Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Some will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks. The center's original 2009 estimate was 38% before enactment in February of the $787 billion economic recovery package, which included a host of new or expanded tax breaks.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

taxman

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

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

we know several young people taking advantage of the $8,000 first home buyer's perk. of course when you're purchasing a $175,000 home it seems a pittance.

Through the use of oil and gas drilling programs I often reduce taxpayers tax by 40%, sometimes even to zero.

God Bless America.

Damn it. You 53% pay your fair share already!

Best argument for the flat tax I have seen yet.

I will support a flat tax long before a national sales tax.

The average tax burden on all Americans is already 17-19%, can't get much flatter than that.

This title is misleading, since 200 million people do not work, or earn any income.

You people swallow this shit hook, line and sinker.

Where in the fuck is Biden? Shouldn't he be calling these 47%'ers un-american for not paying taxes?

No other class has more incentive to vote for free goodies from Washington.


This title is misleading, since 200 million people do not work, or earn any income.


You people swallow this shit hook, line and sinker.

#7 | Posted by gitmboy at 2009-10-01 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

As opposed to the libtards buying the uninsured numbers? Please.

So 200 mil don't work or earn income - how is it misleading to say they do not pay income taxes?

This is more of an indication of how poorly the country is doing as a whole, not an indication that only the wealthy pay taxes. The fact is that the middle class bears the biggest tax burden in terms of their effective rate.

Hope this includes me. Of course, mine would come curtesy of the expense (primarily) of medical bills and mortgage payments offsetting withdrawals from my IRA. I think I would prefer being in a position where I did pay taxes.

#11...

Quite a quandry. Work harder, make more money, pay more taxes. Work less, make less money, pay less taxes. No Goldilocks situations.

Crispee you are forgetting the wealthy who have a lower tax burden, in terms of effective rates, than the middle class. So the answer to the quandry is if you are in the middle class either find a way to become poor, or become rich and take advantage of all those tax incentives that only the wealthy can take advantage of.

The fact is that the middle class bears the biggest tax burden in terms of their effective rate.

Might be the first time I have agreed with anything you have posted.

The tax rates aside, the tax code needs to be simplified in some way. It would increase the productivity and savings by a massive amount. Would also greatly help small business like ours. We almost spend as much preparing and paying taxes as we actually owe. The IRS has always been our biggest obstacle.

#13...
That is a hell of a lot bigger stretch going from the Middle Class to the Upper Class in terms of tax rates.

That is a hell of a lot bigger stretch going from the Middle Class to the Upper Class in terms of tax rates

Not talking rates.. Talking about burden...

Crispee you have to think about effective rates, not marginal rates.

So almost half our nation is in the poor house.

"200 million people do not work"

Link?

Any discussion only of federal income tax ignores the fact most people pay more in payroll taxes (SS, Medicare) than they do in income tax.

#18...

Understood.

Sorry...

#17... Understood as well.

Let's round up the unpatriotic pricks. Where the fuck is our Fearless Leader, Joe Biden?


No other class has more incentive to vote for free goodies from Washington.

#9 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-01 11:47 AM

Except of course the wealthy and the corporate welfare queens.

Where the fuck is our Fearless Leader, Joe Biden?

#24 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-10-01 01:11 PM | Reply

Is he hanging around the Home Depot in PA again?

Is he hanging around the Home Depot in PA again?

#26 | Posted by 726

Or Katie's.

so, now we have a potential majority of voters who pay no taxes, and might even get a little somethin' somethin' from those who do.

We have reached, my friends, the tipping point.

We have reached, my friends, the tipping point.

#28 | Posted by somoco

Hooray! Armageddon's here! A Rapture for everyone!

(Well-ONLY the one's who think like WE do...)

Sincerely-the bible babblers

Why are you on here? Get back to work....a DemoRat needs your money.

I retired from my first career instead of taking a promotion do to tax issues. By starting on career #2 at a lower position than I am qualified for I've been able to maintain a reasonable tax burden; it actually puts me ahead a few bucks.

What this tells me is the system is not meant for the average joe to pursue his/her full potential without facing gov't induced penalties.

Any thoughts?


#29 | Posted by frankf2.5 at 2009-10-01 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag: Short Dick , Short Form and Short Payment.

I retired from my first career instead of taking a promotion do to tax issues.

This career obviously had nothing to do with knowing correct word usage.

Any thoughts?

I have many, but my first one is that you're full of shit.

While I didn't crunch the numbers, I have heard from friends in the past that they have refused a pay raise because the net change to their income rate would actually cost them money. Guess it depends on how close you are to the lines the IRS has drawn up.

People often throw in that the poor pay a larger percentage in SS and medicare than in income tax... but aren't these supposed to be "gov't retirement accounts" and "insurance"? If so, how is it fair to lump them in with income taxes that pay for all the spending dreamed up by the idiots in congress? I thought that SS and Medicare were off-budget items.

Also, when they say that 47% pay no federal income tax... are they including the 12 - 40 million (whatever number they are using this week) of illegals that often work under the table? So, is the real number of people paying no insurance being under reported? And, if so, why?

Galt, Galt, Galt ..... one way to legally pay less in federal income tax ...

Gee whiz, whoddathunk that more Americans would be paying not income taxes after you outsourced all the decent jobs. You want more Americans to pay income taxes then it is pretty simple, create an economy where they can earn income.

You want more Americans to pay income taxes then it is pretty simple, create an economy where they can earn income.
#36 | Posted by danni

Can't happen. Too many people like you. I'll have to collapse under the weight of debt first.

You want more Americans to pay income taxes then it is pretty simple, create an economy where they can earn income.

While 100% employment would be fantastic, the real goal is for people to pay less taxes not more. This can be accomplished by reducing spending. Reduce wasteful spending and you can afford to let half the country out of their income tax obligation.

The fascists always pull this bullshit statistic out when attempting to justify stealing more from the public trough.

When you have a better understanding of how things work like the fact that roads these days are paid for with state taxes where they used to be federal, it makes it easier to get why all the states are now broke.

One corporate cocksucker after another.

So...Danforth...they should not pay those taxes?

This is why ANY tax cut is demogoged by the Dems as "tax cuts for the rich".

IF you do not pay taxes..tax cuts mean nothing and your investment in what the country makes as its priorities - decline.

This amounts to 100's of Billions of money transfered from the top earners to the lower levels...and is never taken into the calculations of the "Rich / Poor" divide.


ah blackshirt opens his hole.

a flat tax instead of a sales tax?

so a household income of 30k pays say 12% and a household of 1.5 mil pays 12%, thought you libbys didnt support a tax break for the riches?

IF you do not pay taxes..tax cuts mean nothing and your investment in what the country makes as its priorities - decline.

Implicit in this statement is the rich who pay more taxes have a greater say in what the country makes as its priorities.

Quite naturally, making the rich get richer is the top priority.

wow, only 100 million people work in the US?

so how many of those paychecks are from a fed, state or local govt? so less than 100, maybe 90 million support this entire country. amazing.

Please don't tell me this is being pitched as a good thing, because I'm about to beat the first mother-fucker I see that has a job and isn't paying.

Please don't tell me this is being pitched as a good thing, because I'm about to beat the first mother-fucker I see that has a job and isn't paying.

-------

So sayeth the band of imbeciles.

One corporate cocksucker after another.

Hey Shawn, you want to steal from me, be a fucking man about it and try to take it from my wallet.

Ah another black shirt who claims that taxes steal from him. Upon further examination of course, one will find that one way or another you got yours from the same public trough. i.e. just another hypocrite.

You explain to me how I have obtained 40k dollars in gov't services this year and then we can have that conversation you little leech.

Oh eat shit already asshole.

You get yours from the same system financed upon the back of the same commonality. You can make all the noises that you somehow 'deserve' more, but that is all they are: GIMMIE!!!

Let's add the potential Amnesty Illegals and you likley get another 12 million who will not pay taxes and guess who their going to vote for. They will not be high wage earners and a drag on society. They will have many children and soon this will be Little Mexico, then big Mexico. Protect the boarders, ship the illegals back, allow them in on working green cards and control that growth. Or at least tax them to a very painful level to let them earn their citizen ship so they see that it isn't a give away society. I want to see Obama state a stance on this or he is a liar. People should pay taxes at any level as they get many services and more each day... Just something

Whatever, enjoy my money you little fucking dirt-ball.

Some Numbers from Bureau of Labor Stastics

Employed...............138,864 ,000
Unemployed..............15,142 ,000
Rate.........................9 .83%
Total Work Force.....154,006,000
Population...........307,601,1 95
Non- Workforce........153,595,195
Total Households.....151,000,000
Non-Tax
Paying Households.....71,000,000

The 47% seems correct. According to the graph in the article. If you are married with kids and make less than 50K (63.5m households), once you factor in all your deductions, you probably won't pay any income taxes.

As i said blackshirt2.

Fuck off.

"Reduce wasteful spending and you can afford to let half the country out of their income tax obligation."

So they can invest it over seas or create a stock market bubble. Lowering taxes always results in a bubble economy followed by a bust. We had a pretty stable economy until Reagan cut taxes, since then it has been boom/bust. NO real industrial growth will occur as long as gambling in the stock market results in a maximum of 15% tax while working for a living carries a much higher tax burden.

Need to get back to your trailer and soap operas?

Thieving trailer trash son of a bitch.

"We had a pretty stable economy until Reagan cut taxes..."

Danni, do a little googling on the Carter years before you make a statement like that.

Danni caan't help blaming everything on a republican. And can't understand when you give things away, you typically have a negative cash flow.. But lets keep giving....

What I want to know is when people will start holding both sides accountable. Then we might make progress

Nondlr, let's hope we can show them that in the next election.

Ah, vote buying at it's finest....good luck with that, let's see what it looks like in 2012 when there is no money in the system and we are a banana republic with runaway inflation. Oh, wait we are already there and just don't know it.

WTFUA!

One imbecile after another. The concept of inflation and massive deficit spending never crosses the minds of these dumbass inbred motherfuckers.

MORE WAR!!!!

Remember imbeciles: Fiscal responsibility fucktards!


This title is misleading, since 200 million people do not work, or earn any income.
You people swallow this shit hook, line and sinker.

#7 | POSTED BY GITMBOY AT 2009-10-01 11:37 AM



8.7 unemployed, 6.4 part time employed
www.pacificviews.org


Hmmm, which hook, line and sinker did you swallow?

Realize I'm not attacking you, just your "facts", eh?

Danni caan't help blaming everything on a republican

#58 | POSTED BY NONDLR AT 2009-10-02 09:40 AM


nixon/ford=8 years
carter=4 years
reagan/bush41=12 years
clinton=8 years, but signed every pc of repug legislaton (DINO)
lilaWol/hallichainy=8 years
obama/biden=8 months


Hmm, for nearly 40 years, the USA has been being DUPED by neoconservative bs......deregulation, tax breaks for the richest 1%, no accountability for corps, utilities, banking........

and you are blaming WHO?

I plan to do my part. Never been more active. But amnesty and apathy. Still have me worried. I nearly lost it last night hearing someone state beacause "they" spent so much, we have to spend more to recover. That mindset being listened to unbelievable. I think that is the basis for many foreclosures. Why should you be held accountable when your gov't isn't!.

I don't know what my taxes will look like but I made A LOT less money this year than in years past.

Except of course the wealthy and the corporate welfare queens.

#25 | Posted by 726
Barney Frank?

#55 | Posted by danni
How was carter ecoonmy stable?

#55 Danni> We had a pretty stable economy until Reagan cut taxes, since then it has been boom/bust

What? Did you forget to toss in the LIE that Reagan's tax cuts caused the deficit pile up? I'm shocked at your lapse!

"This title is misleading, since 200 million people do not work, or earn any income.
You people swallow this shit hook, line and sinker."
#7 | Posted by gitmboy


Um, 350 million in the US...200 million people not working...150 million people working...71 million not paying taxes...47%...the figures seem to add up.

I'm happy with what I get in return for my 21k in taxes. Somebody got to pay for national security, infrastructer repair, sending your kids to school, free air traffic control for when I fly to the national parks (maintained by taxes). I don't know if I'm paying for you or you are paying for me.


I retired from my first career instead of taking a promotion do to tax issues. By starting on career #2 at a lower position than I am qualified for I've been able to maintain a reasonable tax burden; it actually puts me ahead a few bucks.


What this tells me is the system is not meant for the average joe to pursue his/her full potential without facing gov't induced penalties.


Any thoughts?

#31 | Posted by Mountain_Mano at 2009-10-01 09:45 PM |

Yeah that sounds like bullshit.

Oh wait, a lot of people will give up $1 to save .40 cents. What a brilliant plan!

The United States has a flat tax. Its 35%. You just get a discount on the first $372,950.

No matter how much we want to blame or look at what Bush or Reagan did, it is a little too late to change that. Holding the open checkbook man responsible is my position. When will you hold unbelievable spending, amnesty for illegals, and people in general accountable? You can get rid of people next election, but the people that are already gone are gone. Get your head out of your ass.


a flat tax instead of a sales tax?


so a household income of 30k pays say 12% and a household of 1.5 mil pays 12%, thought you libbys didnt support a tax break for the riches?


#42 | Posted by scooter28054 at 2009-10-02 08:53 AM | Reply |

When you factor in the other taxes a family pays (property, sales, gasoline, utility, FICA)and by exempting dividends and capital gains from the flat tax then the burden will shift onto the $30,000 couple far more than it will the $1.5 million one.

That is what the proponents of the flat tax want.

That is what the proponents of the flat tax want.


#74 | Posted by 726 at 2009-10-02 10:48 AM | Reply | Flag: Moment of Clarity Award

How was carter ecoonmy stable?

#67 | POSTED BY FREECHOICE AT 2009-10-02 10:27 AM


Tell us, WHOSE policies (8 yrs) did Carter (4yrs) INHERIT?

No matter how much we want to blame or look at what Bush or Reagan did, it is a little too late to change that. Holding the open checkbook man responsible is my position. When will you hold unbelievable spending, amnesty for illegals, and people in general accountable? You can get rid of people next election, but the people that are already gone are gone. Get your head out of your ass.

#73 | POSTED BY NONDLR AT 2009-10-02 10:47 AM

First, my head is not up my ass, or any neocon repug's ass either.

Uh, ever hear of learning from history?

You wish to continue the FAILED neocon policies? The status quo?

NO?

Then why are you not understanding the need to examine where the problems lie and fix them?

Were you paying attention when repugs shouted down reform in the early 90s' and then costs have soared since?

maybe not, eh?

Brent,

Sometimes it helps to think before you open your pie hole.

I pay no income taxes, I work two jobs. I have medical deductions for all that I have to spend, I get child tax deductions 1 for a heroin baby I adopted, I get mortage deductions.

I get school for the kids, roads, police (ha), and fire protection. However almost all of that is paid with local taxes which I pay sales and property taxes to support.

So keep talking big and bad behind your monitor but I don't think I would try calling me a mooch to my face.

Were you paying attention when repugs shouted down reform in the early 90s' and then costs have soared since?


maybe not, eh?

what reform are you talking about, shit for brains?

Snoofy...that is not the point.

The point was that if you are not paying taxes you do not care what taxes are spent on...if you DO pay taxes you do care. Since you do not care - the fact that things like the Stimulas is misspent, corrupt groups getting government funding, the government spending more than it has...doesn't mean anything to you. You would be just looking for what else you can get (AKA Health care, ect)

That is why EVERYONE should pay something.

At some point in time all those who have been working and paying get to a saturation point and will either 1) stop working completely- which means everyone that was depending upon the surplus that the person was producing must leach off of someone else. (and why a potential of 40% of the doctors in the US might do if Obama care passes) 2) Stop working some - producing just enough to get by on 3) go somewhere else where they can be successful. (which is what is happening now in NY City)

The T Parties are the result of the group of producers in the US being fed up with supporting everyone - and being insulted by the Media, Congress and the rest.

Liberals look at the "rich" as this infinite source of funding for pet projects. But what happens when nobody has anything left to give?

"The T Parties are the result of the group of producers in the US being fed up with supporting everyone - and being insulted by the Media, Congress and the rest."

Except that many of those Teabaggers were part of the 47% who pay not income taxes. Many recieve socialist government health care. Most of them would go nuts if you were to eliminate Medicare.
Those folks were a pretty confused, conflicted group who is angry but at all the wrong people.

EBERLY, how old were you in 1993??

Uh, try googling heathcare reform and clinton and see what you get....I'm not doing your homework for you....

Apparently, based on the misinformation you posted on the ensign thread and the namecalling.....you don't have much intelligence going on and simply allow multimillionaire right wing talking heads tell you what to think. If not, why are you spewing (regurgitating) the exact same bs they spew daily....???


I have been trying to educate posters on this site for about a month now, that not only is namecalling and insults NOT an argument, but it detracts from whatever valid argument you might make.....tho i haven't seen one from you yet......

I have been trying to educate posters on this site for about a month now,
#82 | Posted by woke at 2009-10-02 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag: Like a dog trying to teach the Master to fetch the paper

Uh, try googling heathcare reform and clinton and see what you get....I'm not doing your homework for you....

Woke


Take your own advice and google Bushs' HC Reform. Then come back and tell us who the fucking liars and hypocrites are.

Bipartisan Cooperation on Health Care Is Dead on Arrival

Worst of all was the five-page memo distributed by Sen. Edward Kennedy to Democratic colleagues that ought to embarrass a man who considers himself the Senate's leading health-care expert -- a compendium of half-truths, unsupported assumptions and outright lies. Kennedy reverted to the hackneyed rhetoric of class warfare, asserting that the president's proposals will do nothing for working families, give new tax breaks to the rich, increase the number of uninsured and encourage everyone to buy less insurance coverage than they should have.

In fact, all of these are almost precisely the opposite of the truth.

The president's health plan would, in fact, put a cap on a $200 billion-a-year tax break that now goes disproportionately to those with the most generous and costly employer-provided health insurance plans. It would redirect a small portion of that break to those who have less generous coverage or those who have to buy their own insurance because their employer does not offer it. For a few million of the roughly 47 million Americans with no insurance, it may also make the difference between being able to afford basic insurance or not.

The fact that some of those who have these rich policies happen to be members of auto or postal unions doesn't change that the president's proposal would make the tax code more progressive, not less. They are the aristocrats of the working class who, like lawyers, investment bankers and journalists, earn more in tax-free benefits each year than uninsured janitors earn in taxable wages. And whatever modest tax increase they might face from the cap on tax-free health benefits, it is certainly less than the tax cuts they got from Bush that Democrats are so eager to rescind.


Almost every health economist agrees that the tax subsidy for employer-paid health insurance is not only unfair but that it also encourages people to buy too much insurance, consume too much health care and pay too much for both. Bush deserves praise for having the political courage to confront the issue.

Now is this the magic bullet that will solve the health-care crisis? Of course not.

Would any real solution also require finding billions of dollars more to subsidize the purchase of health insurance by low-income workers and getting states to reform dysfunctional markets for individual and small group insurance? No doubt about it.

But anyone seriously interested in health reform would welcome the president's proposal as a basis for negotiations, raising public expectations and increasing pressure on the president to embrace more comprehensive reform. Unfortunately, that is not the approach of Messrs. Stark, Rangel, Reid and Kennedy, who apparently prefer demonizing the president and grandstanding on the issue until the next election.

Haven't we had enough of this?

www.washingtonpost.com

wis

Is that what YOUR multimillionaire neocon MASTERS told you to think?


LOL

^.^

"This title is misleading, since 200 million people do not work, or earn any income."

Hmmm ... so the unemploynment rate is not really 9.7%, or even the 17% if you count those not looking for work, but it's really 66% ... since we have just over 300 million people living in the country.

You really should stop before you use such obviously far-fetched numbers.


John B.
www.politicscity.com
NEW EDITORIALS POSTED!!

Take your own advice and google Bushs' HC Reform.
#84 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC


lilaWol reformed healthcare? WHO knew? Only you perhaps, eh?

I've got one dupe telling me we don't need reform.
Another dupe telling me to quit bringing up reform,
Another saying it'll cost too much.
Another saying any plans from dems are not valid.
Most all say, if i read between the lines, I've got mine, screw everyone else.....oblivious to the FACT they are paying for those who don't have, the continued rising costs for those who do, and how inaction is worse than any action at all.

lead, follow, or get out of the way, eh?

Uh, try googling heathcare reform and clinton and see what you get....I'm not doing your homework for you....


I didn't realize this thread was about health care reform.

you have plenty other threads to discuss that, shit for brains.

should have read, another telling me quit bringing up bush, et al...

Woke

gateway.nlm.nih.gov

From the study

"The number of discharges increased by only 0.86% per year from 1993 to 2001, while cost per case increased by 1.6% per year. Both of these rates were substantially higher after 1998 (2.2% and 3.3% respectively). Interestingly, the market basket index for hospital input costs did not accelerate after 1998."

So COSTS have not increased for basic services to the hospitals significantly since 98

"The top 50 CCS categories contributed 95% of the overall increase in inpatient costs. The top disease category, heart attack, contributed 6.7% of the national increase in inpatient costs. Two of the top 5 categories had an increase of cost more than 3 times the national rate of increase: back disorders and heart dysrhythmias. Dysrhythmia cases and cost per case rose considerably more than average. This condition has documented improvements in technology."

So the cost increases have been specifically due to the advent of newer more expensive technology that increase survival rate - and have lead to diagnosis of conditions that were not identified before.

"Some of these technology uses deserve more scrutiny for cost-effectiveness and patient outcomes. Personnel costs are a general contributor to increasing cost per case, but not to the recent acceleration. In specific patient categories, avoidable costs due defensive practices or inadequate preventive outpatient services warrant further testing and concern due to avoidable hospitalization costs."

However some of the newer technologies have been used NOT to fix an issue - but as a way to protect the doctors from being sued.

So...to hold down on health care costs you can not use the higher cost newer technologies (which is why MRIs are rare in Canada and UK)

That means you have sucky health care for everyone OR you let people PAY for the newer technology (which eventually falls in costs making it available to everyone).

#88...
Doesn't matter what thread Woke posts, he still will have shit for brains. Notice how he ran from the link? Couldn't come up with one argument or admit his blatant stupidity and hypocrisy.

see, eberly,

apparently YOU don't have the ability to debate honestly ANY issue without namecalling...eh?

LOL


My post was in response to another poster, but you must be in that "pack" of circle jerk trolleyboys who stalk my every post on this site, eh?

Sorry, boy, I don't roll like dat!

LOL

Apparently, based on the misinformation you posted on the ensign thread and the namecalling.....you don't have much intelligence going on and simply allow multimillionaire right wing talking heads tell you what to think. If not, why are you spewing (regurgitating) the exact same bs they spew daily....???


It's obvious that folks with nothing but blind ideology to go on will always accuse anybody who disagrees with them of allowing "multimillionaire right wing talking head to tell what you thing".

what a joke.

and it is the equivilent of name calling and insults BTW.

grow up woke.

Eberly,
Welcome to the "I am Right Wing because Woke Says So" club. Myself and Manypaths are members. Turns out our support of liberal candidates was actually a deep joke we were pulling on ourselves. Woke said so.

Most all say, if i read between the lines, I've got mine, screw everyone else.....oblivious to the FACT they are paying for those who don't have, the continued rising costs for those who do, and how inaction is worse than any action at all.


lead, follow, or get out of the way, eh?
#87 | Posted by woke at 2009-10-02 11:48 AM |

Funny, I thought the link I pasted was action ignored and lied about by your fucking hero dems in Washington. Can you point out where they led? Eh? Come on Woke? THINK! EDUCATE!

If aWol wanted to reform healthcare, why did it not happen while repugs held scotus, potus, and congress for a decade??

or illegal immigration
or national debt
or any other issue that actually affects working Americans...

Answer that for me and I'll read your inane article
(crickets chirping)


Was it obama, clinton or carter's fault?

LOL

Sorry, you have me confused with your ilk. I'm not a dem, I'm an indy and i've voted for dems/indys/repubs for the last 40 years based on their credibility and actions, not their bullshit....

My post was in response to another poster, but you must be in that "pack" of circle jerk trolleyboys who stalk my every post on this site, eh?

you changed the subject to health care reform. I guess you don't have anything else to talk about.

Great, another one issue poster with an ax to grind.

figures.

again kanrei

if it walks like a duck, talks/acts like a duck, it's a duck

actions speak louder than words...

if you get on here daily and spew the very same rw talking point bs that is regurgitated daily on corporate media, by multimillinaire bullshit artists....what can you expect people to think about you...

there are a whole lot of evangelical/fundamentalist nutjobs claiming to be christians out there too

along with repugs claiming to give a shit about working Americans, but their policies don't add up to any help....whatever those policies are....like i said, WHAT did they do when they held all three branches for a decade?

eh?

If aWol wanted to reform healthcare, why did it not happen while repugs held scotus, potus, and congress for a decade??
#96 | Posted by woke at 2009-10-02 11:54 AM |

If Obama wanted HC Reform why hasn't it happened? They have the Majority in both houses and the WH? Does that seem right Joke?


Either you were too fucking lazy to read the article. Or you did read it and have no short term memorey what you just read? Or of course you are just another ignorant hack without the balls to call out any leading dem. Which is it Joke?

I'm not a dem, I'm an indy and i've voted for dems/indys/repubs for the last 40 years based on their credibility and actions, not their bullshit....

First of all, you are an extreme liberal. I don't care what party you claim.

Second, you HAVE voted on bullshit. Both sides have little else to offer during campaigns.

Time for a movie with my 4 year old granddaughter, she makes more sense than the entire lot of repug supporters on DR....

I'll check back to hear all the successes of the last 40 years of neocon policies, especially the last 8 years....

crispee

what do you think is happening in congress right now buddy?

one parting shot for you...

an old bull and a young bull stood on a hill
the young bull said, "let's run down their and fk a heifer"
the old bull said, "let's walk down there and fk em all"

Welcome to the "I am Right Wing because Woke Says So" club. Myself and Manypaths are members.

thanks Kanrei

"If Obama wanted HC Reform why hasn't it happened?"

It is happening.

Time for a movie with my 4 year old granddaughter, she makes more sense than the entire lot of repug supporters on DR....#102 | Posted by woke at 2009-10-02 12:00


Funny I think most would agree your 4 year old daughter probably makes more sense than you. But hey, after another beating for the umpteenth day, I don't blame you for pulling that tail between your legs and running like a common lib. No surprises here.

an old bull and a young bull stood on a hill
the young bull said, "let's run down their and fk a heifer"
the old bull said, "let's walk down there and fk em all"

So are you admitting you screwed cows as young man and as a 60 year old today? I hope your granddaughter has a grandmother to counter you.


"If Obama wanted HC Reform why hasn't it happened?"


It is happening.


Really? Link please. Or is this one of the stupidest posts you have written in a long time?

This title is misleading, since 200 million people do not work, or earn any income.

You people swallow this shit hook, line and sinker.

#7 | Posted by gitmboy

The article said 47% of the households, not 47% of the people.

Talk about swallow this shit hook, line and sinker. The hook is embedded in your gut.

And you people thought we cleaned up welfare under slick willie.

"Really? Link please. Or is this one of the stupidest posts you have written in a long time?"

We'll see in the next few weeks. I believe some sort of bill will pass and I think it will include some form of public option, perhaps with a trigger.
It won't be perfect but it will be a starting place from which we can build.
Do you really think nothing will pass?

if it walks like a duck, talks/acts like a duck

Says the person who has obviously never seen a duck before.


we know several young people taking advantage of the $8,000 first home buyer's perk. of course when you're purchasing a $175,000 home it seems a pittance.

#1 | Posted by nanc at 2009-10-01 10:18 AM |

Really?

I didn't know double wides cost that much.

we will be toast when 3 out of 5 are getting a government check,we are at 2 out of 5 now.

#110...

NOPE.

same 47% that are in favor of "free" health care?

Something will pass. It will be just enough for the Democrats to say they need more help and for the Republicans to claim some victory, both just in time for the 2010 elections.

Really?


I didn't know double wides cost that much.

#112 | Posted by jerrytarkanian at 2009-10-02 12:26 PM

But you do know how much single wides cost.

Not really Crispee Old Cocksucker.


What did you pay for yours?


He traded his '78 chevy pickup and a case of Keystone Light with your mom for it.

there went your inheritance.

:-(

He traded his '78 chevy pickup and a case of Keystone Light with your mom for it.


there went your inheritance.


:-(

#119 | Posted by eberly at 2009-10-02 12:40 PM


Unlike your wife, the gift that keeps giving to the guys at the corner bar.

:0

Actually I have an acquaintance who recently bought (cash, no mortgage) a new double wide on a 1/4 acre of land in the country. I was surprised at how nice it was. I've never considered putting down someone for the home they live in. For the record, I know he makes over 80K a year and his wife approx. 35K. They enjoy vacationing all over the world because they are not 'house poor' (i.e., tied to an outrageous mortgage). Sometimes how you live is a matter of priorities.

ps: They also have a very nice 20' X 40' in ground pool and 6 person hot tub.

Something will pass. It will be just enough for the Democrats to say they need more help and for the Republicans to claim some victory, both just in time for the 2010 elections.
#116 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-02 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stop being so fucking honest.

Actually I have an acquaintance who recently bought (cash, no mortgage) a new double wide on a 1/4 acre of land in the country.

THe 1/4 acre is the trick. If you get a trailer and set it on your own plot of land they can be nice homes if your stuck in a trailer park your most likely scrwed.

Actualy I regret buying the place I did I could have done the trailer on land thing out of the city spent about the same gotten more land but had an hour drive to work in the morning. Some good some bad.

^.^

"How was carter ecoonmy stable?"

It was stable in that it allowed the same kind of miserable malaise to be spread evenly across the entire population ... and now the idiot thinks we all oughta be bowing and scraping before his wisdom.

What a complete ignorant dweeb.


John B.
www.politicscity.com
NEW EDITORIAL POSTED!!

#118...
Sorry did that hit a bit close to home? No pun intended...

#107 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC AT 2009-10-02 12:06 PM

it's a parable cripeecritter, but i don't expect folk of your ilk to understand it, and you din't prove that wrong, eh?

patience, my son...


if it walks like a duck, talks/acts like a duck
Says the person who has obviously never seen a duck before.

#111 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2009-10-02 12:21 PM |


Uh, I'm not the one posting inane rw tallking points and then pretending to support other positions bud...


I'll check back to hear all the successes of the last 40 years of neocon policies, especially the last 8 years....
#102 | POSTED BY WOKE AT 2009-10-02 12:00 PM


Could not find ONE neocon success story, eh boys??


no shit...the party of NO does nothing for working Americans, just feeds no bids to those who own/operate them for PROFIT, whether it's OPEC, oil/war profiteer corps or healthcare/pharma corps....


thanks for acknowledging it by posting nothing on topic or to my query about neocon successes...

zero, nada, zip, zilch, empty set....

yet, these duped neocon shills on DR continue to support the status quo......as if they are among the top 1 % income bracket that the neocon/repugs work for......

clue for you boys:

top 1%=141,000 who average 7.4 million yearly.....

i'm pretty sure NONE of those multimillionaires are on DR posting inanity, eh?

But then, they don't have to with rw dupes that are here posting bs that isn't in their own best interests...

eh?

40 years of FAILED neocon policies, including clinton's years...with a repug, do nothing congress.....only 4 years in the last 40 with a dem potus and dem congress.....including the 8 years of the criminal nixon and inept ford that carter inherited....

yet, it's all carter's fault...


some folks will believe anything their multimillionaire rw talking heads tell them to believe.....

If carter was so great, why did he only serve 4 years? The little o will do the same.


If carter was so great, why did he only serve 4 years?

#128 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-10-02 02:54 PM

Because he was so great, he only needed 4 to do what others take 8 to do.


Sorry, you have me confused with your ilk. I'm not a dem, I'm an indy and i've voted for dems/indys/repubs for the last 40 years based on their credibility and actions, not their bullshit....


#97 | Posted by woke at 2009-10-02 11:55 AM |


Rather odd you claim to be an Indy yet so far everything you spew is critical to anyone on the right. I provide you a link where your beloved dems lie through their teeth and showed extreme hypocrisy. I have yet to see anything by you addressing those lies. Other than some retarted retort with zero substance or context to the link. Even as an Indy, you can't be stupid enough to believe lies and hypocrisy are only from one side of the political aisle. Eh?

Wow kan, your head must be nice and warm in there, or you are saying he screwed up more in 4 years than most can in 8. Which is it?

Kanrei,
You right wing dupe. How dare you question an indy like Woke.

Wow kan, your head must be nice and warm in there, or you are saying he screwed up more in 4 years than most can in 8. Which is it?

Whichever is funnier =D

I know many independents who accuse anyone they don't agree with of being a right winger. I mean, if they didn't agree lockstep with the left, how independent could they really be after all?

I mean, if they didn't agree lockstep with the left, how independent could they really be after all?


I think I can answer that with four letters... WOKE. IINO?lol

"This is why ANY tax cut is demogoged by the Dems as "tax cuts for the rich". "

No, the reason is the tax cuts have gone disproportionally to the rich. Cut the payroll tax rate, or the gasoline tax, and no one will make that claim. If you don't believe me, ask anyone with even a passing familiarity with the tax code. The wealthiest got a 60% rate cut on dividends under Bush...where's YOUR 60% rate cut?

If carter was so great, why did he only serve 4 years? The little o will do the same.

#128 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2009-10-02 02:54 PM


Tell me this:

1. If lilaWol inherited 911 from clinton, 9 months later, who did carter inherit a failed economy from that he got blamed for? Or a failed foreign policy surrounding the shah of iran....that directly led to the hostage crisis?
2. Who controlled the oil prices back then? OPEC or carter?
3. Who controlled the interest rates? big banking or carter
4. Who got the hostages released 20 mins after reagan took office?
5. Who was responsible for the 93 WTC bombing that occurred barely a month into Clinton's tenure?
6. Who was meeting with OBL's family on 911?
7. If Reagan/bush 41 or bush 43 were truly conservatives, why did they quadtruple the national debt in 4 years and raise taxes despite claiming they would not do so?

TRY THINKING instead of accepting every smear on the dem party, who, as i pointed out, controlled policy in congress and potus, just 4 years during carter...during the last 40.

HELLO?

#129

more lefty posts from kanrei


LMFAO


As for my own independentness.

The corporate owned media is and has been skewed so far to the right in this country, that one has to get on the internet and pour over real info that is not jaded by corporate interests...

for instance, only ONE newspaper group, mcclatchy, dared criticize the bullshit rw info that led to iraqnam

only one economic expert (that i've read) ever had the knowledge and foresight and guts to stand up and speak truth to power and warn us a couple years beforehand that the neocon policies would lead to disaster, paul krugman.....

try to realize that much of what you see and read in America is skewed FAR FAR to the RIGHT, and all the time, they tell you it's a "liberal" media....

What i truly find hilarious, is how righties claim msnbc, etc is lefty because they have a couple of people who dare question the idiocy of the right.....yet, nbc is owned and operated by America's oldest and largest war profiteer corporation, GE....

And when anyone other than a moderate speaks, like mmoore, they are immediately shouted down, smeared and discredited by "smearing the messenger" with little actual attention ever paid to the message.....which is factual......

for instance, moore is labled far left, yet his new movie connects obama to goldman sachs....

THINK about the bs you are being fed, is all I am asking

Or just keep on lapping it up and regurgitating it here, gents.....

^.^

"If Obama wanted HC Reform why hasn't it happened? They have the Majority in both houses and the WH? Does that seem right Joke?"

In this case, the Dems aren't quite sure that the American people won't lynch them if this passes, so rather than stand up behind their majorities in Congress, they want "bi-partisan support".

BS!

If the Dems are men enough, they'll do exactly what Rush said yesterday that they will do ... attach health care to another unrelated bill, then pass the whole thing.

I think the Republicans will be able to shame the Dems into not doing this, but quite frankly, the Dems have the majority ... to HELL with what the American people want, apparently...


John B.
www.politicscity.com
NEW EDITORIAL POSTED!!


#129


more lefty posts from kanrei


LMFAO


Yeah, I find the stupid often laugh at things they don't understand.

NEW EDITORIAL POSTED!!

#139 | Posted by lunahq7

Stop spamming, idiot. Nobody gives a shit about your "editorials".

And it is like I told you the other day Woke: you are fish here and every DR Angler is going to have fun. You want right wing, I'll show you a right winger.

Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, etc certainly aren't lefty, they are righty and maddow, olbermann, shultz are moderate/left at best, they aren't far left, , but dare question the rw tp that flows from faux neocon network, is regurgitated by cnn, abc, and the other corporate media, which originally emanated from unkkkle kkkarl's "truthcave"......

And most Americans lap it up.

Anyone daring to even question rw propaganda bullshit is labled extremist far left, even though sites like thinkprogress.org and mediamatter.org simply fact check the rw corporate propaganda and dare to point out it's innacuracies.....


Anyone here read or even hear about Mother Jones or Alternet?

Check em out and you'll begin to see that FAR LEFT pov are not even seen on the horizen in the usa.....

Lunacy


Uh, the hell with what Americans want? WTF are you talking about?

Obama was elected overwhelmingly on a platform of healthcare reform.

The PEOPLE spoke loud and clear at the ballot box, the ONLY poll that counts......

Oh, wait, you must be talking about the astroturf tea parties and goofballs attempting to shout down debate at town hall meetings...

THEY LOST the election, and are disgruntled, eh?

Sorry Woke - on this planet Obama won by only 4 % - and it was not because of Health care reform..it is because he claimed he would cut taxes on everyone except those who made more than 250K.

He also ran against someone that really did not differentiate himself from Obama on key topics like the Environment or the Illegal Alien issue which Obama said he would finish the wall.

He spoke on how he was going to be Transparent - that all bills would be posted before being voted on, that he could cut spending and reduce the deficit.

It has come to pass on this planet that most of what Obama promised was a lie (I posted over 170 prior)

So - If he is doing better on your planet I would suggest you stay there...he is screwing the pooch on ours.

And Danforth - the article says that 47% will pay no federal taxes...so ANY tax cut will "favor the rich"

2. Who controlled the oil prices back then? OPEC or carter?
3. Who controlled the interest rates? big banking or carter


#137 | Posted by woke

WOW!

2. When carter was in office, we only importer 25% of our oil.
2a. Who shut down the big oil shale projects when carter was in office?

3. The same person that does now, the chairman of the fed.

^.^

Yeah, I was about to mention that Obama didn't run on healthcare ... he ran on NOTHING, that is, he came out of the Senate primed up to have had virtually no real issues that opponents could pin him down on ... this was a strategy that Tom Daschle and other Senate leaders came up with, and it worked, just this once.

Obama ran against McCain, who is a luke-warm conservative at best, always ready to "reach across the aisle" and stab his own party and President in the back if the political expediency looks better.

Obama said he would complete the wall on the southern border, and he would send the needed troops to fight in AFghanistan, to finish "the right war". Has any of that happened? No, the man can't talk to his general but once in 90 days.

Obama did not run on healthcare, and if he had, he would have known the buzzsaw was coming.


John B.
www.politicscity.com
NEW EDITORIAL POSTED!!


Remember imbeciles: Fiscal responsibility fucktards!

#61 | Posted by Shawn


SHAWN

your handle is apt fucktard.

Fos

Try this link to his platform:
www.barackobama.com
www.barackobama.com

Or see what people were saying about it by googling obama healthcare platform....


Obama Wins: What It Means for Health Care
Experts Say Financial Crisis Could Affect Obama's Plans for Health Care Reform
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Nov. 5, 2008 -- Tuesday's election of Democrat Barack Obama ushers in a new administration that is all but certain to include some level of health care reform. Less clear is how extensive that reform will be and when it will come.

The Illinois senator has proposed sweeping changes in the health care system designed to provide health coverage to millions of uninsured Americans. www.webmd.com

What does 'has proposed' mean to you??


Not sure which planet you are on.....(Franks words to the birther) lol

4%.....

Uh, maybe you might wanna check your FACTS son....cause obama won by FAR MORE than lilaWol did in either election....even the one he got slightly more votes in.....LOL. And recall how he treated those bare victories? AS A MANDATE for neocon policies, eh?


bush 47%
gore 48%


bush=50.7
kerry=48.3


mccain 45.7
obama 52.9%

Do some math there Fos

Translated back into votes it looks like this

obama=69,456,897
mccain=59,934,814

Uh, gee, that looks like nearly 10 MILLION more Americans voted for Obama, eh?


Compare that to lilaWol STOPPING a legal recount so he could be APPOINTED potus by his daddy's cronys after recieving half a million LESS votes??

Or compare it to him smearing his way to victory by 2% over kerry.

I don't think you wanna see the electoral victory tally, eh?

Obama more than DOUBLED the electoral votes of mccain...

365 to 173


Give me a break with your bs, eh?

mccain/palin lost overwhelmingly....obama won on his platform, which included healthcare reform......and getting our troops OUT of iraqnam....

and he's doing both...eh?

that was for you too, lunacy.....

could you figure that out by yourself??

i wasn't sure...LOL

As for your very poor response to my questions sniper.....

uh, nice try, BUT, if we have the crude from opec and canada and other sources including our own....Who decides how much oil is refined into gasoline for sale??

THINK about it.......


GIANT GLOBAL OIL CORPORATIONS that own and operate the
GOP-grand oil party

So, they diminished carter by reducing refining and the bankers raised interest rates astronomically.....holding americans hostage...

Just like the energy speculators did in Cal....Enron, Ken Lay....hallichainy and his closed energy meetings in 2001...


ring a bell???

Hard to pay income tax when you have no f'ing income. Thanks Barrack Hussein Obama mmm mmm mmm.

Seems trying to get the Olympics is more important than jobs, the wars, homelessness and healthcare.

Barack Hussein Obama mmm mmm mmm.

You are blaming obama, who's been in office for 8 months for the unemployment that the last 8 years of neocon failed policies created...

that's fkn hilarious


ONLY a rw dupe or shill would say such a thing, which are you...??

Interesting to see how fkn happy the gopers are at rio getting the olympics instead of the usa.....

they were saying it's a financial loss anyhow....so wtf?

oh, yeah, it's a failure for the united states of america's president on the world stage....

bad for american, good for the gop, eh?


Imagine if, instead of all Americans coming together to support lilaWol after his incompetence allowed 911 to occur on his watch, people would have placed blame and relished in his failure.....


hello?


gop-party over country


it's plain to see

I've been reading rumors that Obama plans to propose a national sales tax next week. Hold on to your wallet.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama has been steadfast in his pledge that he won't raise taxes on those making less than $250,000. But that doesn't mean only high-income households will be subject to higher taxes.

An increasing number of influential Democrats and fiscal-policy experts have signaled that lawmakers will have to get a handle on the deficit. And they recommend seriously considering the creation of a value-added tax (VAT) on top of the federal income tax.

That could mean more money out of everyone's pockets when buying virtually anything -- sweaters, school books, furniture, pottery classes, dinners out.

A VAT is tax on consumption similar to a national sales tax. But it's not just paid at the cash register. It's levied at every stage of production. So all businesses involved in making a product or performing a service would pay a VAT. And then the end-user -- such as the retail customer -- ponies up as well.

No one is suggesting raising taxes or creating new ones before the economy stabilizes.

But Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve who heads President Obama's tax reform panel, is advocating a little advance planning.

When it comes to getting control of the country's debt burden, "I think if we can't do it on the cost side, we've got to go on the revenue side. And it's too early to do it, but it's not too early to begin wondering," Volcker said Wednesday in an televised interview with PBS' Charlie Rose. "You've got talk about some tax that hits consumption," said Volcker. "Value-added is one." ...

money.cnn.com

What was that noise Obama was making about nationalized health care saving money?

What was that noise Obama was making about nationalized health care saving money?

#156 | Posted by Ray

Don't you know the government is great at running smoothe poerating machines? Don't you know the government has no waste or fraud in any of its programs? I had to go to the DMV today, what a smooth operation. Everyone wating was happy and all the government workers were working very hard. SHIT!!!!

Don't you know the government has no waste or fraud in any of its programs?

That reminds me of another Obamanism. He promises that the new legislation will eliminate waste and fraud. Which is to admit that the feds have done nothing to eliminate waste and fraud for all these years. Of course, we've learned by now to expect the opposite of what he promises.

Woke

Obama 52% - 4% = 48%
McCain 45% +4% = 49%

Remember - one negative vote in one direction is a positive vote in the other direction. 4% swing in votes changes the outcome

"Do some math there Fos"

I obviously did - you didn't

As to Healthcare - it was one of MANY promises Obama made. In your post you implied that is was THE reason people voted for him.

If you asked a 1000 people on the street why they voted for him after the election I doubt 5 would have said Health care.

Why would they when 80% of the people are happy with theirs?

Don't confuse a vote for "change" with a vote for anything specific.


"And Danforth - the article says that 47% will pay no federal taxes."

No, it doesn't. It says INCOME tax. Social Security, Medicare, some gasoline taxes, estate taxes, and some excise taxes are all federal taxes.

Yes, because under Obama most of them will be unemployed!

Pretty Funny Fos

Wishful thinking eh?

Break down that 2000 election and the resulting pnac mandate it produced for me now, will ya?

LOL


It's hilarious how the repugs are all poster boys for SORE LOSERS.
No it's not.
Actually, it's pathetic to see as each and every dem potus become their enemy to bludgeon incessantly with constant calls for failure, lack of support, constant backbiting and placing politics above the country....while ignoring the will of the people.

We had a pretty stable economy until Reagan cut taxes, since then it has been boom/bust.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-02 09:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Can always count on Danni to rant about Reagan, and always lie about it.

Remember Danni, Reagan was elected partly because of the 'stable' economy created by Carter: 20 percent inflation and double-digit unemployment.

Right, Carter=4 yrs inherited a failed economy from nixon/ford and reagan/bush41=12 yrs, QUADTRUPLED the debt left by Carter...

Do the math son.

That's 4 yrs dem, 20 yrs repugs...

yet in your mind it was all carter's fault.


LOL


Keep up the good work for the neocon masters Vern....


I'm sure some of that money will "TRICKLE DOWN" from the giant global war/oil corps to you eventually....eh? Just don't hold your breath waiting....

Oh, wait, maybe you should hold your breath, cause that ain't money trickling down from 40 years of repug/neocon failed policies, eh?

LOL

Remember Danni, Reagan was elected partly because of the 'stable' economy created by Carter: 20 percent inflation and double-digit unemployment.
#162 | Posted by vernon


Wrong again tranny-lapper. The double-digit unemployment didn't arrive until late in Reagan's second year


Series Id: LNS14000000Seasonal AdjustedSeries title: (Seas) Unemployment RateLabor force status: Unemployment rateType of data: PercentAge: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1977 7.5 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.0 7.2 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.4
1978 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.2 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.9 6.0
1979 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.7 5.7 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.9 6.0
1980 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2
1981 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.3 8.5
1982 8.6 8.9 9.0 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.8 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.8 10.8
1983 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 9.4 9.5 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.3

data.bls.gov

Its outrageous that so many people make so little that they don't have to pay income income taxes. I want them to pay their fair share so pay them more money!

BUT If podesta gets his way....

EVERYONE will more in taxes as he just called for a 'national sales tax' so we can give the govt even MORE money..

and we now sit and wait for bullshit excuse from the fuckin liar named barry to tell us why this doesnt mean he broke his no taxes promise when this will affect poor people every bit as much as anyone else.

and Im sure since I see the word woke just above this that you will also give us some bullshit reason why it doesnt break his promise..

I just cant fuckin wait to hear it.

#162 | Posted by vernon


Got your WIN button?


We had a pretty stable economy until Reagan cut taxes, since then it has been boom/bust.


#55 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-02 09:28 AM | Reply | Flag:


Can always count on Danni to rant about Reagan, and always lie about it.


Remember Danni, Reagan was elected partly because of the 'stable' economy created by Carter: 20 percent inflation and double-digit unemployment.


#162 | Posted by vernon at 2009-10-03


sorry I missed this comment from danni

uh maam...the term 'malaise' was used for jimmah carter for a reason...

".the term 'malaise' was used for jimmah carter"

It was used BY Jimmy Carter, you lying sack of shit.

reagan/bush 41 both CLAIMED to be conservatives who would not raise taxes......both raised taxes AND QUADTRUPLED the national debt during their tenure


"Read my lips, no new taxes"
GHWBush


And lilaWol was a "compassionate conservative" who kia/mia hundreds of thousands of people after being so incompetent as to allow the usa to be attacked on 911....and left us 10 trillion in debt on the day he left office.


LMFAO @ the dupes who believe ANYTHING the neocon/repugs say!

Oh, i forgot 911 was clinton's fault, 8 months after he left office.

I wonder who's fault the 93WTC bombing that occurred in Feb 93 was?

Carter's eh?

LMFAO

Woke,
How big a deficit can Obama run, before you will criticize him?

Right,

Try reading Paul Krugman's letter to Obama, "What Obama Must Do", which details what FDR did right and wrong and how Obama should avoid those mistakes and insure a deep lasting recovery. See if you can understand how we got where we are and what it will take to get us out of it.

Then, come back and let's talk, okay?

PS: Krugman is a nobel prize winner in economics who was one of the few who had the intelligence and guts to stand up and warn everyone what the result of runaway, neocon economic policies would be....catastrophe, a couple years before it occurred. But of course, he was shouted down by the greedy cons.....and their corporate megaphone....

Furthermore, RIGHT,

Why don't you do some research to learn that the day Obama took office, the actual national debt was over 10 TRILLION dollars.

Ever hear of TARP=a TRILLON at least? Iraqnam=2TRILLION and counting as vets return needing assistance.....then just add another trillion due to the tax cuts for the richest 1% who average 7.4 million a year=about 141k people.

Now, wanna talk about it? Obama inherited that debt, and it was NEVER placed in ANY of lilaWol/hallichainy's budgets.

Understand yet who created and who inherited this mess?

If so, try to begin supporting Obama like ALL Americans *supported lilaWol/hallichainy after 911, despite their incompetence in allowing to occur.

* (until they screwed the pooch lying us into iraqnam, eh?)

It was used BY Jimmy Carter, you lying sack of shit.

#169 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-10-03 01:08


whoa zat


come down off that coffee high...

geesh....

Try reading Paul Krugman's letter to Obama, "
Then, come back and let's talk, okay?


PS: Krugman is a nobel prize winner in economics who was one of the few who had the intelligence and guts to stand up and warn everyone what the result of runaway, neocon economic policies would be....catastrophe, a couple years before it occurred. But of course, he was shouted down by the greedy cons.....and their corporate megaphone....

#173 | Posted by woke at 2009-10-03


sorry but anything you have to say about krugman has to have in it that he was a consultant to
ENRON...at the time one of the greatest ripoffs in our history and until the staterun media and others have the balls to look into his part of any of that..IF ANY..then anything he says or writes is suspect.

and so if you keep writing and kissing his ass. ..
then you could logically say that anything you say using his words is also suspect.

at least in a 'fair and balanced' world it is..in the liberal world of polansky loving pricks...its hard to always say

"sorry but anything you have to say about krugman has to have in it that he was a consultant to
ENRON..."

If you'd bother to actually research some of this stuff before you slap it up here, you might not sound so foolish.








No, check that. Wouldn't make any difference.

Carry on, Aflakabibblebabble.

another interesting morning on fox business

asked question to dem person

when will it be obamas economy
she said a year...


and of course if you check out the back page and look at link of people PRAYING TO OBAMA..then you know the horseshit that IS the democrat party

uh doc

here is something you may want to read


Enron consultancy
In early 1999, Krugman served on an advisory panel (including Larry Lindsey and Robert Zoellick) that offered Enron executives briefings on economic and political issues. He resigned from the panel in the fall of 1999 to comply with New York Times rules regarding conflicts of interest, when he accepted the Times's offer to become an op-ed columnist.[102] Krugman later stated that he was paid $37,500 (not $50,000 as often reported - his early resignation cost him part of his fee), and that, for consulting that required him to spend four days in Houston, the fee was "rather low compared with my usual rates", which were around $20,000 for a one-hour speech.[When the story of Enron's corporate scandals broke, Krugman was accused of unethical journalism, specifically of having a conflict of interest.[104][105][106] Some of his critics claimed that "The Ascent of E-man," an article Krugman wrote for Fortune Magazine[107] about the rise of the market as illustrated by Enron's energy trading, was biased by Krugman's earlier consulting work for them.[102]

sorry but anything you have to say about krugman has to have in it that he was a consultant to
ENRON..."


If you'd bother to actually research some of this stuff before you slap it up here, you might not sound so foolish.



#178 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-10-03


and you KNOW I didnt write that paragraph because it has puncuation and all that shit

I will expect your apology anytime

OR you can just send money

He was not a consultant in the way you certainly intended it to sound, Aflak. No policy input, no policy proposals, no decision making, no responsiblity for Enron's corporate behavior.

You'll get no apologies for that.

Now, go back to you bogus "praying to Obama" thread and see if you can keep that sad little boat afloat.

"here is something you may want to read"

Read it before you posted it, and that's why I can say Krugman was not a consultant to Enron in the way you clearly intended the term to be understood.

and this is STILL what IM talking about

even in the origianal post I said and I quote


sorry but anything you have to say about krugman has to have in it that he was a consultant to
ENRON...at the time one of the greatest ripoffs in our history and until the staterun media and others have the balls to look into his part of any of that..IF ANY..then anything he says or writes is suspect.


please notice the two words....IF ANY..

if some so called journalist were to have the balls and the integrity to even look into it...and see..that would be something better..

but they are too busy kissing the 'royal black ass'

You think Krugman was involved in the Enron rip-off? If so, you're even more delusional than you regularly appear to be on these threads. There's no "there" there.

"royal black ass"?

Fuck you, you racialist pos.

Just the same old ploy....attack the messenger and divert the message......

Ever think maybe his brief encounter with Enron and Kenny (half a mil to bush) Lay was part of what enabled him to blow the whistle on the neocon disaster to come???


Besides, the conversation was between myself and another poster. Not that you cannot comment, however, you were attempting to smear the messenger, who was right on about the neocons economics and continues to be non partisan.....

Who told you to smear krugman AFK?
Have you bothered to ever actually read and understand his pov?

Did you ever condemn Dick Cheney for his halliburton conflict of interest which made him a multimillionaire after he became veep, in part due to kbr going bankrupt due to his pathetic leadership, no matter tho, they discharged the debt he incurred by buying an asbestoes liability related company and then turned a nifty 284% profit by the next quarter, thanks to no bids.....

I cannot make this shit up bud.....look it up.

Now, what were you spewing about krugman delivering a few speeches for Enron?

Or wait, maybe RIGHTISRIGHT IS AFK, eh?

I know on a couple of other liberal blogs, rwrs like to have a few screenames to make it look like there are more of them and to agree with each "others" posts....LOL.

But you wouldn't do that right AFK?

"Did you ever condemn Dick Cheney for his halliburton conflict of interest which made him a multimillionaire after he became veep.."

Woke

Careful. Facts make right wing heads spin.

You are right on, timex!

LOL

Woke

Same guy, Dick Cheney, who said "Deficits Don't Matter". Now, after increasing the size of government 50% and DOUBLING the national debt (when it could have been paid off this year) they scream about debt and deficits. Just no making sense of how right wing brains work (or don't). LOL

Woke:

"O'Neill (former Treas Sec) said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

How come no libbie will ever put a number on it? I asked a simple question, how big a deficit can OBAMA run before you'll criticize him.

How big?

Oh--and didn't Obama vote for TARP? He's as much on the hook for Bush's deficits as Bush is. Bush sucked on spending, Obama's magnitudes worse, but as long as he has a (D) after his name, he'll get a pass. You'll condemn--rightly--Republicans who blow up the debt, but don't give a damn when the Dems do.

Tools. Partisan hack tools. Let me know when you don't want to be part of the problem anymore.

Same guy, Dick Cheney, who said "Deficits Don't Matter". Now, after increasing the size of government 50% and DOUBLING the national debt (when it could have been paid off this year) they scream about debt and deficits. Just no making sense of how right wing brains work (or don't). LOL

#190 | Posted by Timex

* * * *

It's your brains that are screwed. Remember when you dumbasses ran on "pay as you go"?

I do. But who cares? It'll be your grandkids paying off your Obama nutsack fixation. Hope they won't mind. Maybe you can sing them the song, or play them tapes from his big inaugural speech. Gobama! He'll see Bush's $400 billion deficit, and raise him $1.2 trillion! Go gobama! Whoo whoo!

Bullshit

Tell the world at the 11th hour the U.S.'s financial sector is about to go belly up (when the WH knew for months) and expect someone to vote against it.

Right wingers are a hoot. Ridiculous rhetoric.

Hey, financial genius, Bush's budget is still ticking until October 15th. Nice try.

This is why the GOP has 0 credibility

The right wingers were saying crap about the massive deficits and debt like "it's ONLY such and such percentage of the GDP". Now, because there's a Democrat in the WH the rules change. In spite of the fact Obama inherited this huge mess that need never have been. In fact, Clinton left a plan on W's desk to pay off the national debt by this year.


No other class has more incentive to vote for free goodies from Washington.

#9 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-01 11:47 AM |


Been going on for decades now. No turning back.

It's bust and start over time, very soon.

The slugs don't and won't get it until the power goes off.

Too bad.

Tell the world at the 11th hour the U.S.'s financial sector is about to go belly up (when the WH knew for months) and expect someone to vote against it.
* * * *

Republicans did vote against it.

How big a deficit can Obama run, before you criticize him Timex. If Bill Clinton's paying off the debt is a good idea, then isn't Obama going the opposite direction a bad idea?

How big. Come on. Show me you've got a brain in your head, and you've actually considered that a certain threshold of debt might be a bad idea.

Hey, financial genius, Bush's budget is still ticking until October 15th. Nice try.
* * * *

You're hysterical. Is the $800 billion stimulus part of his budget?

Quit being a pussy. If deficit spending is so bad, then you should be criticizing Obama. If not, then you shouldn't be going after Bush.

"Obama inherited this whole problem! It's not his fault! Waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!"

Pussies.

Pussies.

#199 | Posted by rightisright

Realists.

Bet you were one of those going "it's ONLY such and such % of GDP" while Bush and the GOP were breaking the bank.

Since it's a Democrat who inherited the huge fucking mess W and his motley crew of 'deficits don't matter' boys you're trying to blame the paramedics rather than the drunk who crashed the car.


Uh huh.

It's never occurred to you dumbasses, that if deficit spending really worked, Obama wouldn't have a giant mess to inherit.

Still, you know best. If Bush's $400 billion was too much, then Obama's $1.4 trillion might be just what the doctor ordered.

Gobama! Go libbies!

LMAO. What tools.

"It's never occurred to you dumbasses, that if deficit spending really worked, Obama wouldn't have a giant mess to inherit."

You were all for deficit spending when the President had an (R) after his name. What changed, other than the letter within the parentheses?

Ah another black shirt who claims that taxes steal from him. Upon further examination of course, one will find that one way or another you got yours from the same public trough. i.e. just another hypocrite.

#48 | Posted by Shawn

You are speaking to a dog Shawn..They don't understand. Taxes are bad unless they pay for military or something they want to occur. No taxes are good until America turns into a 3rd world shit hole similar to Mogadishu and they become just another piece of meat for the Warlords.

Money and taxes are an illusion that the masses in general believe. Money is worthless ..it is paper.. it is only worth something because we agree that it is the method to equate value for goods and services in the US and the world.

These same turds will take Social Security and Medicare even though the money they paid in wasn't for them it was for their parents. It is an inter-generational transfer of wealth.

Everyone needs to have some skin in the game from the very lowest to the most high earning people among us, that is, everyone should pay some taxes so they care about how their money is (mis)spent by our profligate, scheming politicians. No one should escape their civic responsibility and just be sucking at the government tit, including people on welfare who pay not one cent of taxes on the largess they receive from their fellow citizens, while people on Social Security have to pay taxes on dollar one that they receive, even though they have paid into the system for their whole working lives. (Thanks a lot, Bill Clinton).

BTW, Danforth, WE WERE SCREAMING AND MAD AS HELL ABOUT ALL THE SPENDING WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE; THAT'S PRECISELY ONE OF THE REASONS THE REPUBLICANS LOST LAST NOVEMBER -- MANY IN THE BASE SIMPLY STAYED HOME ON VOTING DAY.

Still, you know best. If Bush's $400 billion was too much, then Obama's $1.4 trillion might be just what the doctor ordered.

Gobama! Go libbies!

LMAO. What tools.

#201 | Posted by rightisright

400 Billion??

When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion,

What a dumbass..

Umm . . . I'm talking about the deficits.

I get it though. Bush deficits, bad. Obama deficits, good. In fact, Obama ANYTHING is good! We need more Obama! A trillion? Two? Five? Doesn't matter! We gotta Dem again! Whoo whoo!

"Bush deficits, bad. Obama deficits, good."

No, I've always said Obama deficits, bad. Same as Bush deficits. The point is, you said Bush deficits good, and now that the President has a different letter after his name, you have a different tune on your lips.

"WE WERE SCREAMING AND MAD AS HELL ABOUT ALL THE SPENDING WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE"

And then you re-elected him.

"When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion."

Although, strangely enough, the Iraq war, the trillion dollar bailout, and the trillion bucks pumped into the system a few days before the Bush Bailout never ended up on the balance sheets.

The point is, you said Bush deficits good, and now that the President has a different letter after his name, you have a different tune on your lips.

#207 | Posted by Danforth
* * *

There you go, being a dick again, and ignoring my dozens of posts otherwise.

Your life, though. I know it's hard for you to fill up the time in between gay marriage threads, which is the only issue you really care about.

and the trillion bucks pumped into the system a few days before the Bush Bailout never ended up on the balance sheets.

#209 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

By the way, you're still as clueless as ever when it comes to accounting. Doesn't work that way.

"There you go, being a dick again, and ignoring my dozens of posts otherwise."

Oh, you used to bitch about the spending. And then back deficit spending, because the economy was growing faster than the borrowing rate. Of course, when it turned out it was all a house of cards, you had more egg than your local breakfast emporium.

"I know it's hard for you to fill up the time in between gay marriage threads, which is the only issue you really care about."

Good God, you're a bigoted SOB, and seemingly proud of it. Why don't you trot out your "inner city thugs will rob them" meme again?

"you're still as clueless as ever when it comes to accounting. Doesn't work that way."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. It never ends up on the books, does it? The Bush bailout is almost a trillion dollars, but his "deficit" is only half that. Riiiiiiiight.

You're really clueless when it comes to the truth, aren't you?

No, of course you're right. We can spend trillions of dollars and not have it go on any balance sheets.

Maybe you should send a letter to the White House, tell Obama to do the same thing! All that spending, and it doesn't show up on a liability anywhere. It's magic! Gobama! You need a ticket to Washington, Danforth--just think of all the stuff you libbies can be getting for free!

LMAO.

Did you get your degree from the same place Moneywar claims to have picked up his?

Lemme help: as soon as the government borrows money, it shows up as a credit on their balance sheet. Doesn't matter if it's used in Iraq, or to bail out Obama's buddies at Citigroup or GM.

"No, of course you're right. We can spend trillions of dollars and not have it go on any balance sheets."

WTF are you talking about? We spent several trillion dollars, and Bush's "deficit" was exactly what it was before that, for the entire year. How did that happen?

"as soon as the government borrows money, it shows up as a credit on their balance sheet."

It also shows up as a liability...except, of course, on the Bush balance sheets.

Still, you know best. If Bush's $400 billion was too much, then Obama's $1.4 trillion might be just what the doctor ordered.

Gobama! Go libbies!

LMAO. What tools.

#201 | Posted by rightisright


Bush's last budget runs until October 15th.

As Danforth aptly pointed out, the doubling of the national debt doesn't include Iraq and two trillion dollar bailouts, one necessary because of lack of regulation and oversight, the other because of the huge mess Bush left the economy in.

Timex, if you believe that, then you're just stupid.

This is enlightening, though, that a thread on debt and deficits is populated by lefties who don't even understand the words they're using.

Carry on. I work in capital markets, and know how accounting works. Little wonder Obama has so much support among those who've no clue. Lucky him.

One reason fewer are paying taxes is that they are not working. Take a look at this chart.

Percent Job Loses in Post WWII Recessions

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable