dig the economic hole we are in


He has made it vastly deeper and even closer to China though

He has made it vastly deeper and even closer to China though

#147 | Posted by kanrei at

that should make it easier for us to get our money from them.

"$3 trillion in less-than 2 years."

Link?

"$3 trillion in less-than 2 years."

How much would it have been if Bush hadn't cut taxes during two wars???

Danni,

I work nights and am off to bed.

I just don't want you to think that I was running from a pretty decent discussion.

Have a great day and please accept my best wishes regarding the future of your grandkids...hopefully whatever version of our adverse-advocacies' works out well politicially.

Time will definitely tell and I sincerely appreciate your scrubbing of partisan-crap late in the discussion and just debating without broad-brushing.

-Danni and Cork - do you both seriously object to the progressive aspect of Ryan's Roadmap in terms of instituting means-testing for these 2 programs???

Means testing for SS didn't start with Ryan, and it has previously been a Dem proposal.

What I object to about Ryan and almost every GOP economic proposal is that it starts with the old cliche that, "what's good for corporations and the wealthy is good for America."

What's good for America is what's good for the People, not what's good for the people that pay bribes to congressmen to come up with such fantastic proposals to shift wealth upwards in our society.

Good discussion Jeff, have a good day. My son started working nights recently, doesn't like it much but he's glad to have the job.

-He has made it vastly deeper and even closer to China though

What was the other choice to avoid a Second Great Depression?

TARP and the stimulus worked, not quickly and not thoroughly, but they worked. TARP is paying itself back.

The better argument is that if the stimulus had been bigger, we would be out of recession by now (more than technically).

What was the other choice to avoid a Second Great Depression?


You act like it was avoided. That is funny.

A Second Great Depression was avoided, a Great Bush Recession was not.

Surely you know the difference.

Surely you know the difference.

#156 | Posted by Corky at 2010-11-04 11:57 AM

I do very well. The Great Depression was postponed, but inevitable. It is clear to anyone not blinded by a letter.

The Great Bush Recession has turned into the Great Obama Recession as he is making it worse, not better. Per the CBO report: the stimulus will create a short term gain, but the long term damage will be greater than if nothing had been done.

- but inevitable

Sorry, Ray.

"Per the CBO report: the stimulus will create a short term gain, but the long term damage will be greater than if nothing had been done."

Link please.

"Estimated Impact of the Stimulus Package on Employment and Economic Output"

cboblog.cbo.gov

And.... the CBO estimates Health Care savings at about 140 billion.

sure he did. Bush was a swell guy who really cared for America and its citizens.

It was just dumb to give the idiot Kanye West any notice

the CBO estimates Health Care savings at about 140 billion.

#161 | Posted by Corky at 2010-11-04 12:33 PM |

We need to hope the HCR saves more money than the stimulus bill puts us in debt.

in maine, the democrats have fucked shit up...

you gotta go by the individuals and not the party.

#30 | Posted by klifferd at 2010-11-04 08:37 AM

Wise words Klifferd. The state Democrats here were actually doing a great job. Iowa was ranked 3rd best run state in the nation. They still lost because people vote for party and not the individual.

#27 | POSTED BY MRFAIR

Sorry, I didnt check this post since yesterday. heres some links for you.

www.impeachbush.tv

www.globalresearch.ca

www.oilempire.us

transcripts.cnn.com

Heres the actual point to what I wrote in #26, there are links for anything you want on the internet. Just because butthole's link said that George Bush Jr won any elections doesn't make it true. After all, he was the president and his cabinet was in charge. they were the most successful ring masters of all time. I am sure they managed to warp the stats.

#22 | Posted by butthole_surfer at 2010-11-03 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: has trouble with the average of dumbasses

The best part about Cheney

#5 | Posted by butthole_surfer at 2010-11-03 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

ran down the crack of his momma's ass and made a brown spot on the sheet.

#22 | Posted by butthole_surfer at 2010-11-03 09:43 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Can uae Goooooooooooooogle but thanks (in advance) for proving my point.

uae=use sorry for the confusion BHS

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable