Romney/Ryan a Lock

[bigmack]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/UniversityofColoradomodelpointstobigRomneywin-TheDailyCaller.png

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/23/university-of-colorado-prediction-model-points-to-big-romney-win/

[FantasticDan]

WOO-HOO!! CHAMPAGNE for everyone!!

http://www.pour-favor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/champagne_new_years-3656.jpg
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/assets/2010/08/11/sn-champagne.jpg
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/blogs/4857/2009/12/36505-19439.jpg
http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/600_hfs_romneyryan_2_0811.jpg
http://rapfix.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/diddy-party.jpg


Shit, sorry about that last pic.. I dropped it in by mistake whilst preparing my now useless Obama electoral map victory thread.. :blush: :(

[porchy44]

Romney is so much a lock that at some presidential election betting sites
Obama is 1/2 odds to win.

[newtothegame]

Romney is so much a lock that at some presidential election betting sites
Obama is 1/2 odds to win.
Then I would suggest you lay your money where you feel your getting the safest value...and roll the dice!!!

[horses4courses]

Romney is so much a lock that at some presidential election betting sites
Obama is 1/2 odds to win.

That's close to the best odds you can get on Obama - some have him closer to 1/3 odds.

Minor detail (according to the PA-OTG boys)...what do those guys know?
They're gonna clean up on Mitt - you better believe it!
He's gonna shake up the world!!!!


BY6_3Y7OOo8

[newtothegame]

Horses, then its safe to say you will be playing between 1/3 and 1/2......Hope you dont put a lot on those odds......I would hate to see your "horse" pull up in the stretch......:lol:

[horses4courses]

Horses, then its safe to say you will be playing between 1/3 and 1/2......Hope you dont put a lot on those odds......I would hate to see your "horse" pull up in the stretch......:lol:

I never said Obama was good odds....why bet him now when there's over two months until the election?

Besides, I would only lay -3.00 on tomorrow being Friday before I went to bed on a Thursday night...... ;)

[Rookies]

It's clear all those Ward Cleaver/Wonderbread photos flogged here pushed Mittens over the top with Von Ryan. :lol:

[bigmack]

While ensuring the 4 car elevator construction goes up without a hitch for his boy, Mackenbaum has quietly become one of the greatest smashball players in the history of the game.

Interviewed after his scintillating performace last week on the shores of Giche Gumee, Mackenstool reportedly said, "Those chumps went down like BO is goin' down in November."

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/UnitedColors3.jpg

[newtothegame]

I never said Obama was good odds....why bet him now when there's over two months until the election?

Besides, I would only lay -3.00 on tomorrow being Friday before I went to bed on a Thursday night...... ;)
So earlier when you said "That's close to the best odds you can get on Obama", you werent suggesting they were "good" odds....ok. got it! :bang:

[Let's Roll]

The electoral map shows the results along the lines I predict, with the exception of a Romney win in at least one of 3 states: New Jersey,
Massachusetts and Michigan.

[jdhanover]

Models this year are not likely reliable. (there is one out that has been right 7 elections in a row predicts an easy obama win) Most models predicting a Romney landslide bank on the "if unemployment is over 8 pct, the incumbent loses" thought. But in all of those instances the incumbent didn't inherit a situation worse than what he had in the reelection year.

Whether or not that will matter remains to be seen.

The only poll or model that counts is the one on elections day. My guess -a very close race; one that is too close to call now.

[pandy]

My prediction is Romney wins fairly easily. The polls are starting to tighten and will continue to go Romney's way as people learn more about his life.

[rastajenk]

There'll be no living with BigMack around here if it happens. Talk about yer Barry Bonds-sized cranial expansion... :D

[mountainman]

Somehow, i doubt this "objective" info has the good folks at ladbrokes scurrying to change their oddsline. Which is 2/5 on obama, btw.

[mountainman]

oops, my bad..that's 1.5/5

[redshift1]

My prediction is Romney wins fairly easily. The polls are starting to tighten and will continue to go Romney's way as people learn more about his life.

Without carrying three critical voting blocs chances for an easy victory seem slim at best.

Black
Hispanic
Women

Barring a sea-change event Romney is fighting an uphill battle that is still winnable but he remains the underdog for specific reasons, Romney to win, will somehow need to draw voters from Obamas camp (Black,Hispanic,Women).Given the highly publicized republican stands on abortion, immigration and social assistance this seems unlikely.


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/August_NBC-WSJ_Int_Sched.pdf

.

[mostpost]

My prediction is Romney wins fairly easily. The polls are starting to tighten and will continue to go Romney's way as people learn more about his life.
As always Romney will get a bump from the Convention. But a week later Obama will get a bump from the Democratic Convention. That is the momentum that will sustain itself through the election. Especially after Obama wipes the floor with Romney in the debates. Romney can't even answer the simple question of why don't you release your tax returns.

And in spite of the delusions of the right, Paul Ryan will fare poorly against Joe Biden in the VP debate.

[Greyfox]

And in spite of the delusions of the right, Paul Ryan will fare poorly against Joe Biden in the VP debate.

:lol: :lol: That gets my vote as the joke of the month!

Ryan will fare poorly against "Hoof in Mouth" Biden! :lol: :lol:

Good one Mostie. :ThmbUp:

[Tom]

:lol: :lol: That gets my vote as the joke of the month!

Ryan will fare poorly against "Hoof in Mouth" Biden! :lol: :lol:

Good one Mostie. :ThmbUp:

I almost had to call 911 I got laughing so hard.
Biden would lose a debate with a wall.

[dartman51]

Biden would lose a debate with my dog.........wait a minute....I don't have a dog.......Biden still loses. :ThmbUp:

[lsbets]

And in spite of the delusions of the right, Paul Ryan will fare poorly against Joe Biden in the VP debate.

You're assuming that Joe Biden remembers where he is and what century it is.

Only the most partisan fools don't see the sad signs of senility overtaking our current Vice President. Keeping him on the ticket is purely a political act to not hurt the reelection by seeming weak dropping him. If Obama wanted to look like a hero, he should get a new VP nominee, for both Biden's sake and the country's. Biden needs to retire and get whatever medical help there is for his condition.

[elysiantraveller]

If you were to hold the election today I would have this race dead heated 51/49 with Romney narrowly winning.

Polls are largely worthless so far this cycle as the intensity battle isn't even close. Most the battle grounds are coin flips right now.

[ArlJim78]

thats exactly right, people looking at these oddslines and taking them seriously are fooling themselves.
If Obama was really 1 to 5 or 2 to 5, why was Romney able to raise something like $100 million in July, and continues lately to outraise Obama? This is serious money, why would people throw away so much money on a sure loser?

Why do polls show a tightening race, with momentum going to Romney lately?
Why exactly is that model so far off this time, when it has had a good record for a long time?

think about it awhile and the answer will come to you.

[mountainman]

thats exactly right, people looking at these oddslines and taking them seriously are fooling themselves.
If Obama was really 1 to 5 or 2 to 5, why was Romney able to raise something like $100 million in July, and continues lately to outraise Obama? This is serious money, why would people throw away so much money on a sure loser?

Why do polls show a tightening race, with momentum going to Romney lately?
Why exactly is that model so far off this time, when it has had a good record for a long time?

think about it awhile and the answer will come to you.

Any idea how much money is wasted on all SORTS of losers these days in america? And why rasmussen is welcomed with such a big grin by a right wing nutbag like sean hannity about twice a week? Think it over awhile and the answer is likely to come to you.

[bigmack]

I don't see BO taking NV and very likely losing IL. Florida is long gone. WI, MI, OH will all roll MR.

I welcome anyone with standing wagers with me to up their wags at any point between now & Nov.

[Marshall Bennett]

Ryan will unnerve Biden and cause him to lose control. Expect Biden to blow it, possibly dropping the "F" bomb and maybe more. :)

[bigmack]

Some were duped and are willing to admit it didn't come close to meeting their expectations. For folk like Mostie & NJ, he's met their expectations.

What do they care? Their retirement checks keep coming every month.

lLelSaD1zHU

[Boris]

Without carrying three critical voting blocs chances for an easy victory seem slim at best.

Black
Hispanic
Women

Barring a sea-change event Romney is fighting an uphill battle that is still winnable but he remains the underdog for specific reasons, Romney to win, will somehow need to draw voters from Obamas camp (Black,Hispanic,Women).Given the highly publicized republican stands on abortion, immigration and social assistance this seems unlikely.


.
The flaw in that thought is that these people will actually show up to vote. The first time voters from 2008 will be hitting up Facebook and Careerbuilder. There is truly nothing at this time to make them want to participate. Obama's camp will be filled with campers, not voters.

[dartman51]

The flaw in that thought is that these people will actually show up to vote. The first time voters from 2008 will be hitting up Facebook and Careerbuilder. There is truly nothing at this time to make them want to participate. Obama's camp will be filled with campers, not voters.

Yeah. To quote B.B King, "The thrill is gone." The latest poll of voters 18 to 29, they are leaving him in droves, because of the lack of JOBS. :ThmbUp:

[Boris]

Yeah. To quote B.B King, "The thrill is gone." The latest poll of voters 18 to 29, they are leaving him in droves, because of the lack of JOBS. :ThmbUp:
And once the word gets out that there is no "Obama money" left in his stash, it will be an easy commute on election day.

[Jay Trotter]

I don't see BO taking NV and very likely losing IL. Florida is long gone. WI, MI, OH will all roll MR.

I welcome anyone with standing wagers with me to up their wags at any point between now & Nov.Am I to take it that you are taking bets on the outcome?

[bigmack]

Am I to take it that you are taking bets on the outcome?
What's your next question, what's my SS#?

[Jay Trotter]

What's your next question, what's my SS#?That's a dumbass response to my question -- either you're taking bets or you're not? Simple question! You could have pm'd me if you didn't want to state that publicly.

[bigmack]

That's a dumbass response to my question -- either you're taking bets or you're not? Simple question! You could have pm'd me if you didn't want to state that publicly.
What business is it of yours, Dumbass?

[pandy]

Without carrying three critical voting blocs chances for an easy victory seem slim at best.

Black
Hispanic
Women

Barring a sea-change event Romney is fighting an uphill battle that is still winnable but he remains the underdog for specific reasons, Romney to win, will somehow need to draw voters from Obamas camp (Black,Hispanic,Women).Given the highly publicized republican stands on abortion, immigration and social assistance this seems unlikely.


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/August_NBC-WSJ_Int_Sched.pdf

.


You left out independents, they voted for Obama last time, this election strongly for Romney, and Blue Dog Democrats, also strongly for Obama last time, but this time many will vote for Romney, just as they voted for Reagan.

[Rookies]

Mittens plays the tithing card...

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said his charitable giving to the Mormon Church, a practice known as tithing, makes him uneasy about revealing more of his tax returns as demanded by Democrats, according to an interview in Parade Magazine.

“Our church doesn’t publish how much people have given. This is done entirely privately,” Romney told the magazine in an interview to be published on Sunday. “One of the downsides of releasing one’s financial information is that this is now all public.”

Like this is some alien talisman not familiar to adherents to Christianity? :lol: Is that the best he's got after about 6 months of stonewalling? :lol:

[Tom]

No, what he has is the fact that is not required to reveal anymore than he already has. The whole tax return thing is a game by Obama meant to confuse simpletons and take the focus off of his totally failed presidency. Anyone clamoring to see Mitt's tax returns while giving Obama a pass on all the crap he has had sealed is certainly a dullard. Obama realizes that in America, we let any idiot vote...any his being elected in 2004 proves that point.

Mitt should just totally ignore the diversion and hammer home Obama's record in the real world over and over.....no one but a mostie can defend it.

[BlueShoe]

Aw heck, Biden is going to skip his planned visit to Tampa during the RNC. It seems that Tropical Storm Isaac will keep Old Joe away, the trip has been canceled. Was looking forward to more of Joe's buffoonery during the convention, it would have provided some comic relief from all the hot air and dullness. Was it really the rain that is keeping him away, or was it strongly suggested by insiders that showing up was not a good idea?

[Jay Trotter]

What business is it of yours, Dumbass?Whoa, who pissed in your cereal? :bang: If you're booking bets I got $1,000 burning a hole in my pocket Mr. Funny Pants!

Sheesh, why be so dickish!!!!!

[bigmack]

Whoa, who pissed in your cereal? :bang: If you're booking bets I got $1,000 burning a hole in my pocket Mr. Funny Pants!

Swell. I got one contest running Cauuck down for a K. Good luck.

[Jay Trotter]

Swell. I got one contest running Cauuck down for a K. Good luck.First off, it's "Canuck" not whatever you were trying to say. Second, I have no idea what your response is communicating -- do you want my easy $1,000 or not?

[jognlope]

They should explain their Medicare voucher better, otherwise people and me are thinking a person who makes $14,000 a year on a fixed income will have to shell out over $6,000 a year for Medicare.

Jeb Bush, too bad he's not interested right now (2016?). Impressive on MTP just now.

[PaceAdvantage]

First off, it's "Canuck" not whatever you were trying to say. Second, I have no idea what your response is communicating -- do you want my easy $1,000 or not?I will remind ya'll that this is a no-no. So please don't post about it any longer.

[NJ Stinks]

thats exactly right, people looking at these oddslines and taking them seriously are fooling themselves.
If Obama was really 1 to 5 or 2 to 5, why was Romney able to raise something like $100 million in July, and continues lately to outraise Obama? This is serious money, why would people throw away so much money on a sure loser?

Why do polls show a tightening race, with momentum going to Romney lately?
Why exactly is that model so far off this time, when it has had a good record for a long time?

think about it awhile and the answer will come to you.

The answer came to me.

Ryan wants capital gains and dividends to be treated as tax-exempt income. Romney isn't that far off the reservation but he certainly would not raise the capital gains tax higher than the current 15%.

If Ryan's idea ever became law, Romney would pay about a 1% tax rate on his $21M or so in gross income instead of the 14% he now pays. Because carried interest is treated like a capital gain today and Romney gets most of his income from carried interest.

Enough on Romney himself.

Now imagine yourself to be Mitt Romney rich. You've got Romney and Ryan practically telling you your taxes will stay down or drop to almost nothing in the forseeable future. Or you can vote for Obama who promises to raise your tax liability if at all possible.

What do you do, Jim? Do you throw ton of money you can easily afford at the Romney/Ryan ticket and hope you get incredibly lucky for years to come or do you sit back and let the election play itself out and hope for the best?

Of course Romney is raising money out the kazoo. It's well worth the shot even if Romney is a 2-1 dog.

Here's a link to peruse:

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-ryan-takes-aim-tax-favors-rich-save-170438593.html

[PaceAdvantage]

I remember when Obama was out raising John McCain by leaps and bounds, and Obama supporters on here told me the money always tells...he who raises the most money almost always wins.

Now not raising as much money is seen as some sort of badge of courage? :lol:

[Tom]

Ryan wants capital gains and dividends to be treated as tax-exempt income. Romney isn't that far off the reservation but he certainly would not raise the capital gains tax higher than the current 15%.

That is how you create jobs.
Where does A 20% cg tax induce investments?
What you liobs fail to understand is that if your entire economic plan is to steal fro the rich, at it certainly all you guys have, then you have to let them get richer. Duh.

[NJ Stinks]

That is how you create jobs.
Where does A 20% cg tax induce investments?
What you liobs fail to understand is that if your entire economic plan is to steal fro the rich, at it certainly all you guys have, then you have to let them get richer. Duh.

People invested and the country prospered at a 28% capital gains tax rate.

One of us is nuts.

[bigmack]

People invested and the country prospered at a 28% capital gains tax rate.

One of us is nuts.
Good Christ, man, if 92% of your posts didn't revolve around raising taxes coupled with the fact that you're retired IRS, with NOT ONE POST from you talking about a spending problem, perhaps people would take you a bit more serious, instead of the monothematic drone you've become.

I like ya, NJ, but give a rest. A BIG one.

Say it with me. It's spending that's the problem.

[Tom]

It's you, NJ.
Sorry.

[NJ Stinks]

Good Christ, man, if 92% of your posts didn't revolve around raising taxes coupled with the fact that you're retired IRS, with NOT ONE POST from you talking about a spending problem, perhaps people would take you a bit more serious, instead of the monothematic drone you've become.

I like ya, NJ, but give a rest. A BIG one.

Say it with me. It's spending that's the problem.

Everybody knows about the spending problem this country has.

Most people never come close to understanding the revenue problem this country has.

I'm trying to close the gap.


P.S. I rarely bring up where I worked. You do.

[bigmack]

Everybody knows about the spending problem this country has.
Most people never come close to understanding the revenue problem this country has.
I'm trying to close the gap.
P.S. I rarely bring up where I worked. You do.
You HAVE to see the irony of your former occ and your continued insistence on higher taxes. I'll refrain from bringing it up if you'd like.

Haven't we been down this cul-de-sac multiple times? If a family spends more than they take in don't you think it more practical for said family to review all expenditures rather than looking at each fam member and saying you need to bring in more lettuce?

As my rabbi used to say, "Overhead is the sickness unto death."

Reports of irresponsible government spending comes out daily and you're still on the hunt for fat cats.

Leave them be or I contact ASPCA on you and your mean spirited campaign. :p

http://annarboranimalhospital.com/animalhospital/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Obese-cat.jpg

[Valuist]

Romney is so much a lock that at some presidential election betting sites
Obama is 1/2 odds to win.

He's 2-5 at William Hill, based in the (Socialist) UK.

He's the worst 2-5 shot I have ever seen.

[Valuist]

Everybody knows about the spending problem this country has.

Most people never come close to understanding the revenue problem this country has.

I'm trying to close the gap.


P.S. I rarely bring up where I worked. You do.

How to get more revenues? Get more people working. And that won't happen with the anti-business stance of the current administration.

[wisconsin]

Everybody knows about the spending problem this country has.

Most people never come close to understanding the revenue problem this country has.

I'm trying to close the gap.


P.S. I rarely bring up where I worked. You do.


Well it sure doesn't take a scientist to figure out we have a revenue problem because we spend money trying level the playing field of the population. Cut out the freeloading, help those who TEMPORARILY need it, and revenue won't be the real problem.

[jognlope]

Tom do you have concrete examples of his failed presidency?

[newtothegame]

Tom do you have concrete examples of his failed presidency?
Jog, are you serious with this question???? I'm not making light, just asking. Reason I ask is most libs see no wrong with Obama and his policies which, I found amazing....just curious

[redshift1]

Jog, are you serious with this question???? I'm not making light, just asking. Reason I ask is most libs see no wrong with Obama and his policies which, I found amazing....just curious


There's plenty wrong with Obama and most liberals recognize his inability to solve the countries woes. That being said there's no guarantee a republican administration would do any better.

The easy out is to blame Obama and maybe rightfully so but take look around the economic problems are worldwide. Surely the responsibility lies with decades of failed fiscal policy by both parties exacerbated by a contracting world economy.

.

[badcompany]

Everybody knows about the spending problem this country has.

Most people never come close to understanding the revenue problem this country has.

I'm trying to close the gap.


P.S. I rarely bring up where I worked. You do.

Perhaps if the size and scope of government were radically reduced so much revenue wouldn't be needed.

I continually hear big government libs droning on about the infrastructure falling apart. Now, if you consider that the that the federal gov't takes in enough every year to build 1000 Yankee Stadiums, forty in every state, this alone is reason that the government shouldn't get another dime.

[bigmack]

Tom do you have concrete examples of his failed presidency?
Don't worry, Romney will still keep some free programs.

[ElKabong]

Tom do you have concrete examples of his failed presidency?

Wwow...did you really ask that??....."if you have to ask the price, you probably can't afford it" comes to mind

Unemployment rate
Historical deficit
99-0 Senate vote, on the Obama budget
Federal Employees file suit vs Holder / Administration
Guantanamo Bay

On and on

[badcompany]

NJ Stinks,

Just wondering, do you think raising takeout rates is a good way for tracks to increase "revenue"?

See where I'm going here?

[NJ Stinks]

NJ Stinks,

Just wondering, do you think raising takeout rates is a good way for tracks to increase "revenue"?

See where I'm going here?

The answer to your first question is no.

And yes, I see where you are going here. I'm too tired to get into it tonight. But I will say now that I reject the idea that the country will suffer if the highest tax rates are raised 4.6% (back to the top pre-GWB tax rate). Most people are already suffering financially (nothing trickling down) while people of means can't believe how lucky they are to legally pay so little.

Romney is Exhibit A.

[Greyfox]

Most people are already suffering financially (nothing trickling down) while people of means can't believe how lucky they are to legally pay so little.

Romney is Exhibit A.

Romney pays more taxes every year than the income you ever earned in a year.

[Uncle Salty]

Romney pays more taxes every year than the income you ever earned in a year.

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

[PaceAdvantage]

Wwow...did you really ask that??....."if you have to ask the price, you probably can't afford it" comes to mind

Unemployment rate
Historical deficit
99-0 Senate vote, on the Obama budget
Federal Employees file suit vs Holder / Administration
Guantanamo Bay

On and onYeah, but he killed bin Laden. That has to make up for at least half that list of failures, no? Maybe more... :lol:

[JustRalph]

Don't forget he promised 6 percent unemployment by last summer

[BlueShoe]

He's the worst 2-5 shot I have ever seen.
For sure. The bridgejumpers that go for this are going to be looking for high places late in the night of November 6.

[horses4courses]

For sure. The bridgejumpers that go for this are going to be looking for high places late in the night of November 6.

A top floor suite in the Ritz Carlton Washington to join the celebrations?

[Greyfox]

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

Uncle Salty your response above was made to the following comment that I made:

"Romney pays more taxes every year than the income you ever earned in a year."

If you can't see that there is a point when wealthy people say
"Hey I've paid more than my fair share." , then I can't help you.

[BlueShoe]

A top floor suite in the Ritz Carlton Washington to join the celebrations?
If there are any where you are, do the top floor rooms at Harrahs or Harveys have outside balconies to jump off of?

[horses4courses]

If there are any where you are, do the top floor rooms at Harrahs or Harveys have outside balconies to jump off of?

Aww....don't tell me you're suicidal.
Things are never that bad......

[Tom]

Yeah, but he killed bin Laden. That has to make up for at least half that list of failures, no? Maybe more... :lol:

Has he released the Death Certificate yet? :rolleyes:

[Tom]

A top floor suite in the Ritz Carlton Washington to join the celebrations?

His concession speech will be given on the 19th floor, and the 18th, and the 17th, and the 16th and the 15th...........

[dartman51]

Yeah, but he killed bin Laden. That has to make up for at least half that list of failures, no? Maybe more... :lol:

Not according to the Navy Seals. :ThmbUp:

[horses4courses]

Here's some locks:

Abloy
Abus
Adams Rite
Aiphone
Alarm Lock
American Lock
Arrow
Assa
Assa Abloy
Baldwin
Best
BiLock
BioAxxis
Black and Decker
Brinks locks
Cal Royal
Camden
CCL Security
Chicago Lock
Codelocks
Compx Elock
Compex Fort
Corbin Russwin
CVE
Detex


Dorma
Door-o-Matic
Defiant
Delaney
EffEff
Emtek
ESP Hudsonlock
Exit Security
Falcon
Folger Adam
Faultless Pamex
General Lock
GE Security
Glynn-Johnson
Hager
Hes
Hickory Hardware
HID
Hudson lock
IEI
Ilco
Illinois lock
Ingersoll Rand
Interlock
Ives


Jackson
Kaba
Kaba Mas
Kaba Simplex
Kaba E-Plex
Keedex
KESO
KSP
Kwikset
LCN
MAG
Major Manufacturing
Marks USA
Master Lock
Maxtech
Medeco
Miwa
Monarch Hardware
Mul-T-Lock
National Compx
NAPCO
Norton
Olympus Lock
Pamex
Peach Tree


Pemco
PHI
Pro-Lok
RCI
Rixon
Sargent
Sargent & Greenleaf
CompX Security
Segal
Schlage
Schlage Locknetics
Secura Key
Securitron
SimonsVoss
Strattec
Compx Timberline
Trine
TSS
Tuff Stuff
US-1 Lock
Valli&Valli
VingCard
Von Duprin
Weiser Lock
Weslock
Yale

[Valuist]

What I find amazing is if you go to a site like Yahoo, who's news is clearly liberal biased, they have a new hatchet job every day on Romney and/or Ryan. Yet when you look at the comments, they are at least 5-1 in favor of Romney/Ryan. This isn't a one time occurrence. Its every day. I think the linemakers are way, way off on this line.

[NJ Stinks]

Uncle Salty your response above was made to the following comment that I made:

"Romney pays more taxes every year than the income you ever earned in a year."

If you can't see that there is a point when wealthy people say
"Hey I've paid more than my fair share." , then I can't help you.

Let me ask you a question, Greyfox. When the mortgage comes due, who pays it? Is it the father or mother - who actually earn good money and has the means - who pays the bill each month? Or do the parents, who have a son who works part-time stocking shelves at CVS, magically demand their son pay an equal share of the mortgage each month?

Look at the USA as one big family. The key is who has the means to help pay the family's bills.

I guess it comes down to being realistic (me) or idealistic (you). Idealism feels good but sooner or later the family or country is going to be buried in debt.

[dartman51]

The answer to your first question is no.

And yes, I see where you are going here. I'm too tired to get into it tonight. But I will say now that I reject the idea that the country will suffer if the highest tax rates are raised 4.6% (back to the top pre-GWB tax rate). Most people are already suffering financially (nothing trickling down) while people of means can't believe how lucky they are to legally pay so little.

Romney is Exhibit A.

Being an IRS man, you should know better than anyone, raising the tax rate by 40%, won't mean a thing if you don't close loop holes. The wealthy, both Repubs and Dems, take advantage of every deduction they can, as does every American filing a tax return. The wealthy just happen to get more deductions because of the way they earn their money. Most millionaires and billionaires, don't earn their money in salary. If you want to talk fair, let's talk a FLAT TAX, with NO loop holes. That would be a good start. :ThmbUp:

[dartman51]

Let me ask you a question, Greyfox. When the mortgage comes due, who pays it? Is it the father or mother - who actually earn good money and has the means - who pays the bill each month? Or do the parents, who have a son who works part-time stocking shelves at CVS, magically demand their son pay an equal share of the mortgage each month?

Look at the USA as one big family. The key is who has the means to help pay the family's bills.

I guess it comes down to being realistic (me) or idealistic (you). Idealism feels good but sooner or later the family or country is going to be buried in debt.

Where have you been?? It already is buried in debt. And it's because the Government is trying to be like your "mom or dad" or a rich uncle(Sam), and pay for everyone. America didn't get to be the greatest country in the world by the Government giving away freebies to everyone. It got that way by the belief that if you worked hard, put in an honest days work for an honest days pay, you could save a little and get ahead in life. Sadly, those days are gone. With each new President, there are more and more give aways. The dumbing down of America, didn't happen on Obama's watch. It's been going on for years. As the Reverend Wright said, "America's chickens, have come home to roost." :ThmbUp:

[FantasticDan]

What I find amazing is if you go to a site like Yahoo, who's news is clearly liberal biased, they have a new hatchet job every day on Romney and/or Ryan. Yet when you look at the comments, they are at least 5-1 in favor of Romney/Ryan. This isn't a one time occurrence. Its every day. I think the linemakers are way, way off on this line. :eek: :eek: OMG, really? The comments section is dominated by ultra right-wing blowhards and haters? Why, that's very uncommon and unusual to see! You may be on to something..


http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/upload/2012/06/sarcasm.jpg

[Tom]

Look at the USA as one big family. The key is who has the means to help pay the family's bills.

That is BULLSHIT in the first degree.
That is NOT what this great nation was founded on.
That is NOT the role of government.

My God, man you support SOME people deciding NOT to work and allow others to carry them. That is EXACTLY what you are doing here. Are you nuts or what?????

If I have to pay for anchors, do you support my having the right to tell them what things they cannot spend other money on, like TV,, internet, booze, drugs....? Do support mandatory sterilization or abortion for those who are stealing my money to pay their way?

If you can't pay your rent, you have NO RIGHT to have more children, or buy booze, or have cable TV or internet access.

My God man, your are the reason we are going in to the dumper....you need to move to Greece.

[Tom]

OMG, really? The comments section is dominated by ultra right-wing blowhards and haters? Why, that's very uncommon and unusual to see! You may be on to something..

How do you explain the lack of dumocrat-types expressing support for a failed president? Lord knows, most of them don't work, so they have plenty of time, and the righties pay their bills, so they all have internet and all day to sue it.

Perplexing.....

[Tom]

My mistake, you lefties DO have an e-voice.
Here's one of your saner members at his best.....:lol:

http://gawker.com/5938463/samuel-l-jackson-gods-plan-to-steer-isaac-from-rnc-to-nola-is-unfair-shit

God better watch His step...I hear this Sammy is one bad-ass dude.
He might kick some angel butts! :lol:

[badcompany]

Being an IRS man, you should know better than anyone, raising the tax rate by 40%, won't mean a thing if you don't close loop holes. The wealthy, both Repubs and Dems, take advantage of every deduction they can, as does every American filing a tax return. The wealthy just happen to get more deductions because of the way they earn their money. Most millionaires and billionaires, don't earn their money in salary. If you want to talk fair, let's talk a FLAT TAX, with NO loop holes. That would be a good start. :ThmbUp:

Then the wealthy will move their operations offshore.

NJ Stinks lives in a bygone era when Unions and Governments had Corporatons and the Wealthy by the shorthairs.

Globalization has changed the landscape, forever.

The real problem is that the government is too big for the tax base. Of course, libs will trot out the tired argument that the percentage of tax revenue to GDP is the lowest since the 1940s, but, like all lib arguments, it's overly simplistic, as it doesn't take into account the exponential rise in consumer debt compared to those earlier times. A large part of the GDP is the result of that debt.

[FantasticDan]

How do you explain the lack of dumocrat-types expressing support for a failed president? Lord knows, most of them don't work, so they have plenty of time, and the righties pay their bills, so they all have internet and all day to sue it.Said the guy who's on here 24/7, 365 for how many years now? :lol:

[Tom]

Nice try at spin, but, as usual, wrong.
But you did avoid the message in favor of the messenger, yet again.

Just re-set my watch, thanks!

[NJ Stinks]

That is BULLSHIT in the first degree.
That is NOT what this great nation was founded on.
That is NOT the role of government.

My God, man you support SOME people deciding NOT to work and allow others to carry them. That is EXACTLY what you are doing here. Are you nuts or what?????

If I have to pay for anchors, do you support my having the right to tell them what things they cannot spend other money on, like TV,, internet, booze, drugs....? Do support mandatory sterilization or abortion for those who are stealing my money to pay their way?

If you can't pay your rent, you have NO RIGHT to have more children, or buy booze, or have cable TV or internet access.

My God man, your are the reason we are going in to the dumper....you need to move to Greece.

The message is simple. People with little money are not going to be paying the country's bills. Period.

The fact that you don't like the message is of no consequence.

As for the anchors you cry endlessly about, in a perfect world there wouldn't be any anchors. We both know this ain't a perfect world.

[hcap]

Tom, inquiring minds want to know. Out of all the people on government social assistance and programs such as SS, Food Stamps, Medicaid and Medicare, what percentage are "anchors", not deserving, and what percentage rightfully deserve what they get? And any idea what the numbers are in absolute terms?

[Valuist]

:eek: :eek: OMG, really? The comments section is dominated by ultra right-wing blowhards and haters? Why, that's very uncommon and unusual to see! You may be on to something..


http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/upload/2012/06/sarcasm.jpg

What was I thinking? People like you are too ignorant to know how to read, and therefore are incapable of commenting.

[NJ Stinks]

Then the wealthy will move their operations offshore.

NJ Stinks lives in a bygone era when Unions and Governments had Corporatons and the Wealthy by the shorthairs.

Globalization has changed the landscape, forever.

The real problem is that the government is too big for the tax base. Of course, libs will trot out the tired argument that the percentage of tax revenue to GDP is the lowest since the 1940s, but, like all lib arguments, it's overly simplistic, as it doesn't take into account the exponential rise in consumer debt compared to those earlier times. A large part of the GDP is the result of that debt.

You and I do live in a different era. You live in an era where:

1. The U.S. thinks globalization is the way of the world. Damn the loss of jobs in the USA - there's money to be made by a few Americans.

2. Unions are for losers. Apparently, only losers would unite to actually negotiate with employers as a group to gain benefits like pensions, health insurance, and job security.

3. Paying taxes is un-American yet you somehow expect a strong military, great roads, great schools, and top notch service when required to deal with a government agency. And let's not forget you don't believe you should pay squat for police and firemen either. In your world these government lackies don't deserve any job benefits just like you don't believe you deserve any job benefits.

With your outlook, BC, you are going to accept living in a world that sucks in comparison to my bygone era. You can either try doing something about it or keep voting Republican.

P.S. Believe it or not I can't remember rich people saying it sucked to be rich in my bygone era. :eek:

[elysiantraveller]

You and I do live in a different era. You live in an era where:

1. The U.S. thinks globalization is the way of the world. Damn the loss of jobs in the USA - there's money to be made by a few Americans.

2. Unions are for losers. Apparently, only losers would unite to actually negotiate with employers as a group to gain benefits like pensions, health insurance, and job security.

3. Paying taxes is un-American yet you somehow expect a strong military, great roads, great schools, and top notch service when required to deal with a government agency. And let's not forget you don't believe you should pay squat for police and firemen either. In your world these government lackies don't deserve any job benefits just like you don't believe you deserve any job benefits.

With your outlook, BC, you are going to accept living in a world that sucks in comparison to my bygone era. You can either try doing something about it or keep voting Republican.

P.S. Believe it or not I can't remember rich people saying it sucked to be rich in my bygone era. :eek:

I like talking with you so here goes...

1) Globalism does/has/and alway will exist this is not a new phenomenon that goods and services that could be made in one locale have now moved to another for want of labor, material, etc... See the Textile industry in late 18th early 19th century India.

2) Unions are dumb see (1). I'm not one on here that is "anti-union". I actually understand that unions serve an important purpose. The problem with Unions though is they are inherently stupid... only in the past 10-15 years of so has the AFL and the CILO finally realized that they need to organize the third world to prevent job loss by globalization. Apparently when they were negotiating those pensions and health benefits they didn't see the endgame... :rolleyes:

3) ad hominem

The main difference between you and me fundamentally is that you think Government has the power to change the market... I KNOW it is in fact the other way around.

You look affectionately at some bygone era like it was somehow unique... it wasn't... it certainly benefited you.... but it wasn't unique.

[badcompany]

You and I do live in a different era. You live in an era where:

1. The U.S. thinks globalization is the way of the world. Damn the loss of jobs in the USA - there's money to be made by a few Americans.

I've read enough of your posts to know that I've forgotten more than you know about economics and finance. So, it's pointless to go into things like Comparative Advantage, and why an International Division of Labor increases wealth.

You, obviously, feel differently. So, why not take your idea to the next level and not buy anything that isn't made in New Jersey, or, go even further and not buy anything that isn't made in your town. See how that goes.



2. Unions are for losers. Apparently, only losers would unite to actually negotiate with employers as a group to gain benefits like pensions, health insurance, and job security.

Workers have every right to form a union, or maybe you can point me to where any major pro union legislation has been overturned. The best your buddy Mostpost can do is cite "bias."

The reason for the decline in private sector unions is a lack of competitiveness. That's why you have to resort to infantile faux nationalism. Leftists suddenly become flag wavers when their pockets get hit.



3. Paying taxes is un-American yet you somehow expect a strong military, great roads, great schools, and top notch service when required to deal with a government agency. And let's not forget you don't believe you should pay squat for police and firemen either. In your world these government lackies don't deserve any job benefits just like you don't believe you deserve any job benefits.

This is just strawman nonsense. The Federal Gov't takes in 2.5 Trillion a year. That's about the entire GDP of Italy; yet, you whine like D.C is living on bread and water.



With your outlook, BC, you are going to accept living in a world that sucks in comparison to my bygone era. You can either try doing something about it or keep voting Republican.

My outlook is why regular people have access to goods and services that weren't available, even to the elites, just a few years ago. Your outlook will have us all eating dogfood.

But you're free to go back to that era. Get rid of your cable box, internet, cell phone etc.

P.S. Believe it or not I can't remember rich people saying it sucked to be rich in my bygone era. :eek:

Yes, it's all the most productive people in society's fault.:bang:

[NJ Stinks]

I like talking with you so here goes...



Thank God you like talking with me. :)

Yea, it's true. I benefited from working at the same job for over 33 years. I also benefited because I started working for Uncle Sam before Reagan screwed government pensions for new hires who started working for the U.S. government after 1985. Without rehashing it again, I'll just say Reagan didn't do it to save money. He did it so federal government employees would have to invest their pension contributiions on Wall Street rather than in U.S. government securities. In short, today's government employees have a 401(k) and I don't. They only wish they never heard of Ronny Reagan.

On the one hand, you make me feel like an old man who longs for the good old days that really weren't all that good. On the other hand, I wonder how younger people can accept the way things are today. Unjust war with Iraq? Doesn't matter. Nobody here is going to fight it who doesn't want to go. A guy like Romney pays at a tax rate of 14% in a year when he earns $21M? That doesn't matter to most people today.

These things should matter to younger people. But they don't. Oh well. As you pointed out in your post, I was lucky but not uniquely lucky. Hopefully, things will change for the better again down the line.

[elysiantraveller]

Thank God you like talking with me. :)

Yea, it's true. I benefited from working at the same job for over 33 years. I also benefited because I started working for Uncle Sam before Reagan screwed government pensions for new hires who started working for the U.S. government after 1985. Without rehashing it again, I'll just say Reagan didn't do it to save money. He did it so federal government employees would have to invest their pension contributiions on Wall Street rather than in U.S. government securities. In short, today's government employees have a 401(k) and I don't. They only wish they never heard of Ronny Reagan.

On the one hand, you make me feel like an old man who longs for the good old days that really weren't all that good. On the other hand, I wonder how younger people can accept the way things are today. Unjust war with Iraq? Doesn't matter. Nobody here is going to fight it who doesn't want to go. A guy like Romney pays at a tax rate of 14% in a year when he earns $21M? That doesn't matter to most people today.

These things should matter to younger people. But they don't. Oh well. As you pointed out in your post, I was lucky but not uniquely lucky. Hopefully, things will change for the better again down the line.

What does this post have to do with your three points?

Nothing...

Globalism is and has always been there and organized labor still is shortsighted. So now we need to talk about something else... more ad hominem... so I guess I'll play.

A really funny thing happened when I googled "Barack Obama capital gains tax". All that google was able to pull up was a bunch of attacks by the President against the Mitt Romney and/or Paul Ryan plan. Hell, it took real work to find out what the President's stance even was... feel free to try the above.

Since you bring all this up I'll ask you point blank is the President a good/effective leader? Yes/No

The problem isn't Mitt Romney's tax rate, it isn't socialism and communism or fascism and conservatism or whatever ism you want to come up with. Its with horribly ineffective leadership looking to place blame rather than provide answers.

[NJ Stinks]

What does this post have to do with your three points?

Nothing...

Globalism is and has always been there and organized labor still is shortsighted. So now we need to talk about something else... more ad hominem... so I guess I'll play.

A really funny thing happened when I googled "Barack Obama capital gains tax". All that google was able to pull up was a bunch of attacks by the President against the Mitt Romney and/or Paul Ryan plan. Hell, it took real work to find out what the President's stance even was... feel free to try the above.

Since you bring all this up I'll ask you point blank is the President a good/effective leader? Yes/No

The problem isn't Mitt Romney's tax rate, it isn't socialism and communism or fascism and conservatism or whatever ism you want to come up with. Its with horribly ineffective leadership looking to place blame rather than provide answers.

I saw no reason to go back to the three points again. You think I'm wrong or BSing about nothing worthwhile so I passed on the rebuttal. Now about the post above:

Do I think Obama is effective? Yes and No. Yes because he at least talks about raising taxes, helping people in need of help, and he at least tried to do something about healthcare in this country. He also at least acts like he cares about all Americans. You can laugh at that last part but Obama will win the women and minority vote in a romp.

On the other hand, Obama is ineffective because Republicans are against everything he proposes. So under Obama nothing gets done to help get the economy moving. Would things be different if Hillary was the prez? I wouldn't bet a nickel that things would be.

You say Obama is ineffective. I say under Obama we are moving in the right direction and we are certainly doing better than most of the rest of the world coming out of this recession. Certainly, he's not a great president but he's a giant when compared to anything on offer from the right.

As an aside, what I find really depressing is that Romney is actually the best candidate I can hope for from the Republican party.

[elysiantraveller]

Do I think Obama is effective? Yes and No. Yes because he at least talks about raising taxes, helping people in need of help, and he at least tried to do something about healthcare in this country. He also at least acts like he cares about all Americans. You can laugh at that last part but Obama will win the women and minority vote in a romp.

On the other hand, Obama is ineffective because Republicans are against everything he proposes. So under Obama nothing gets done to help get the economy moving. Would things be different if Hillary was the prez? I wouldn't bet a nickel that things would be.

Raising taxes on the rich isn't a solution put forth by the President its a pander. By his own admission increases would only reduce deficit spending by around 15% or to about $1 Trillion a year. So while I know it supports your narrative it really doesn't solve anything it just makes you feel good.

Your second point is much like previous three in that it is not unique at all. In the modern era only LBJ and Kennedy have had as friendly of a congress so please... Secondly, name me one time in history when a opposition party didn't try to block the agenda of the one in power...???

You make it sound like Obama is the only president that wasn't liked by the other side... please... :faint:

What most in the left this cycle are doing is making it about a narrative and blame. I'm not even taking political sides with you... I'm indicting your leaders ability to lead. You keep going back to a narrative and I keep saying give me a solution then... here is what you have...

"Do I think Obama is effective? Yes and No. Yes because he at least talks about raising taxes, helping people in need of help, and he at least tried to do something about healthcare in this country. He also at least acts like he cares about all Americans."

... four more years of at least caring about all American's huh...?

[NJ Stinks]

Raising taxes on the rich isn't a solution put forth by the President its a pander. By his own admission increases would only reduce deficit spending by around 15% or to about $1 Trillion a year. So while I know it supports your narrative it really doesn't solve anything it just makes you feel good.



Let's look at the above by itself. If there were no Bush tax cuts for the rich, the country would have had an extra trillion a year in revenue since 2003. That's $9T through 2011 and counting. What's the total debt? $15 or $16T.

The above shouldn't make anybody feel good.

[elysiantraveller]

Let's look at the above by itself. If there were no Bush tax cuts for the rich, the country would have had an extra trillion a year in revenue since 2003. That's $9T through 2011 and counting. What's the total debt? $15 or $16T.

The above shouldn't make anybody feel good.

:eek: More Blame :faint:

Are you even reading what I am writing or just drafting your next blamefest?...

So you agree that raising taxes on the rich isn't really a solution? Yes or No?

Christ, I don't care if this guy did it....

http://www.nndb.com/people/927/000023858/fredrogersbig.jpg

I just want it fixed...

[NJ Stinks]

:eek: More Blame :faint:

Are you even reading what I am writing or just drafting your next blamefest?...

So you agree that raising taxes on the rich isn't really a solution? Yes or No?

Absolutely, it's a solution. Obviously,it's not a one year solution but so what? It's a start in the right direction.

Why you consider it a blamefest to state the biggest single reason for the size of the nation's debt is beyond me.

[elysiantraveller]

Absolutely, it's a solution. Obviously,it's not a one year solution but so what? It's a start in the right direction.

Why you consider it a blamefest to state the biggest single reason for the size of the nation's debt is beyond me.

So we are just starting in the right direction huh?... year 4?.. :rolleyes:

You are making my point.

Also pointing blame is largely counterproductive... Notice I haven't blamed anyone yet...

What else is he going to do?

[dartman51]

You say Obama is ineffective. I say under Obama we are moving in the right direction and we are certainly doing better than most of the rest of the world coming out of this recession. Certainly, he's not a great president but he's a giant when compared to anything on offer from the right.

As an aside, what I find really depressing is that Romney is actually the best candidate I can hope for from the Republican party.


You would be in a minority in that belief. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

Average of all the polls: RIGHT DIRECTION = 31.4% WRONG TRACK = 62.8% :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

Wwow...did you really ask that??....."if you have to ask the price, you probably can't afford it" comes to mind

Unemployment rate
Historical deficit
99-0 Senate vote, on the Obama budget
Federal Employees file suit vs Holder / Administration
Guantanamo Bay

On and on
This is a joke right? The unemployment rate was caused by Republican policies.
The deficit was caused by Republican refusal to tax the wealthy at a fair rate. And by their war in Iraq. The 99-0 Senate vote was not a vote on the Obama budget. It was a vote on whether to vote on the budget. I don't know what suit vs Holder/Administration you are talking about. Republicans screamed when Obama said he would close Guantanamo and then they screamed when he failed to do so.

[NJ Stinks]

So we are just starting in the right direction huh?... year 4?.. :rolleyes:

You are making my point.

Also pointing blame is largely counterproductive... Notice I haven't blamed anyone yet...

What else is he going to do?

I don't know what he is going to do. Chances are he won't be able to do much. But here's some things I would do:

Bring back troops from around the globe.

Raise the minimum age for receiving SS. Also, get rid of the maximum taxable earnings amount for SS taxes.

Base the premiums to be paid monthly for Medicare on gross income. The more you earn, the more you pay for Medicare each month.

That's all I've got at the moment. What do you think should be done to cut the debt?

[Dahoss9698]

I welcome anyone with standing wagers with me to up their wags at any point between now & Nov.

I'd like to get in on this....if you've got the balls.

Romney wins and I'll leave the board for good. Obama wins and you'll have to pretend you're the coolest guy around somewhere else, as you'll have to leave.

Interested?

[mostpost]

Tom, inquiring minds want to know. Out of all the people on government social assistance and programs such as SS, Food Stamps, Medicaid and Medicare, what percentage are "anchors", not deserving, and what percentage rightfully deserve what they get? And any idea what the numbers are in absolute terms?
Of course he has no idea, but I heard this afternoon on Thom Hartmann's show that programs such as food stamps, medicaid, welfare, etc account for 13% of federal spending. That does not include Social Security and Medicare. But that does not tell us how many of those receiving that 13% are deserving and how many are not deserving.

I think the terms "deserving" and "not deserving" are the wrong terms. I think we should consider how many are using those programs as a bridge from unemployment to employment and how many are just taking advantage. I think the former are far greater than the latter. Tom disagrees.

[lsbets]

Let's look at the above by itself. If there were no Bush tax cuts for the rich, the country would have had an extra trillion a year in revenue since 2003. That's $9T through 2011 and counting. What's the total debt? $15 or $16T.

The above shouldn't make anybody feel good.

It doesn't make me feel good. The fact that a grown man, educated to some degree, thinks the above is true is very sad. It gets even worse knowing that man was an employee of the people, trusted with our money to some degree.

Your knowledge of basic economics is non existent. The fact that anyone believes the solutions to our problems start with the confiscation of wealth, protectionism, and a curtailment of economic liberty is pitiful.

[acorn54]

Of course he has no idea, but I heard this afternoon on Thom Hartmann's show that programs such as food stamps, medicaid, welfare, etc account for 13% of federal spending. That does not include Social Security and Medicare. But that does not tell us how many of those receiving that 13% are deserving and how many are not deserving.

I think the terms "deserving" and "not deserving" are the wrong terms. I think we should consider how many are using those programs as a bridge from unemployment to employment and how many are just taking advantage. I think the former are far greater than the latter. Tom disagrees.

i think the republican strategy of knocking people using these programs as the reason for our financial mess is not going to be bought by the public in general, and is barking up the wrong tree.
i was an accountant earlier in my life and when i was in school learning cost accounting the professor said with government contracts, you would calculate the costs of goods and tack on an extra 20 percent, and he wasn't joking.
there is alot of waste in government and if this was eliminated half of our fiscal mess would be solved. the other half is our cost incurred, taking on being the policeman of the world. the military part of our budget is abused by the military contractors, crack down on them and the other half of our fiscal mess is solved.

[mostpost]

Being an IRS man, you should know better than anyone, raising the tax rate by 40%, won't mean a thing if you don't close loop holes. The wealthy, both Repubs and Dems, take advantage of every deduction they can, as does every American filing a tax return. The wealthy just happen to get more deductions because of the way they earn their money. Most millionaires and billionaires, don't earn their money in salary. If you want to talk fair, let's talk a FLAT TAX, with NO loop holes. That would be a good start. :ThmbUp:

I'm confused. If the top tax rate is now 35% and we raise it to 39.6% (should be higher), and leave the loopholes as they were, we aren't going to get 4.6% more revenue? Are you trying to tell me that those financially savvy millionaires are not now using all the loopholes they can?

Do not use "fair" in the same sentence with FLAT TAX, because a flat tax is only "fair" for the wealthiest and becomes less and less "fair" as you drop down the economic ladder.

[mostpost]

It doesn't make me feel good. The fact that a grown man, educated to some degree, thinks the above is true is very sad. It gets even worse knowing that man was an employee of the people, trusted with our money to some degree.

Your knowledge of basic economics is non existent. The fact that anyone believes the solutions to our problems start with the confiscation of wealth, protectionism, and a curtailment of economic liberty is pitiful.

Why don't you prove that the Bush tax cuts did not cost us $1T a year.
That is harder than insulting someone.

[lsbets]

I'm confused. If the top tax rate is now 35% and we raise it to 39.6% (should be higher), and leave the loopholes as they were, we aren't going to get 4.6% more revenue? Are you trying to tell me that those financially savvy millionaires are not now using all the loopholes they can?

Do not use "fair" in the same sentence with FLAT TAX, because a flat tax is only "fair" for the wealthiest and becomes less and less "fair" as you drop down the economic ladder.

Its unfair to have people pay the same percentage? :bang:

Our nation is doomed by the fact that everyone can vote. As long as people can vote for candidates who will confiscate wealth from others to give to their base, we will never fix our problems. We used to have a Constitution that limited the ability of government to do this, but the Constitution has been ignored for a long time.

[lsbets]

Why don't you prove that the Bush tax cuts did not cost us $1T a year.
That is harder than insulting someone.

That wasn't an insult, it was a statement of fact. NJ's beliefs about economics are laughable.

I've proven tons of stuff on here to discount your repeated lies, I don't need to continue to do so, because no matter how many times you are proven to be a liar, you continue to lie.

From 2004 to 2007, tax revenues increased by over $780 billion. I'm not going to bother trying to get you to understand how economic activity influences tax receipts, because you have shown the truth means nothing to you.

Our plunge in revenues has nothing to do with tax cuts, it has everything to do with a decrease in economic activity. A massive tax increase would only exacerbate that problem and lead to less economic activity.

[mostpost]

Why don't you prove that the Bush tax cuts did not cost us $1T a year.
That is harder than insulting someone.
Hate to do this, but it seems NJ Stinks was incorrect about the cost of the Bush tax cuts. Everything I could find indicates the $1T was for the entire term. (About $1.35T for 2001 to 2011). Which doesn't change the fact that $135B a year would have been very helpful. Add in the billions we wasted in Iraq and the billions we gave to the drug companies in the Medicare Part D bill and pretty soon you're talking real money.

[mostpost]

Its unfair to have people pay the same percentage? :bang:

Our nation is doomed by the fact that everyone can vote. As long as people can vote for candidates who will confiscate wealth from others to give to their base, we will never fix our problems. We used to have a Constitution that limited the ability of government to do this, but the Constitution has been ignored for a long time.
So just who should not be able to vote? Just the people who have a certain amount of money? Because then the same people will always be the only ones who have any money. They will elect people who will pass laws protecting their money. Maybe just the ones who have achieved a certain educational status.
Or a certain social status.

As for confiscating money from others to give to their base, I guess you are referring to the Republicans who have been confiscating wages from workers and giving it to their base for over thirty years.

[lsbets]

So just who should not be able to vote? Just the people who have a certain amount of money? Because then the same people will always be the only ones who have any money. They will elect people who will pass laws protecting their money. Maybe just the ones who have achieved a certain educational status.
Or a certain social status.

As for confiscating money from others to give to their base, I guess you are referring to the Republicans who have been confiscating wages from workers and giving it to their base for over thirty years.

If we had limiting principles for our government, it wouldn't matter who voted, because mob rule would not be allowed, and one group could not legally steal from another.

Your last thought (if you can call the things that go on in your head thoughts, that's probably being overly generous) shows you don't understand what I wrote at all (not surprising), but I'm curious, how have wages been stolen from workers? This should be funny.

[Greyfox]

Let me ask you a question, Greyfox. When the mortgage comes due, who pays it? Is it the father or mother - who actually earn good money and has the means - who pays the bill each month? Or do the parents, who have a son who works part-time stocking shelves at CVS, magically demand their son pay an equal share of the mortgage each month?

Look at the USA as one big family. The key is who has the means to help pay the family's bills.

I guess it comes down to being realistic (me) or idealistic (you). Idealism feels good but sooner or later the family or country is going to be buried in debt.

Sorry I couldn't reply earlier. I was away at a meeting.
Your response was to a comment I made which said:

"Romney pays more taxes every year than the income you ever earned in a year."

Above, you've said:
When the mortgage comes due who pays it?

Question: In your own instance, as a perhaps retired Government employee - and me as a private citizen who pays the mortage?

Answer: In your circumstance, you go to the bank and pay it. However, as a public employee - the citizenry paid your mortage and personally, I don't begrudge you that. You earned it.



But suppose, I own individually a profitable company that employs 50 men.
I pay taxes. The 50 men pay taxes. The company pays taxes.
You have more of an expertise on taxation more than I do, I grant you that.
I die tomorrow.
The 50 men are out of work.

Sad. A rich man has died. Gone.
If you think about it, how many taxes did I pay or generate?
My own? My company's? 50 men?

So back to you:

As you've said above:
"Look at the USA as one big family. The key is who has the means to help pay the family's bills."


Your answer goes here:_____________________________________________ _____________________________

[mostpost]

That wasn't an insult, it was a statement of fact. NJ's beliefs about economics are laughable.

I've proven tons of stuff on here to discount your repeated lies, I don't need to continue to do so, because no matter how many times you are proven to be a liar, you continue to lie.

From 2004 to 2007, tax revenues increased by over $780 billion. I'm not going to bother trying to get you to understand how economic activity influences tax receipts, because you have shown the truth means nothing to you.

Our plunge in revenues has nothing to do with tax cuts, it has everything to do with a decrease in economic activity. A massive tax increase would only exacerbate that problem and lead to less economic activity.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
That is where I am getting my figures. For the period you quoted above the increase was $687.96B not $780B. Of course you cherry picked the most favorable years.

Let's compare the entire Bush Administration with the entire Clinton administration. Bush tax cuts. Clinton tax increases.
2008 receipts per above link-$2,521,175
2000 receipts $2,025,457
Increase over the eight years =$495.718B or 24.47%

2000 receipts $2,025,457
1992 receipts $1,091,328
Increase over the eight years = $937.129B or 85.87%

Kinda shoots your theory all to hell.

[lsbets]

Kinda shoots your theory all to hell.

Actually, the numbers prove my point, but you're too dumb to understand it.

[NJ Stinks]

Hate to do this, but it seems NJ Stinks was incorrect about the cost of the Bush tax cuts. Everything I could find indicates the $1T was for the entire term. (About $1.35T for 2001 to 2011).

Hate to say it but I got that number from Ely in Post #97. (Yea, I'm blaming again, Ely. :) )

As for you Lsbets,I don't care what you think. But one thing is for sure. No way am I going to belittle you by saying I don't give a crap what some coffee shop operator in Texas thinks.

And if you think 39.6% is "confiscation of wealth" and "curtailment of economic liberty", you and I are never going to see eye to eye on this.

Not that we have to, of course.

[lsbets]

As for you Lsbets,I don't care what you think. But one thing is for sure. No way am I going to belittle you by saying I don't give a crap what some coffee shop operator in Texas thinks.


I think that was some sort of an attempt at a backhanded insult from a career bureaucrat to an entrepreneur. But if you paid attention, you'd know that I haven't had a coffee shop in over 3 years, and closed my restaurant over a year ago when I decided I did not want to deal with the crap anymore, and that I would do the minimum that I could to support my family while providing as little support as possible to our corrupt and immoral system.

I didn't say I don't give a crap what you think, I said its sad that you think the way you do. What you believe about the economy is wrong on every level, even the most basic stuff. It makes me wonder if you have ever read an economic textbook or a history book.

[NJ Stinks]

Sorry I couldn't reply earlier. I was away at a meeting.
Your response was to a comment I made which said:

"Romney pays more taxes every year than the income you ever earned in a year."

Above, you've said:
When the mortgage comes due who pays it?

Question: In your own instance, as a perhaps retired Government employee - and me as a private citizen who pays the mortage?

Answer: In your circumstance, you go to the bank and pay it. However, as a public employee - the citizenry paid your mortage and personally, I don't begrudge you that. You earned it.



But suppose, I own individually a profitable company that employs 50 men.
I pay taxes. The 50 men pay taxes. The company pays taxes.
You have more of an expertise on taxation more than I do, I grant you that.
I die tomorrow.
The 50 men are out of work.

Sad. A rich man has died. Gone.
If you think about it, how many taxes did I pay or generate?
My own? My company's? 50 men?

So back to you:

As you've said above:
"Look at the USA as one big family. The key is who has the means to help pay the family's bills."


Your answer goes here:_____________________________________________ _____________________________

Greyfox, I'm not trying to say that you as the owner did not do a lot for all your employees, stimulate the economy, or generate tax revenue for your country. You did.

[NJ Stinks]

I think that was some sort of an attempt at a backhanded insult from a career bureaucrat to an entrepreneur. But if you paid attention, you'd know that I haven't had a coffee shop in over 3 years, and closed my restaurant over a year ago when I decided I did not want to deal with the crap anymore, and that I would do the minimum that I could to support my family while providing as little support as possible to our corrupt and immoral system.

I didn't say I don't give a crap what you think, I said its sad that you think the way you do. What you believe about the economy is wrong on every level, even the most basic stuff. It makes me wonder if you have ever read an economic textbook or a history book.

First, I had no idea you closed your restaurant.

Second, you think I'm nuts and I think you are nuts. So what? As somebody famously said, it's a big country.

[Greyfox]

Greyfox, I'm not trying to say that you as the owner did not do a lot for all your employees, stimulate the economy, or generate tax revenue for your country. You did.

Thank you.

[JustRalph]

Hate to do this, but it seems NJ Stinks was incorrect about the cost of the Bush tax cuts. Everything I could find indicates the $1T was for the entire term. (About $1.35T for 2001 to 2011). Which doesn't change the fact that $135B a year would have been very helpful. Add in the billions we wasted in Iraq and the billions we gave to the drug companies in the Medicare Part D bill and pretty soon you're talking real money.

Your 1.35B number is baby shit compared to the 600 Billion spent on Welfare in the same year.

That's why the issue is minutiae compared to other stuff

[acorn54]

there really is no consensus about which economic policy is best.
roosevelt when he was president and was desperately looking for government policy that would stem the tide of the economic crisis said if he laid his economists out end to end they would all be pointing in a different direction.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks
Let's look at the above by itself. If there were no Bush tax cuts for the rich,

See, this is why you have no credibility - you continue to tell this lie, and you know damn well it is a lie. We had tax cuts for EVERYONE. At the bottom level, it was a significantly higher % than for the top.

[elysiantraveller]

I don't know what he is going to do. Chances are he won't be able to do much. But here's some things I would do:

Bring back troops from around the globe.

Raise the minimum age for receiving SS. Also, get rid of the maximum taxable earnings amount for SS taxes.

Base the premiums to be paid monthly for Medicare on gross income. The more you earn, the more you pay for Medicare each month.

That's all I've got at the moment. What do you think should be done to cut the debt?

But see thats why my indictmen of his leadership is fair. You don't even know what he is going to do but you are going to vote for him...

You don't know what his policies are but you think the opposition is going to shove grandma's off of cliffs...

They have to right? To fit the narrative?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
So just who should not be able to vote?

Democrats.
That would solve ALL of our problems.

[elysiantraveller]

Hate to say it but I got that number from Ely in Post #97. (Yea, I'm blaming again, Ely. :) )

As for you Lsbets,I don't care what you think. But one thing is for sure. No way am I going to belittle you by saying I don't give a crap what some coffee shop operator in Texas thinks.

And if you think 39.6% is "confiscation of wealth" and "curtailment of economic liberty", you and I are never going to see eye to eye on this.

Not that we have to, of course.

You misread me so I'll explain again. Raising taxes on the rich will generate on average $200 Billion in revenue over the next 10 years. Our Budget deficit is 1.2 Trillion this year....

The point I am making is that the guy who you say "at least talks about raising taxes" isn't actually raising them to solve the problem he is doing it to pander and earn your vote.

Based on the discourse we have had its working...

Why not raise taxes on everyone NJ?

[NJ Stinks]

See, this is why you have no credibility - you continue to tell this lie, and you know damn well it is a lie. We had tax cuts for EVERYONE. At the bottom level, it was a significantly higher % than for the top.

Ely brought up the Bush tax cuts for the rich. So I responded to him about the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

But your comments are always welcome. (Pick an icon.)

[elysiantraveller]

Ely brought up the Bush tax cuts for the rich. So I responded to him about the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

But your comments are always welcome. (Pick an icon.)

I did nothing of the sort. You first mentioned taxes in post 94. I haven't brought up a political issue talking point in this thread yet. It's you who keep reverting to ad hominem and misdirection. All I've been talking about is being a good leader... Something you clearly won't discuss since you don't even know if your guy has a plan.

You call raising taxes a step... Fine I'll grant it to you... What's Obama's next step for you?...

[NJ Stinks]

But see thats why my indictmen of his leadership is fair. You don't even know what he is going to do but you are going to vote for him...

You don't know what his policies are but you think the opposition is going to shove grandma's off of cliffs...

They have to right? To fit the narrative?

Here's what I think in a nutshell, Ely. If Republicans keep cutting taxes there won't be any money for any government programs that help people. In fact, that is the Republican ultimate goal as far as I can tell. So anything Obama does will be better than what Republicans want to do.

So yea - that's shoving somebody else's less fortunate grandma off a cliff.

[NJ Stinks]

Raising taxes on the rich isn't a solution put forth by the President its a pander. By his own admission increases would only reduce deficit spending by around 15% or to about $1 Trillion a year. So while I know it supports your narrative it really doesn't solve anything it just makes you feel good.



This is what you posted. You say I misread it. OK. I won't argue about it.

I'm heading out to play golf. So if you respond, Ely, don't think I'm ignoring you.

[elysiantraveller]

Here's what I think in a nutshell, Ely. If Republicans keep cutting taxes there won't be any money for any government programs that help people. In fact, that is the Republican ultimate goal as far as I can tell. So anything Obama does will be better than what Republicans want to do.

So yea - that's shoving somebody else's less fortunate grandma off a cliff.

When did the party of change and hope become the movement of "sit and wait."

You must understand that the above post is the epitome of why you party has no enthusiasm... POOR LEADERSHIP.

"I don't know what he is going to do but it can't be all that bad."

That's what you are saying.

I rest my case.

[mostpost]

Your 1.35B number is baby shit compared to the 600 Billion spent on Welfare in the same year.

That's why the issue is minutiae compared to other stuff
You're a little confused here. My number was $1.35 trillion not billion. That is two times $600B.

Money spent on safety net programs accounts for 13% of the federal budget. Contrary to popular (your) opinion not all of that money goes to people who are sitting at home watching soap operas.
The earned income tax credit is a part of the 13%, as are payments to disabled people.

[mostpost]

That is where I am getting my figures. For the period you quoted above the increase was $687.96B not $780B. Of course you cherry picked the most favorable years.

Let's compare the entire Bush Administration with the entire Clinton administration. Bush tax cuts. Clinton tax increases.
2008 receipts per above link-$2,521,175
2000 receipts $2,025,457
Increase over the eight years =$495.718B or 24.47%

2000 receipts $2,025,457
1992 receipts $1,091,328
Increase over the eight years = $937.129B or 85.87%

Kinda shoots your theory all to hell.

Actually, the numbers prove my point, but you're too dumb to understand it.

No, they prove my point. You're making the mistake of looking at the raw numbers. Obviously, the $2.25T collected in 2008 is more than the $2.0T collected in 2000. But is it as much more as it would have been had taxes not been cut.

From 2000 t0 2010 the population of the United States increase by 10%. The GDP increased by 17%. Revenues increased because of those increases and in spite of the tax cuts.

Looking at the percentage of increase gives one a much more accurate picture of the efficiency of cutting taxes. I've highlighted the figures in red.

85.87% increase under Clinton. 24.47% increase under Bush. three and one half times greater under Clinton. I mentioned the 17% increase in GDP under Bush. Under Clinton that increase was 35%.

[Tom]

From 2000 t0 2010 the population of the United States increase by 10%. The GDP increased by 17%. Revenues increased because of those increases and because of the tax cuts.

You want to really increase productivity and generate more revenue?
Open up all UNION jobs to REAL workers and see how much money wasted now can be re-invested and create more jobs.

[lsbets]

.

No, they prove my point. You're making the mistake of looking at the raw numbers. Obviously, the $2.25T collected in 2008 is more than the $2.0T collected in 2000. But is it as much more as it would have been had taxes not been cut.

From 2000 t0 2010 the population of the United States increase by 10%. The GDP increased by 17%. Revenues increased because of those increases and in spite of the tax cuts.

Looking at the percentage of increase gives one a much more accurate picture of the efficiency of cutting taxes. I've highlighted the figures in red.

85.87% increase under Clinton. 24.47% increase under Bush. three and one half times greater under Clinton. I mentioned the 17% increase in GDP under Bush. Under Clinton that increase was 35%.


I don't know why I waste my time, but its so easy, sometimes I can't help myself. You try to argue without having a clue what the hell you are talking about.

Let's start with your "cherry picking" the years 2004-2007 comment.

Why would I use those years?

Think long and hard, if you can.

Wait for it, the answer is simple, so simple even you might be able to understand it.

Here it is.

The tax cuts were passed in 2003 and implemented in 2004. The recession started in 2008.

I talked about the years from when the cuts were passed until revenues dropped during the recession.

In other words, I talked about the years relevant to the argument.

But you are so dumb you couldn't figure that out without having it spelled out for you.

I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to educate you. It seems everyone else failed to do that for your entire life, so it would be a giant waste of my time.

[mostpost]

I don't know why I waste my time, but its so easy, sometimes I can't help myself. You try to argue without having a clue what the hell you are talking about.

Let's start with your "cherry picking" the years 2004-2007 comment.

Why would I use those years?
Because they are the best years for Revenue under Bush.
And because they follow three consecutive years of falling revenues.
It's the old what goes down must come up rule.

Think long and hard, if you can.

Wait for it, the answer is simple, so simple even you might be able to understand it.

Here it is.

The tax cuts were passed in 2003 and implemented in 2004. The recession started in 2008.
There were tax cuts in 2001 and revenues dropped. FOR THREE STRAIGHT YEARS.
Why was there a recession? Supposedly you cut taxes so businesses can use the extra money to expand. They had seven years of tax cuts and four year of large cuts, yet business did not expand it contracted. Maybe your theories are just a lot of crap. Maybe you are too dumb or too ideologically blinded to see that.

I talked about the years from when the cuts were passed until revenues dropped during the recession.

In other words, I talked about the years relevant to the argument.
You talked about the years relevant to your winning the argument.

But you are so dumb you couldn't figure that out without having it spelled out for you.

I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to educate you. It seems everyone else failed to do that for your entire life, so it would be a giant waste of my time.
Convincing me of something that is not true is not educating me, it's propagandizing me. Many people who are smarter than me, and way smarter than you, have the same ideas as I do.

It's Keynesian economics vs. Friedmanomics. The ideas of Milton Friedman have been in the ascendancy over the last forty years, but that does not make them correct. They are not working in this country and they certainly did not work in places like Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, and others.

Naomi Klein" "The Shock Doctrine" tells the story of Milton Friedman gone mad.
You should read it, but you won't.

A synopsis of the chapter on Chile:
After Pinochet took power, Friedman decided that country would be a perfect laboratory for his ideas on the free market and government non interference
in the economy. He sent his minions to Chile and persuaded Pinochet to adopt his program.

He privatized state owned companies; he allowed cutting edge new forms of speculative finance; he eliminated tariffs on foreign imports; he cut spending; he eliminated price control. The result? Inflation reached 375%. Unemployment soared. Businesses closed because of competition from cheap imports.

Despite all this Milton Friedman and his minions refused to acknowledge the fatal flaws in their theories. They blamed the problems on a failure to faithfully execute the program. Friedman flew to Santiago and demanded that Pinochet take even more draconian measures.

Under the tutelage of Friedman's man Sergio de Castro, Pinochet cut spending another 25%; he opened the country even more to foreign investment; he "reformed" Social Security. The result? A resounding success? Not quite. The Chilean economy contracted 15%. Unemployment, 3% under Allende, reached 20%. Inflation was so bad that it took 74% of a family's income to buy bread. It was not until decades later, when Pinochet was gone and most of Friedman's reforms had been ended, that Chile's economy began to recover.

i have not talked about how all these reforms were undertaken. By force and by terror. Union leaders disappeared and were never seen again. People were shot and their bodies left by the side of the road. Newspapers were closed or burned down.

When Friedman was asked if the social cost of his programs might be excessive he replied "Silly question" He went on to say his only concern was if they would push it fast enough and hard enough.

This is the guy all you conservatives worship. A heartless, cruel man with not a scintilla of concern for the people his ideas might hurt. A hollow man.

[bigmack]

Debating anything with someone as ignorant, purposefully obtuse and naive as Mostie is an exercise in futility. He never learns a thing. Just keeps coming back with the same puerile clap trap.

USPS was a good fit. Debating anyone with an IQ over that of an average postal employee, not so much.

[mostpost]

Debating anything with someone as ignorant, purposefully obtuse and naive as Mostie is an exercise in futility. He never learns a thing. Just keeps coming back with the same puerile clap trap.

USPS was a good fit. Debating anyone with an IQ over that of an average postal employee, not so much.
As I was composing my #139 in this thread, I told myself that it was an exercise in futility. That I would get no sensible response. That those I am addressing do not want to hear the facts. That their deliberate ignorance is boundless; their ability to twist and misinterpret without limit.

In other words I expected just the response you gave. I am just surprised it did not come from lsbets. He must be busy. :rolleyes:

[hcap]

Convincing me of something that is not true is not educating me, it's propagandizing me. Many people who are smarter than me, and way smarter than you, have the same ideas as I do.

It's Keynesian economics vs. Friedmanomics. The ideas of Milton Friedman have been in the ascendancy over the last forty years, but that does not make them correct. They are not working in this country and they certainly did not work in places like Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, and others.

Naomi Klein" "The Shock Doctrine" tells the story of Milton Friedman gone mad.
You should read it, but you won't.

A synopsis of the chapter on Chile:
After Pinochet took power, Friedman decided that country would be a perfect laboratory for his ideas on the free market and government non interference
in the economy. He sent his minions to Chile and persuaded Pinochet to adopt his program.

He privatized state owned companies; he allowed cutting edge new forms of speculative finance; he eliminated tariffs on foreign imports; he cut spending; he eliminated price control. The result? Inflation reached 375%. Unemployment soared. Businesses closed because of competition from cheap imports.

Despite all this Milton Friedman and his minions refused to acknowledge the fatal flaws in their theories. They blamed the problems on a failure to faithfully execute the program. Friedman flew to Santiago and demanded that Pinochet take even more draconian measures.

Under the tutelage of Friedman's man Sergio de Castro, Pinochet cut spending another 25%; he opened the country even more to foreign investment; he "reformed" Social Security. The result? A resounding success? Not quite. The Chilean economy contracted 15%. Unemployment, 3% under Allende, reached 20%. Inflation was so bad that it took 74% of a family's income to buy bread. It was not until decades later, when Pinochet was gone and most of Friedman's reforms had been ended, that Chile's economy began to recover.

i have not talked about how all these reforms were undertaken. By force and by terror. Union leaders disappeared and were never seen again. People were shot and their bodies left by the side of the road. Newspapers were closed or burned down.

When Friedman was asked if the social cost of his programs might be excessive he replied "Silly question" He went on to say his only concern was if they would push it fast enough and hard enough.

This is the guy all you conservatives worship. A heartless, cruel man with not a scintilla of concern for the people his ideas might hurt. A hollow man.Great post!

It will fall on deaf ears.

From Wiki....

Before President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, the progressive Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a statement signed by ten Nobel prize laureates entitled "Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts", which states that:

"Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.[39]

Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman agreed the tax cuts would reduce tax revenues and result in intolerable deficits, though he supported them as a means to restrain federal spending.[40] Friedman characterized the reduced government tax revenue as "cutting their allowance".


....In 2006 Sebastian Mallaby of The Washington Post quoted George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Chuck Grassley, and Rick Santorum misstating the effect of the Bush Administration's tax cuts.[55] On January 3, 2007, George W. Bush wrote an article claiming "It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues."[56]

Andrew Samwick, who was Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2004 responded to the claim:

"You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one."[57]

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 beyond their 2010 expiration would increase deficits by $1.8 trillion dollars over the following decade.[58] The CBO also completed a study in 2005 analyzing a hypothetical 10% income tax cut and concluded that under various scenarios there would be minimal offsets to the loss of revenue. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter.[59]

Cutting marginal tax rates can also be perceived as primarily beneficial to the wealthy, which commentators such as Paul Krugman see as politically rather than economically motivated.[61]

"The specific set of foolish ideas that has laid claim to the name "supply side economics" is a crank doctrine that would have had little influence if it did not appeal to the prejudices of editors and wealthy men"[62] ”

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that supply side economics was not a new theory. He wrote,

"Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows."[63] Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896."

[bigmack]

This is the guy all you conservatives worship. A heartless, cruel man with not a scintilla of concern for the people his ideas might hurt. A hollow man.
What a complete idiot you are.

Commenting on his statement about the "Miracle", Friedman says that "the emphasis of that talk was that free markets would undermine political centralization and political control." Friedman stated that "The real miracle in Chile was not that those economic reforms worked so well, but because that's what Adam Smith said they would do. Chile is by all odds the best economic success story in Latin America today. The real miracle is that a military junta was willing to let them do it." Friedman said the "Chilean economy did very well, but more important, in the end the central government, the military junta, was replaced by a democratic society. So the really important thing about the Chilean business is that free markets did work their way in bringing about a free society." The term Miracle of Chile is also commonly[by whom?] used to refer to the favorable economic results of economic liberalization in that economy.

Friedman has wondered why some have attacked him for giving a lecture in Chile: "I must say, it's such a wonderful example of a double standard, because I had spent time in Yugoslavia, which was a communist country. I later gave a series of lectures in China. When I came back from communist China, I wrote a letter to the Stanford Daily newspaper in which I said, 'It's curious. I gave exactly the same lectures in China that I gave in Chile. I have had many demonstrations against me for what I said in Chile. Nobody has made any objections to what I said in China. How come?'" He points out that his visit was unrelated to the political side of the regime and that during his visit to Chile he even stated that following his economic liberalization advice would help bring political freedom and the downfall of the regime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

[Dahoss9698]

USPS was a good fit. Debating anyone with an IQ over that of an average postal employee, not so much.

I was under the impression that denigrating people for their job was frowned upon here.

Guess not.

[Greyfox]

I was under the impression that denigrating people for their job was frowned upon here.

Guess not.

I agree. :ThmbUp:
A man doing an honest job for many years is to be applauded.

[bigmack]

Look at these finger pointers thinking I'm pimpin' Mostie for working USPS.

The point is he's better off debating with those on level with his IQ. Studies have shown the avg postal employee has an IQ equivalent with WalMart greeters.

People gotta know their limitations.

[hcap]

Look at these finger pointers thinking I'm pimpin' Mostie for working USPS.

The point is he's better off debating with those on level with his IQ. Studies have shown the avg postal employee has an IQ equivalent with WalMart greeters.

People gotta know their limitations.You are WAY out of line. Can it. Also try composing your responses entirely in English. Cutesy Cool gets old quickly.

[NJ Stinks]

When did the party of change and hope become the movement of "sit and wait."

You must understand that the above post is the epitome of why you party has no enthusiasm... POOR LEADERSHIP.

"I don't know what he is going to do but it can't be all that bad."

That's what you are saying.

I rest my case.

Ely, I will say this again so you understand completely where I'm coming from.

The Republican party and their convention will not even address any entitlement unless they are trying to reform or eliminate the entitlement. The Republican party could give a crap about poor kids getting Pell grants or your aunt being able to get by on Social Security. No. That's wrong. They are concerned because your aunt thinks she is entitled to SS. Anyway, you ask me why I vote for Obama when I'm not even sure what he's gonna do. I vote for Obama because I know what he's not gonna do.

Unfortunately, that's how low the Republicans dropped the bar. IMO, of course.

[bigmack]

You are WAY out of line. Can it. Also try composing your responses entirely in English. Cutesy Cool gets old quickly.
Look at you. You're a laugh riot, Harry. What am I WAY out of line in calling Mostie ignorant, naive & obtuse?

Would you like to see countless examples of Mostie exhibiting childlike understanding of basic concepts and a purposeful obtuseness that borders on laughable? I've gone a few rounds with the dope but he keeps coming back, never learning from his mistakes.

In debate, he's worthless. I don't say that because we're often on the opposite side of things, he's just as dense as they come.

Dispute that.

Oh, and I'll be sure to avoid your little music conversations. Wouldn't want to be too cool for a square like you. After all you remain one angry schlemiel.

[hcap]

The point is he's better off debating with those on level with his IQ. Studies have shown the avg postal employee has an IQ equivalent with WalMart greeters.

People gotta know their limitations.You have no excuse.

[lsbets]

As I was composing my #139 in this thread, I told myself that it was an exercise in futility. That I would get no sensible response. That those I am addressing do not want to hear the facts. That their deliberate ignorance is boundless; their ability to twist and misinterpret without limit.

In other words I expected just the response you gave. I am just surprised it did not come from lsbets. He must be busy. :rolleyes:

I was busy. I was taking care of one of my daughters who you say I don't care about.

I gave you facts, you don't like them, so come up with bizarre reasoning for how they are not. You haven't a clue about what is being argued here, but you keep pressing ahead, once again making yourself look more and more foolish.

I'll be more specific about who shouldn't vote. Anyone as dumb as you should not have a vote. There should be a test about basic knowledge. You mention Keynes but you don't know the first thing about Keynsian theory. Keynes does not state that tax cuts do not produce growth or that a growing economy does not increase revenues. Keynsian theory also states that raising taxes in a weak economy is a very bad idea. Good try bringing up Keynes though. Once again you showed you don't know what the **** you're talking about.

[elysiantraveller]

Anyway, you ask me why I vote for Obama when I'm not even sure what he's gonna do. I vote for Obama because I know what he's not gonna do.

So... I'll ask again good leader or bad leader?

Don't you find it odd you have no problem speaking for Republicans but an exceptionally hard time doing it for your candidate?

I'm not trying to get you to change your mind as I know you won't but come on man... thats about as convoluted a reason as I've seen to back a candidate.

We spoke on this awhile ago and I ended a post with "I know my guy will do something." Political affiliation and biases aside hopefully you can see why I would support the challenger this cycle.

I've flat out said if Obama wants to tax our way out of this mess lets do it... But honestly, I really don't think he does, his record certainly doesn't show that. I truly think he doesn't really have a plan to confront our biggest problems... and thats not satisfactory to me.

The word ambling was once used, accurately mind you, to describe our previous president. It certainly can be used for this one as well...

[mostpost]

What a complete idiot you are.

Commenting on his statement about the "Miracle", Friedman says that "the emphasis of that talk was that free markets would undermine political centralization and political control." Friedman stated that "The real miracle in Chile was not that those economic reforms worked so well, but because that's what Adam Smith said they would do. Chile is by all odds the best economic success story in Latin America today. The real miracle is that a military junta was willing to let them do it." Friedman said the "Chilean economy did very well, but more important, in the end the central government, the military junta, was replaced by a democratic society. So the really important thing about the Chilean business is that free markets did work their way in bringing about a free society." The term Miracle of Chile is also commonly[by whom?] used to refer to the favorable economic results of economic liberalization in that economy.

Friedman has wondered why some have attacked him for giving a lecture in Chile: "I must say, it's such a wonderful example of a double standard, because I had spent time in Yugoslavia, which was a communist country. I later gave a series of lectures in China. When I came back from communist China, I wrote a letter to the Stanford Daily newspaper in which I said, 'It's curious. I gave exactly the same lectures in China that I gave in Chile. I have had many demonstrations against me for what I said in Chile. Nobody has made any objections to what I said in China. How come?'" He points out that his visit was unrelated to the political side of the regime and that during his visit to Chile he even stated that following his economic liberalization advice would help bring political freedom and the downfall of the regime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

From Naomi Klein's book (paraphrased)
Pinochet instituted Friedman's policies in the middle and late seventies. We have already discussed the results. in 1982 after almost a decade of Friedmanomics, Chile's economy crashed again. Its debt exploded, it faced hyperinflation once again and unemployment reached thirty percent. Why? Enron style financial houses set up by the "Chicago Boys" and unregulated, had bought up Chile's debt with borrowed money.

Faced with this, Pinochet reversed Chile's economic policies. Many of the financial houses were nationalized. The Chicago Boys lost most of their influential government posts, and many of them were investigated for fraud.

Quoting from Klein's book:
"Chile under Pinochet and the Chicago Boys was not a capitalist state featuring a liberated market but a corporatist one......a mutually supporting alliance between a police state and large corporations, joining forces to wage all out war on the third power sectors-the workers.

[mostpost]

I was under the impression that denigrating people for their job was frowned upon here.

Guess not.

I think Burger boy's responses tell us a lot more about him than they do about me.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by bigmack
Look at these finger pointers thinking I'm pimpin' Mostie for working USPS.

The point is he's better off debating with those on level with his IQ. Studies have shown the avg postal employee has an IQ equivalent with WalMart greeters.

People gotta know their limitations.
reply by hcap
You are WAY out of line. Can it. Also try composing your responses entirely in English. Cutesy Cool gets old quickly.

I had no idea Walmart greeters were so smart. (I never go to Walmart)
The International High IQ Society has an online test. I took it and did well enough that I could join the group if I wanted. Nice to know those WalMart greeters are as smart as me.

I'm amazed (amused?) that Bigmack and lsbets continue to say I am dumb and naive and ignorant, when that is clearly not the case. I think I know why they do it. Being unable to counter my arguments, they are trying to bully me into not making them. It ain't gonna work.

Am I sounding arrogant? Just telling it like it is.

[bigmack]

Bigmack and lsbets continue to say I am dumb and naive and ignorant, when that is clearly not the case.
Hawaii is in Asia. Illegals don't speak the language. 7.3% of blacks have children out of wedlock. And on. And on...

'Nuff said.

[lsbets]

I had no idea Walmart greeters were so smart. (I never go to Walmart)
The International High IQ Society has an online test. I took it and did well enough that I could join the group if I wanted. Nice to know those WalMart greeters are as smart as me.

I'm amazed (amused?) that Bigmack and lsbets continue to say I am dumb and naive and ignorant, when that is clearly not the case. I think I know why they do it. Being unable to counter my arguments, they are trying to bully me into not making them. It ain't gonna work.

Am I sounding arrogant? Just telling it like it is.

Why did I call you dumb?

Because that was what you called PA when you "apologized" to him for the second time. Surprised someone as "smart" as you didn't pick up on that.

Why do I call you ignorant?

Because you are. Every single time you have posted nonsensical drivel and I have countered you, I have picked you apart point by point. Your pattern is to disappear from that thread and then post the same drivel in another thread.

Why do I call you a liar?

Because you have repeatedly lied over and over again and been called out on it, and you continue to post the same lies.

I went over all the reasons I think you're an asshole in a recent thread, when you complained that I pick on you with no provocation. In that thread, I listed all the things that make you the despicable, slimy, asshat that you are, and you disappeared from that thread, only to complain in this one that I pick on you.

You're not arrogant, well you are, but you're more than that. You're a total jackass, a man with no experience in anything he pontificates about with the nerve to tell those who have real experiences that they don't know what they are talking about. You are a pitiful disgrace of a human being. I felt sorry for you briefly a few days ago when you had a moment of contrition following your pathetic attack on PA, but in less than 24 hours you were back at your usual nonsense.

How does it feel to know as you grow old alone, that you have amounted to nothing and will not be missed in this world when you are gone? Is that the source of your issues? Get help, go see a shrink. Seriously.

[NJ Stinks]

So... I'll ask again good leader or bad leader?

Don't you find it odd you have no problem speaking for Republicans but an exceptionally hard time doing it for your candidate?

I'm not trying to get you to change your mind as I know you won't but come on man... thats about as convoluted a reason as I've seen to back a candidate.

We spoke on this awhile ago and I ended a post with "I know my guy will do something." Political affiliation and biases aside hopefully you can see why I would support the challenger this cycle.

I've flat out said if Obama wants to tax our way out of this mess lets do it... But honestly, I really don't think he does, his record certainly doesn't show that. I truly think he doesn't really have a plan to confront our biggest problems... and thats not satisfactory to me.

The word ambling was once used, accurately mind you, to describe our previous president. It certainly can be used for this one as well...

I am not saying Obama is a great leader. He's just OK. You think Obama is weak and this country deserves better. So you are willing to give Romney a chance. I am not so fanatical that I can't see your viewpoint.

My guess is that you and I are at different points in the road of life. Your main concern is that Obama has failed in getting the economy moving and has no plan moving forward. My main concern is that this rich country takes care of all Americans - young and old. God knows we can afford to if the will is there. Since I believe the economy is slowly moving in the right direction - with or without Obama's help - I'm more than willing to back another 4 years with Obama in charge. The alternative is a guy who is apparently proud he paid 14% on $21M. Me and that guy live in a different universe.

In short, I have no doubt that Romney is determined to help people who need no help. I can't root for that guy let alone vote for him. The only other choice here is Barack Obama.

That's it in a nutshell.

[lsbets]

Hawaii is in Asia. Illegals don't speak the language. 7.3% of blacks have children out of wedlock. And on. And on...

'Nuff said.

David Duke was in Congress, high taxes spur economic growth, business owners don't have to deal with a large number of government agencies........

[mostpost]

Hawaii is in Asia. Illegals don't speak the language. 7.3% of blacks have children out of wedlock. And on. And on...

'Nuff said.
Hawaii is not in Asia. It's not in North America either. Many illegals do not speak the language, especially those who have been here only a short time. Don't recall the 7.3%. I make mistakes. I present a lot of facts here. Sometimes I get one wrong.

It is difficult for me to find facts that you got wrong, because you present so few of them.

[NJ Stinks]

How does it feel to know as you grow old alone, that you have amounted to nothing and will not be missed in this world when you are gone? Is that the source of your issues? Get help, go see a shrink. Seriously.

You are one nasty individual when you want to be.

[lsbets]

You are one nasty individual when you want to be.

I almost didn't write that, and I almost erased it. But he is a man who told me I don't care about my kids, and then did not apologize for saying that, only apologized if his saying that bothered me. Believe it or not, there are a lot of things I think but choose not to post because they seem pretty mean spirited. In the case of mostpost I don't care how they seem, I am going to say what I think.

[Greyfox]

How does it feel to know as you grow old alone, that you have amounted to nothing and will not be missed in this world when you are gone? Is that the source of your issues? Get help, go see a shrink. Seriously.

I disagree with Mostie frequently on this board.

But what you've posted above is cruel and beyond the envelope. :ThmbDown:

[mostpost]

David Duke was in Congress, high taxes spur economic growth, business owners don't have to deal with a large number of government agencies........
David Duke ran for Congress (my bad)
I can show you where High taxes have coincided with economic prosperity and low taxes coincide with recessions. Hello Mr. Bush!

I don't recall saying that business owners don't have to deal with a large number of government agencies. I may have said that I felt those dealings were necessary and proper.

[lsbets]

I disagree with Mostie frequently on this board.

But what you've posted above is cruel and beyond the envelope. :ThmbDown:

I apologize if anyone was offended by that remark.

[elysiantraveller]

I am not saying Obama is a great leader. He's just OK. You think Obama is weak and this country deserves better. So you are willing to give Romney a chance. I am not so fanatical that I can't see your viewpoint.

My guess is that you and I are at different points in the road of life. Your main concern is that Obama has failed in getting the economy moving and has no plan moving forward. My main concern is that this rich country takes care of all Americans - young and old. God knows we can afford to if the will is there. Since I believe the economy is slowly moving in the right direction - with or without Obama's help - I'm more than willing to back another 4 years with Obama in charge. The alternative is a guy who is apparently proud he paid 14% on $21M. Me and that guy live in a different universe.

In short, I have no doubt that Romney is determined to help people who need no help. I can't root for that guy let alone vote for him. The only other choice here is Barack Obama.

That's it in a nutshell.

For such an ardent supporter of this administration you have shockingly little good to say about it.

Like I said before you are much better versed on your parties attacks of the other side than their actual stance issues.

I feel a lot better about the election after this discussion.

[bigmack]

I can show you where High taxes have coincided with economic prosperity and low taxes coincide with recessions.
Sure you can. Anyone who enjoys debate knows you can find any graph to support any position. Thing is, you seriously lack the complexity of thought to go into ALL the reasons certain periods were prosperous and others not. You live in a simpleton's world where you think if you show graphs of prosperity coinciding with a period of higher taxes, VOILA, you've proved something. It's the same as hcap & his idiotic global warming graphs.

Again, that works if you're debating kindergarten kids but not here.

You were a mess when you first showed up here. Then, when challenged to back-up your ideas you starting to learn how to use Google. You still suck at research, simply because you search until you find something to support your ideas.

You haven't even the closest thing to an open mind. You spout rhetoric you hear on MSNBC and others. As mentioned, ls, me, box, Tom, chickenhead and a pile of others have vigorously disagreed with each other. You camp out with the usual hcap & NJ in full agreement ALL the time.

The worst by far, is your ass licking of all things BO. Truly a pathetic display of a human being.

[Dahoss9698]

I think it's kind of funny that some on this board are so quick to point a finger at ALL liberals or Democrats anytime someone says something or does something perceived as wrong.

Yet in the last two days, I've seen a guy made fun of because of where he worked, another guy made fun of because he has poor eyesight and spelled a word wrong and another told that he has amounted to nothing and no one will care when he dies. What do all of these people have in common? That's right, they are one of the handful of liberals who actively participate in these discussions.

I applaud Greyfox, Tom and Boxcar (and anyone else I missed) for recognizing that some things should be out of bounds.

[NJ Stinks]

For such an ardent supporter of this administration you have shockingly little good to say about it.

Like I said before you are much better versed on your parties attacks of the other side than their actual stance issues.

I feel a lot better about the election after this discussion.

Fair enough, Ely.

Just between us and the cast of thousands here, Obama doesn't push hard enough to suit me. In fact, I think he does talk a better game than he plays. I don't see that changing if he is re-elected.

[badcompany]

I can show you where High taxes have coincided with economic prosperity and low taxes coincide with recessions. Hello Mr. Bush!


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

Also Known as: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, False Cause, Questionable Cause, Confusing Coincidental Relationships With Causes

Description of Post Hoc
A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form:

A occurs before B.
Therefore A is the cause of B.
The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect.

************

Since this is PA, let's provide a horseracing example:

In a handicap race, the horse carrying the most weight won; therefore, the extra weight helped the horse win.

[lsbets]

I think it's kind of funny that some on this board are so quick to point a finger at ALL liberals or Democrats anytime someone says something or does something perceived as wrong.

Yet in the last two days, I've seen a guy made fun of because of where he worked, another guy made fun of because he has poor eyesight and spelled a word wrong and another told that he has amounted to nothing and no one will care when he dies. What do all of these people have in common? That's right, they are one of the handful of liberals who actively participate in these discussions.

I applaud Greyfox, Tom and Boxcar (and anyone else I missed) for recognizing that some things should be out of bounds.

Dahoss,

If you care to look, you will see that I have called out and gotten into it pretty good with people on the right when I thought they deserved it. Bigmack being one of them.

Again, I am sorry if you were offended by my remark, but again, if you care to look back, you will see that it was not unprovoked. It had nothing to do with right or left.

[Dahoss9698]

Dahoss,

If you care to look, you will see that I have called out and gotten into it pretty good with people on the right when I thought they deserved it. Bigmack being one of them.

Again, I am sorry if you were offended by my remark, but again, if you care to look back, you will see that it was not unprovoked. It had nothing to do with right or left.

I'm not sure of your history, so if it was in fact provoked I apologize. I'm as nasty as anyone, but some things seem out of bounds to me.

I'm not personally offended by it. And it doesn't even seem like Mosty is either. But the guy took a lot of grief for something he said and it appears like he certainly takes his fair share as well.

My point is more a general one.

[elysiantraveller]

Fair enough, Ely.

Just between us and the cast of thousands here, Obama doesn't push hard enough to suit me. In fact, I think he does talk a better game than he plays. I don't see that changing if he is re-elected.

If I was a leftist I would completely agree with you. I think he is terrible for basically everyone... :) Very little substance.

In any case do people like Mosty really believe that taxation is the key to economic growth or are they just trying to be contrarian? Even the Administration doesn't believe that.

[bigmack]

some things should be out of bounds.
I seem to recall a video I posted that my niece assembled and you felt the need to attack me and her in who actually assembled it.

Thus, you're a creep.

[Rookies]

I almost didn't write that, and I almost erased it. But he is a man who told me I don't care about my kids, and then did not apologize for saying that, only apologized if his saying that bothered me. Believe it or not, there are a lot of things I think but choose not to post because they seem pretty mean spirited. In the case of mostpost I don't care how they seem, I am going to say what I think.

You know, I can give as good as I get here. So, when I receive some of the most idiotic, self serving, jingoistic reponses questioning WTF I have any right to say what I do, I normally laugh them off. Given a combination of background, life experience and street skills, I'm fairly strong willed.

However, I deliberately attempt to counter the strongest members of the opposition here- never the weakest.

On occassion, I find those who post normally on "my side of thinking" to be well off side and call them out- as I did to Mosty the other day.

Your prior reponse immediate response today to Mosty was exceptionally cruel and I sure as hell hope you would do do something other than the above to remedy it.

It was waaaay over the line.:ThmbDown:

[lsbets]

I'm not sure of your history, so if it was in fact provoked I apologize. I'm as nasty as anyone, but some things seem out of bounds to me.

I'm not personally offended by it. And it doesn't even seem like Mosty is either. But the guy took a lot of grief for something he said and it appears like he certainly takes his fair share as well.

My point is more a general one.

Fair enough.

I don't know your history with BM either, other than it seems like recently you guys are going at it in a ton of threads. I know I stop reading a thread once it drifts into the Dahoss/Bigmack 2 step. I imagine its the same for many when mosty and I start going at it. I'm going to try my best to learn a lesson from how I perceive other feuds here and try to avoid it.

[NJ Stinks]

If I was a leftist I would completely agree with you. I think he is terrible for basically everyone... :) Very little substance.

In any case do people like Mosty really believe that taxation is the key to economic growth or are they just trying to be contrarian? Even the Administration doesn't believe that.

Won't speak for Mostpost but you know I think the upper income tax rates and the capital gains tax rate should have been increased yesterday. This country couldn't afford the current rates 10 years ago and we can't afford them now.

I'd say think of the children but that sounds like a political line.

Oh, and I could care less if it's the key to anything. The tax rates today are just another entitlement - to people without need. IMO, of course.

[badcompany]

Won't speak for Mostpost but you know I think the upper income tax rates and the capital gains tax rate should have been increased yesterday. This country couldn't afford the current rates 10 years ago and we can't afford them now.



"I never met a dog I didn't like"

Will Rogers

"I never met a tax I didn't want increased"

NJ Stinks

[Greyfox]

I'd say think of the children but that sounds like a political line.

.

Agreed.

Look at the legacy of National Debt that Obama is piling up for future generations to pay off.

[lamboguy]

Ryan just gave the winning tongue. if they don't win with that speech, they could never win an election. it has to be the greatest speech that i have ever heard in my life.

[NJ Stinks]

Ryan just gave the winning tongue. if they don't win with that speech, they could never win an election. it has to be the greatest speech that i have ever heard in my life.

If I said "Hope & Change" Part Deux, would you be offended? ;)

[lsbets]

Ryan just gave the winning tongue. if they don't win with that speech, they could never win an election. it has to be the greatest speech that i have ever heard in my life.

I flipped back and forth between Fox and MSNBC to see the post speech coverage.

Only saw the start of the Fox coverage. They said he gave a great speech. Flipped to MSNBC, Matthews said he gave a speech full of code words to appeal to racists. That channel has gone insane.

[Dahoss9698]

I seem to recall a video I posted that my niece assembled and you felt the need to attack me and her in who actually assembled it.

Thus, you're a creep.

So now you're so desperate you're just flat out making stuff up? Methinks you need a break man, as you've lost it.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71954

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71988


Please point out my attacks, if you could. Thanks.

[ArlJim78]

more "code words" noted on MSNBC.:lol:
they've become the first all racism news channel.
every one of their hosts is an expert at finding racial motivations and hidden racial meaning in virtually every speech by every speaker.

[Rookies]

it has to be the greatest speech that i have ever heard in my life.

Really? :lol:

You must be a kid.

Obviously, you've never heard Churchill, JFK, Reagan, Stephen Lewis, MLK, Bucley, Obama (2004 Dem Convention),FDR, etc. etc... to name just a few...

[bigmack]

Please point out my attacks, if you could. Thanks.
There ya go, Creep.

Here's what I think. You're the one making the compilation videos and you're one of the people crying over Zenyatta.
You want my nieces address to write an apology? Nevermind, you're too creepy for that.

[mostpost]

So now you're so desperate you're just flat out making stuff up? Methinks you need a break man, as you've lost it.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71954

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71988


Please point out my attacks, if you could. Thanks.
Apparently you made your attacks in invisible ink. :rolleyes:
Comment on the Zenyatta compilation: Excellent.
Did not Watch Rachel, bu ti'm sure it will also be good.
:ThmbUp: to Kelly

[bigmack]

Apparently you made your attacks in invisible ink. :rolleyes:
You want in on this too?

[Dahoss9698]

There ya go, Creep.


You want my nieces address to write an apology? Nevermind, you're too creepy for that.

Ignoring of course that you edited out what you had said to me prior to that and what I said before and after the snippet you chose....how is that an attack on your niece?

It's not of course.

Here's what really went down. I mocked adults that go on Zenyatta's blog and talk to her as if she is responding to them as I thought it over the top. To which you replied

Now go ahead and try and "own" my niece for putting together a compilation video of Z. I'll invite her into the discussion so you can tell her how over the top she is.


Here is my unedited response

Wow. Hall of fame deflection. Here's what I think. You're the one making the compilation videos and you're one of the people crying over Zenyatta. It's why you take such offense to this stuff.

However, most of my disagreements also have to do with people bringing unsound arguements. That usually gets lost though because people like you just want to attack the messenger instead of looking at what is actually being said.

The dramatics are a nice touch though. Once again, there is a big difference between kids getting excited and adults (you) crying over Zenyatta. I know you know this. Just like we both know you're a hypocrite. Own it.

So I'll ask again, how did I attack your niece? Maybe you should just accept that I can handle you very easily. It would save you a lot of energy.

[mostpost]

I was busy. I was taking care of one of my daughters who you say I don't care about.
You have said this several times in several threads. I've been looking and I can't find anyplace I said any such thing. I don't recall saying any such thing. And it is not what I think. Perhaps you would provide me with specifics as to a particular thread.

Remember, if I make a general statement in a reply to you, it does not necessarily mean that statement is meant to apply to you. And if you say you are doing something and I say I would not do that, that only means that I would not do that.

[mostpost]

Ignoring of course that you edited out what you had said to me prior to that and what I said before and after the snippet you chose....how is that an attack on your niece?

It's not of course.

Here's what really went down. I mocked adults that go on Zenyatta's blog and talk to her as if she is responding to them as I thought it over the top. To which you replied



Here is my unedited response



So I'll ask again, how did I attack your niece? Maybe you should just accept that I can handle you very easily. It would save you a lot of energy.

SO just so I know that I am not any crazier than previously, this exchange is not in the two links you posted above, because do not see the name DaHoss in either one. Right?

[bigmack]

Ihow is that an attack on your niece?
Read the whole thread, Creep. She put a pile of work into that and was proud of what she had done. As also found in that thread, I was going to have her brother do a Rachel vid as well as a few others for fun.

The fun was taken out of the process by a creep. You went off on a jag about people being overly maudlin about Z and dismissed my niece as not the producer of the compilation and yet STILL stand here today with no apology, but trying to compare dick size with me with this "I can handle you, and you don't like it" crap.

Dig. I know creeps when I see 'em. You fit the bill perfectly.

Now buzz off. Creep.

[Dahoss9698]

SO just so I know that I am not any crazier than previously, this exchange is not in the two links you posted above, because do not see the name DaHoss in either one. Right?

No, it's in a locked thread.

[mostpost]

Really? :lol:

You must be a kid.

Obviously, you've never heard Churchill, JFK, Reagan, Stephen Lewis, MLK, Bucley, Obama (2004 Dem Convention),FDR, etc. etc... to name just a few...
Have not heard Ryan's speech but I can not imagine it was any better than the one given tonight by Condi Rice.

[JustRalph]

Fair enough, Ely.

Just between us and the cast of thousands here, Obama doesn't push hard enough to suit me. In fact, I think he does talk a better game than he plays. I don't see that changing if he is re-elected.

Truly revelatory

[Dahoss9698]

Read the whole thread, Creep. She put a pile of work into that and was proud of what she had done. As also found in that thread, I was going to have her brother do a Rachel vid as well as a few others for fun.

The fun was taken out of the process by a creep. You went off on a jag about people being overly maudlin about Z and dismissed my niece as not the producer of the compilation and yet STILL stand here today with no apology, but trying to compare dick size with me with this "I can handle you, and you don't like it" crap.

Dig. I know creeps when I see 'em. You fit the bill perfectly.

Now buzz off. Creep.

So now I took the fun out of making videos for your family because I mocked people who talk to a horse on a blog?

Wow.

But you have no problem denigrating what a guy spent his life doing and how he put food on his table....and you're going to stand there and call me a creep?

Pretty funny stuff.

[lsbets]

You have said this several times in several threads. I've been looking and I can't find anyplace I said any such thing. I don't recall saying any such thing. And it is not what I think. Perhaps you would provide me with specifics as to a particular thread.

Remember, if I make a general statement in a reply to you, it does not necessarily mean that statement is meant to apply to you. And if you say you are doing something and I say I would not do that, that only means that I would not do that.

I just finished telling Dahoss I am going to try not to derail any threads bickering with you.

I am surprised you don't remember, it wasn't too long ago, and when you whined about my response, PA said you earned it.

You didn't make a general statement, and you did not say that you would not do something I was doing. In essence, you said I don't give a crap about my children.

I'm off this topic now, because I want to stick to what I told Dahoss.

[FantasticDan]

I flipped back and forth between Fox and MSNBC to see the post speech coverage.
Only saw the start of the Fox coverage. They said he gave a great speech. Flipped to MSNBC, Matthews said he gave a speech full of code words to appeal to racists. That channel has gone insane.I was watching MSNBC, and this is what Matthews said right after the speech:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc/48837262/#48837262

He didn't like it, but said nothing about code words and racists. So when did he say that?

[bigmack]

So now I took the fun out of making videos for your family because I accused your niece on not assembling the video?
Fixed that for your creepy ass in the bold.

The king of deflection now wants to spin in Mostie and his years of service with USPS. Shazzam. All sorts of decries from you of late. Date outside your race but know that you're still on the watch for bigotry/prejudice. And now your outrage of pimping Mostie about his civil soivice.

He's a big boy. He's heard it before. Many times.

Now back to my niece who's NOT a a big boy and was offended someone thought her incapable of assembling such vid or being caught up in a shit throwing storm and used as a tool because you DESPISED maudlin Zenites.

Didn't you bring up Boxcar's wife a while back? I eat creeps like you for breakfast but the general rule is ya leave wives/nieces & what not out.

But you don't get it. You use wives & nieces and then feign with outrage over Mostie being a postman.

Put me back on iggy, Creep. Your neurosis of putting me on and taking me off is making me think of beefing up security around the compound.

[lsbets]

I was watching MSNBC, and this is what Matthews said right after the speech:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc/48837262/#48837262

He didn't like it, but said nothing about code words and racists. So when did he say that?

Your video is at the point that I was watching Fox. It was a couple of minutes later as they were going around their group that Matthews started down his racist schtick again. I paraphrased him, tonight he said the speech was only aimed at those who could vote before 1965. :rolleyes:

[Dahoss9698]

I never accused your niece of anything. I thought based on your reaction that it was in fact you making the video and not her.

How the hell was she caught up in anything? Does she post here?

But I find this all pretty funny. You've been sitting on all of this phony outrage for a year and a half? Never once brought it up until I called you on your comment to Mostie earlier today? Seems pretty convenient if you ask me.

Look, I see what you're doing here and as we both know it's what you do best. You're deflecting away from the issue because you are not man enough to just admit you were wrong.

Not really sure who you eat for breakfast, but we both know it's not me. Never has been and that's what bothers you. And it REALLY bothers you to the point that you're making shit up and coming up with phony outrage about a comment I made SEVENTEEN MONTHS ago. If I didn't know better, I'd think all of your stories about your escapades with the ladies is all a big lie, because from where I'm sitting it appears you're pretty fond of me.

Take a break man. You need it.

[Dahoss9698]

I'm going to bed 'Mack. Big day tomorrow as I have to go to DMV and have a dentist appointment.

Can't wait to see your response in the am. Maybe PA will follow through with his threat in that locked thread and just ban one of us.

Fingers crossed..

[bigmack]

Then we'll find out your neurosis de jour.

Should I put him on iggy or take him off. Oooo, everyday is such a struggle. He upsets me so. :lol: :lol:

Nighty night, creep. Don't let the voices in your head get the best of you.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhqpc5J9LK1qe0eclo1_r28_500.gif

[PaceAdvantage]

I was under the impression that denigrating people for their job was frowned upon here.

Guess not.It is. Certain people just don't care. What should I do? Ban all of you?

[PaceAdvantage]

I think it's kind of funny that some on this board are so quick to point a finger at ALL liberals or Democrats anytime someone says something or does something perceived as wrong.

Yet in the last two days, I've seen a guy made fun of because of where he worked, another guy made fun of because he has poor eyesight and spelled a word wrong and another told that he has amounted to nothing and no one will care when he dies. What do all of these people have in common? That's right, they are one of the handful of liberals who actively participate in these discussions.

I applaud Greyfox, Tom and Boxcar (and anyone else I missed) for recognizing that some things should be out of bounds.I've stood up for mostpost when people have attacked him for where he used to work...don't I get any props bro?

And where were you when mostpost was tearing lsbets down and basically calling him a parent worthy of a visit from child protective services?

I let lsbets post the things he does about mostpost because mostpost brought this wrath upon himself with comments that were WAY below the belt...when you start talking about a man's children, all bets are off.

[PaceAdvantage]

I have to say, some of you have gone way off the reservation.

Not only is it getting well beyond boring seeing lsbets and mostpost duke it out, but bigmack vs. DaHoss earned that title even longer ago.

There's nothing I can do or say anymore that will change anything. Some people just don't give a shit and live to fight on the Internet. And the interesting thing about this is that some of the biggest names involved in this "endeavor" like to also put up the "too cool for school" shtick...

Do they not realize how ridiculous all this constant brawling truly is? On the one hand, they give off the aura that they don't care, that they don't give a shit one way or the other, and on the other hand, they're going toe-to-toe in these knock-down, drag-out brawls to the bitter end. I find it all truly laughable!

And people wonder why I am up at four in the morning... :lol:

[Dahoss9698]

It is. Certain people just don't care. What should I do? Ban all of you?

That's fine with me. I guess I'm "too cool for school" because I don't care at this point, but even you commented on the atmosphere in this room in particular the other day.

It's worse than it was the other day. It's your joint, if people don't care about the rules, enforce them how you see fit. I know you aren't afraid to ban people...so do it.

[Dahoss9698]

I've stood up for mostpost when people have attacked him for where he used to work...don't I get any props bro?

And where were you when mostpost was tearing lsbets down and basically calling him a parent worthy of a visit from child protective services?

I let lsbets post the things he does about mostpost because mostpost brought this wrath upon himself with comments that were WAY below the belt...when you start talking about a man's children, all bets are off.

I know you can read, so you understand what "and anyone else I missed" means.

But instead of getting mad because I'm pointing out things to you, look at what I said.

You'll notice I said to Lsbets that I was unaware of their history, so if his comments were provoked, I apologized.

Again, my point was more general (which Lsbets seemed to understand) and I'm sure if someone else had said it, you might understand it also.

[Dahoss9698]

I have to say, some of you have gone way off the reservation.

Not only is it getting well beyond boring seeing lsbets and mostpost duke it out, but bigmack vs. DaHoss earned that title even longer ago.

There's nothing I can do or say anymore that will change anything. Some people just don't give a shit and live to fight on the Internet. And the interesting thing about this is that some of the biggest names involved in this "endeavor" like to also put up the "too cool for school" shtick...

Do they not realize how ridiculous all this constant brawling truly is? On the one hand, they give off the aura that they don't care, that they don't give a shit one way or the other, and on the other hand, they're going toe-to-toe in these knock-down, drag-out brawls to the bitter end. I find it all truly laughable!

And people wonder why I am up at four in the morning... :lol:

It's your board and you ban anyone you want for whatever reason you want....but suddenly you're powerless, huh? That's what you're going with?

Why not just admit that you don't want to ban certain people because of their post count and you allow them to pretty much do what they want because of it?

I'm sure I'm getting close enough to pushing your buttons again to the point of earning myself another vacation and that's fine. But I don't see you really disagreeing with anything I'm saying. Just kind of excusing what everyone else does while giving me subtle shots.

Very convenient.

[sammy the sage]

It's your board ..blah, blah, blah... while giving me subtle shots.

Very convenient.

Whoa is me... :rolleyes: ...welcome to THE club... :lol:

[Tom]

Wow! Go to bed early one night and look at all I miss!
Just read the whole thread - haven't had this much fun since Roller Derby went off the air! :D

[Richie]

Yes, me and my wife can work 80 hrs a week, my 3 kids can sit home and drink, smoke weed, play video games, and eat whatever they want. When they turn 16, they don't need a job, they have me. I will get a second job to keep them going, and I will keep smiling and enabling. They can also borrow the cars whenever they want. OK :rolleyes:

[Dahoss9698]

Whoa is me... :rolleyes: ...welcome to THE club... :lol:

It's woe....not whoa. Idiot.

[Dahoss9698]

Yes, me and my wife can work 80 hrs a week, my 3 kids can sit home and drink, smoke weed, play video games, and eat whatever they want. When they turn 16, they don't need a job, they have me. I will get a second job to keep them going, and I will keep smiling and enabling. They can also borrow the cars whenever they want. OK :rolleyes:

What are you talking about?

[Greyfox]

Yes, me and my wife can work 80 hrs a week, my 3 kids can sit home and drink, smoke weed, play video games, and eat whatever they want. When they turn 16, they don't need a job, they have me. I will get a second job to keep them going, and I will keep smiling and enabling. They can also borrow the cars whenever they want. OK :rolleyes:

Where is that coming from in regards to this thread?

(If true, you and your wife need a Super Nanny , Parent Training, and assertiveness skills.)

[sammy the sage]

It's woe....not whoa. Idiot.

Woe, slow down thar Hoss...noth'n like shooting THE messenger...eh... :lol:

[FantasticDan]

Hypocrisy on parade:

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ryan-takes-factual-shortcuts-speech-070905927.html

[Greyfox]

Hypocrisy on parade:

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ryan-takes-factual-shortcuts-speech-070905927.html

The hypocrisy is the double speak that the White House is making regarding the same issues.
I'm not so sure that Mostie didn't write the following as he's been arguing this point:

"THE FACTS:. And the cuts do not affect Medicare recipients directly, but rather reduce payments to hospitals, health insurance plans and other service providers."

The fact is that you cannot cut off monies to service providers without impacting the services to Seniors.
To argue otherwise is idiotic.

Ryan was more on the mark that what that propagandist gives him credit for.

[Tom]

"THE FACTS:. And the cuts do not affect Medicare recipients directly, but rather reduce payments to hospitals, health insurance plans and other service providers."

Is idiot-boy trying to say THIS is acceptable????
You cut those things and you cut service and accessibility. Period.
No mostie-speak needed - you CUT SERVICES AND ACCESSIBILITY.

I understand libs do not understand math, society, human nature, business, or medicine, but trust me - money makes the mare go. No shoes, no shirt, no payments, no service.

[Tom]

Gosh, Dan, you really want to cite that biased article as some kind of fact?? :lol:

Joe Drape is a fairer writer than that!

[bigmack]

Hypocrisy on parade:

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ryan-takes-factual-shortcuts-speech-070905927.html
Have you seen the fact checking on BO's speeches of late?

Be bold. Post those next time.

[ArlJim78]

Hypocrisy on parade:

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ryan-takes-factual-shortcuts-speech-070905927.html
there is no bigger hypocrite than your hero. exhibit A

SelJ_u-eVR0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SelJ_u-eVR0

[Greyfox]

there is no bigger hypocrite than your hero. exhibit A

SelJ_u-eVR0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SelJ_u-eVR0

Exhibit B

He sent a form letter signed by an electric pen to the parents of former Navy Seals killed in a helicopter crash last year.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/08/obama-honored-fallen-seals-by-sending-their-parents-a-form-letter-signed-by-electric-pen/

http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/lettter-three.jpg (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/08/obama-honored-fallen-seals-by-sending-their-parents-a-form-letter-signed-by-electric-pen/lettter-three/)

[lsbets]

The fact checks have been very humorous. I've been reading the "fact checks" of the comments re the GM plant in Janesville. The fact checkers said it closed in 2008, but the plant stopped production in 2009. Good job fact checkers.

If you want to see more of how factless the fact checkers were, read here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/30/fact-checking-the-factcheckers-on-ryans-speech/?preview=true

[ArlJim78]

face it, the left is not good with facts or numbers.
they do however excel at smears and bald faced lying. so there's that.

[bigmack]

It's the same tired tale. You could drive a truck through the lies of BO/Biden but 'the press' cracks out minutia to fact check R speeches. It's called the Mostie Approach. Blind on one side and positively microscopic on the other.

[mostpost]

I've stood up for mostpost when people have attacked him for where he used to work...don't I get any props bro?

And where were you when mostpost was tearing lsbets down and basically calling him a parent worthy of a visit from child protective services?

I let lsbets post the things he does about mostpost because mostpost brought this wrath upon himself with comments that were WAY below the belt...when you start talking about a man's children, all bets are off.


If you are going to keep talking about this, I want to see the specific comments I allegedly made that are so upsetting.

[mountainman]

For the record: I've become more than disenchanted with the prez's class-warfare agenda and underhanded campaign tactics. And I think the country probably WOULD be better off with Romney in the white house-it's become painfully apparent that we're headed for the cliff if we don't tighten our belts and make tough spending cuts.

But i wager on what i think will happen, not what i hope will happen. And my take is the dem's whole "war on women" thing is working BIGtime and has stigmatized repubs to an extent difficult to overcome. And how does polling an infintesimal share of the black vote not put romney in a hole? Or netting under 1/3 of the hispanic vote (and i'd be shocked if he garners even THAT share) ? Anybody who finds those facts irrelevant needs to wake up and look around at the changing face of america. Forget that california just went white minority, and simply buy any product that comes in a box. If the hispanic instructions don't precede those in english, i'll wash and wax your car. This isn't your mom and pop's america, boys, and barack obama IS going to be reelected.

Please understand that this is only opinion, and i realize i could be mistaken. Either way, there are going to be tons of crow consumed around here in a couple of months.

[Greyfox]

This isn't your mom and pop's america, boys, and barack obama IS going to be reelected.

Please understand that this is only opinion, and i realize i could be mistaken. .

:ThmbUp: You're forecast bears repeating.
Sad but true, a man who has accomplished s.f.a. in his 4 years in office, shouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of being elected.
But unless the independents jump off of his ship, he'll have another 4 years of clear sailing.
Obama is by far the weakest President in my lifetime.

[NJ Stinks]

:ThmbUp: You're forecast bears repeating.
Sad but true, a man who has accomplished s.f.a. in his 4 years in office, shouldn't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of being elected.
But unless the independents jump off of his ship, he'll have another 4 years of clear sailing.
Obama is by far the weakest President in my lifetime.

That you can say anyone but GWB was the worst president your lifetime is stunning.

[Greyfox]

That you can say anyone but GWB was the worst president your lifetime is stunning.

I believed that too until I saw Obama and his leadership from the rear dithering.

[Tom]

That you can say anyone but GWB was the worst president your lifetime is stunning.

Then how can you support Obama, who has extended more Bush policies than he has ended?

Barrack Hussein Bush 44


:lol:

[elysiantraveller]

Then how can you support Obama, who has extended more Bush policies than he has ended?

Barrack Hussein Bush 44


:lol:

Details...

[Wagergirl]

Then how can you support Obama, who has extended more Bush policies than he has ended?

Barrack Hussein Bush 44


:lol:


That is just plain scary how well that morphs together....

[NJ Stinks]

Anybody who just saw Ryan with Bret Baier on FOX News saw another pathetic politician at work.

[bigmack]

Anybody who just saw Ryan with Bret Baier on FOX News saw another pathetic politician at work.
BO promised 100 years & did nothing after Simpson Bowles.

What do you want to whine about now?

[NJ Stinks]

BO promised 100 years & did nothing after Simpson Bowles.

What do you want to whine about now?


It's not really of any great import to many here. Ryan was asked to explain why the factcheckers were wrong.

[bigmack]

It's not really of any great import to many here. Ryan was asked to explain why the factcheckers were wrong.
No kidding. Just after that Steve Hayes & Charles Krauthummer tried to explain to those who scooped up the partyline from camp BO. Sounds like you tuned them out and bought the BO crap.

At least you're consistent.

[Tom]

Details...

GITMO
Afghanistan
Bush Tax cuts
Unauthorized attacks using drones
Wire taps and email surveilence

[Tom]

Interesting speakers tonight.
Dingy Harry "alleges" (re: LIES) that an unnamed Bane co-worker of Mitts told him Mitt paid no taxes for several years.

Tonight, ACTUAL FLESH and BLOOD PEOPLE who worked with Mitt or were part a Bane takeover all shouting the GOOD stuff done by Bane (exactly as I, a former Mitt/Bane employee! posted a few weeks ago).

Like I said, funny how the dems NEVER can produce real people to match their outlandish stories (re:LIES).

They - just - don't - get - it.

[elysiantraveller]

GITMO
Afghanistan
Bush Tax cuts
Unauthorized attacks using drones
Wire taps and email surveilence

LOL Thanks Tom...

I didn't need the list though... I was agreeing with you.

[elysiantraveller]

It's not really of any great import to many here. Ryan was asked to explain why the factcheckers were wrong.

What did he say?

The fact checkers are being very contrarian on his speech. Every one of the premises he talked about was true.

Take Simpson-Bowles for instance. Obama did order it, ignored it, and then did nothng. Paul Ryan did work on it, didn't like it, voted it down, and passed the Ryan plan instead.

It isn't some "Gotcha!" type guffaw. Democrats have been attacking the Ryan Plan for couple of weeks now.

For those Keeping Score:

Plans for the Economy/Debt

Ryan - 1
S&B - 1
Obama - 0

Just to jog your memory here is Ryan in early 2011 on the matter after being ambushed by Obama...

e-cyIlM8ZwE

That was over a year and a half ago... still no plan... some leader... :rolleyes: