Letter: Logic? Memories?

E.L. Bud Ruff, Naples

Logic? Memories?

Re: Zee Murray's June 18 letter, stating our dreadful president has now decided some illegal immigrants are not illegal enough to be deported.

Just another example of what many Republican conservatives have become — total hypocrites, with no memory of their past.

Former President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. This enabled 3 million illegal immigrants to become U.S. citizens.

Reagan stated: "I believe in amnesty for those who have put down their roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally."

Most Republican conservatives still consider Reagan their greatest conservative president.

He also bailed out some very large banks that were too big to fail with the Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1982, for $100 billion — largest in history at the time. It tripled our national debt.

He doesn't sound much like a true conservative.

From a personal standpoint, I liked and respected Reagan a great deal, but truth is in the facts.

It's amazing that the great distorters on Fox, such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, still consider Reagan their champion.

Some of these same conservatives criticize President Barack Obama daily, for most of the same things Republicans have been doing for last 30 years — running up our national debt, bailouts and stimulus money.

There seems to be no reasonable logic with Republicans and tea party members.

© 2012 Naples Daily News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 55

Superfrey writes:

How quickly the Republicans forget the facts. Nice letter!

Ironbutterfly writes:

I do remember that the 3 million illegals didn't cause much of a stir because the economy was growing. 12 to 15 million more illegals are not needed in this dismal economy.
Funny, you progressive are always looking backward, billions tripled our debt, now it's trillions and Obama owns this economy.
If Fox distorts the news, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC,and countless news media are firmly in the bag for Obama, the left has never been so uninformed because their bias has led them to lie by omission. Distortions can be brought into focus, but you can't bring something into focus if it's not there in the first place.
Get a clue and quit blaming everyone and everything BUT Obama, it's all about him. Thank God for the internet.

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

Bud,
Your analysis of your own "facts" leaves much to be desired.

By your own statements, Reagan signed laws that had been created through due process by Congress.

He wasn't declaring that he had instructed a federal agency to disregard existing laws because, well, he just doesn't like them.

Try again.

BobinNaples writes:

in response to Ironbutterfly:

I do remember that the 3 million illegals didn't cause much of a stir because the economy was growing. 12 to 15 million more illegals are not needed in this dismal economy.
Funny, you progressive are always looking backward, billions tripled our debt, now it's trillions and Obama owns this economy.
If Fox distorts the news, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC,and countless news media are firmly in the bag for Obama, the left has never been so uninformed because their bias has led them to lie by omission. Distortions can be brought into focus, but you can't bring something into focus if it's not there in the first place.
Get a clue and quit blaming everyone and everything BUT Obama, it's all about him. Thank God for the internet.

Two unnecessary wars and tax breaks for the rich are what sent the debt soaring. Guess you forgot about that too.

colinkelly2 writes:

Reagan signed into law an act passed by Congress. That's how our Constitution mandates that the Legislative and Executive branches of our government work. Obama did neither, He just decreed that something Congress had rejected was now law.
It amazes and amuses me that you cannot see the fundamental difference between the two actions, and the fundamental un-Constitutionality of what Obama did.

ChiDem writes:

in response to BobinNaples:

Two unnecessary wars and tax breaks for the rich are what sent the debt soaring. Guess you forgot about that too.

I keep hearing about the "tax breaks for the rich" from the parrots.

Will someone please tell us what these so call tax breaks for the rich are?

Explain what we forgot.

If you are parroting the "Bush Tax Cuts", at least take the time to research what you want to say.

First of all, the rich were not the largest beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts. Their taxes were cut SIGNIFICANTLY less than the taxes of those in the lowest tax brackets.

The top rate was cut by 4.6%, while the lowest bracket was split into three groups and the bottom two of those saw their taxes cut by a minimum of 5% (50%) and in many cases by as much as 18%. Those are greater cuts than any of the higher brackets, even the top bracket.

With increased values for exemptions and deductions, many in the poor and lower middle class saw much of their tax liability just eliminated COMPLETLY!!

The Bush structure has raised the standard deductions and exemptions for an individual from $7200 to $9500, protecting an additional $2300 in income, which is a big chunk for someone with a low income, and that is high enough that no one in the lowest income bracket actually has any tax liability at all. If the Bush tax cuts were repealed a significant number of the poorest workers would owe 15% on that $2300 in income. Handing people earning below the poverty level a bill for $345 would be just one of the unpleasant consequences of repealing the Bush tax cuts.

So you can't be referring to the so called "Bush Tax Cuts" as "tax cuts for the rich". It is just the opposite.

Do some more homework and try to explain what you are thinking.

By the way, the evil puppy killing baby eating rich 1% receive 19% of all income on which they pay 40% of all taxes. Is that fair? What do you think is "fair"?

Do you think 1% of the population should pay half of the money or 60% to support our country instead of 40%.

Here is another fact for blockheads out there to consider.

You are being told that the republicans are supporting the 1%. Do you really believe that Republicans are after the votes of only the 1%.

pmz writes:

Neo-republicans, under Grover Norquist, have shut down Congress. It is no longer a functioning body. Somebody has to keep government going.

Pragmatic1 writes:

One should always remember that those on the Right, including many but not all Repunlicans, only hear, see and believe what they want to.
I wonder if Faux News ever did a comparison as you did?
Nice letter.

pmz writes:

in response to ChiDem:

I keep hearing about the "tax breaks for the rich" from the parrots.

Will someone please tell us what these so call tax breaks for the rich are?

Explain what we forgot.

If you are parroting the "Bush Tax Cuts", at least take the time to research what you want to say.

First of all, the rich were not the largest beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts. Their taxes were cut SIGNIFICANTLY less than the taxes of those in the lowest tax brackets.

The top rate was cut by 4.6%, while the lowest bracket was split into three groups and the bottom two of those saw their taxes cut by a minimum of 5% (50%) and in many cases by as much as 18%. Those are greater cuts than any of the higher brackets, even the top bracket.

With increased values for exemptions and deductions, many in the poor and lower middle class saw much of their tax liability just eliminated COMPLETLY!!

The Bush structure has raised the standard deductions and exemptions for an individual from $7200 to $9500, protecting an additional $2300 in income, which is a big chunk for someone with a low income, and that is high enough that no one in the lowest income bracket actually has any tax liability at all. If the Bush tax cuts were repealed a significant number of the poorest workers would owe 15% on that $2300 in income. Handing people earning below the poverty level a bill for $345 would be just one of the unpleasant consequences of repealing the Bush tax cuts.

So you can't be referring to the so called "Bush Tax Cuts" as "tax cuts for the rich". It is just the opposite.

Do some more homework and try to explain what you are thinking.

By the way, the evil puppy killing baby eating rich 1% receive 19% of all income on which they pay 40% of all taxes. Is that fair? What do you think is "fair"?

Do you think 1% of the population should pay half of the money or 60% to support our country instead of 40%.

Here is another fact for blockheads out there to consider.

You are being told that the republicans are supporting the 1%. Do you really believe that Republicans are after the votes of only the 1%.

Tax cuts for the rich = a dozen years of taxing income from wealth at half the rate of income from work.

Well over a trillion dollars of their tax obligation sent on to future generations.

whalling writes:

The writer makes an important point, that none of us should vote for Ronald Reagan this year and I will not, and in addition there is not one shred of evidence to support a vote for Obama and he deserves no one's vote.

pmz writes:
Arushure writes:

> 3 million illegals didn't cause much of a stir because the economy was growing

In fact, the growth rate was falling from over 3% to 1.9% in the latter part of 1986, when the immigration act was passed and signed, and the latest growth now is . . . 1.9%.

Besides, the "stir" caused by migrant labor has no correlation with the real reasons behind the economic crisis. The crisis followed the collapse of credit markets, and guys picking fruits at slave wages weren't responsible for the shenanigans on Wall Street.

Dividing people against each other is an ancient tactic and it's sad to see how the stupidity supply is so abundant that it still works.

ChiDem writes:

in response to pmz:

Tax cuts for the rich = a dozen years of taxing income from wealth at half the rate of income from work.

Well over a trillion dollars of their tax obligation sent on to future generations.

When is the last time you offered proof from a reliable source for your babble.

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962

A little history shows that raising taxes on the wealthy produces less revenues. When Harding/Coolidge lowered taxes in the mid 20’s he went from 11% unemployment to 3.5% and went from 700 million to over 1 billion in revenues.

Hoover and FDR raised the tax rates and by 1935 they were doubled and the revenues went from over 1 billion to a mere 500 million.

Combine the tax rate deductions that produced the same results of the above like JFK, Reagan and Bush with spending cuts and we will get deficit reductions in the name of growth, not stealing the work product of Americans.

People can and do change their economic activities as tax rates go up and down.

By law the White House, the Congress and the Congressional Budget Office must consider the affects of all tax increases or decreases on a STATIC basis; in other words, they are not allowed to consider the possibility that some are going to change their behavior based on changes in our tax structure. This is simply absurd. Every person with a child knows that you get more of the behavior that you reward and less of the behavior that you punish. When the reward for hard work and economic activity goes up, people work harder and are more active in the marketplace. When the reward goes down. Human nature, folks. You can’t fight it.

The top 1% of income earners in this country right now earn about 19% of the total income. So if they earn 19% of the total income, and you’re all for everyone paying their fair share, what percentage of income taxes collected by the government do you think these horrible rich people should pay? Fact is, they pay about 40%. If you don’t think that’s a fair burden, then why don’t you share the proper figure with the rest of us?

All you need to know to understand that the politics being played by Obama here is just good old fashioned class warfare is to remember that on the one hand Obama is talking about raising taxes on those households earning over $250K per year, while on the other hand he and his socialist buddies refer to this group as “millionaires and billionaires.” There is no logic in his words ... only a desire to exploit jealousy and envy.

These evil rich with the 19% of the income also do a larger chunk of the SPENDING in the private sector. That spending produces ???????? Jobs!!! When Obama takes that money, his spending will produce ????????? Votes!!

People are not as dumb as politicians think they are, right? Yet you manage to parrot their talking points.

Remember, RELIABLE sources.

nstinks writes:

Obama said in 2007, “I think we will determine over the next several weeks how this administration (President Bush) responds to the very appropriate call by Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to have these individuals come in and testify. There‘s been a tendency on the part of this administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there’s something a little shaky that’s taken place. I think the administration would be best served by coming clean on this. I think the American people deserve to know what was going on.”

Yes.........the hypocrisy is stunning!

Read more about Democrat hypocrisy on the new Naples Tea Party Blog entry........."Obama’s Pattern of Defiance."

http://www.naplesnews.com/blogs/naple...

ChiDem writes:

in response to pmz:

More bad news ChiDim.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...

Why is it that socialists yell "No one should have this much money"

Capitalists yell "Everyone should be able to have this much money!!!!!"

But then, if more people achieved the American Dream, there would be less votes for dependency orientated Democratic Socialists, would there.

Of course, by controlling an already failing government run education system, Democratic Socialists can reduce the number of achievers and teach dependency.

Is that what you want for your children and grand children? That will blend nicely with their government controlled health care.

Bad Grandpa.

whalling writes:

The Attorney General is supposed to protect the President from legal pitfalls but now Holder has drawn Obama into a fight with Congress by invoking executive privilege to withhold documents. This raises new questions. Did White House officials know and approve Fast and Furious before it went awry, and did they advise the Justice Department on how to respond to Congress's investigation into the operation's failure? How can Obama invoke a privilege to protect documents he and the White House are supposed to have had nothing to do with? And what is so damaging or embarrassing in those documents that Obama is now willing to invest his own political capital to protect it from disclosure—at least until after the election? These document fights are usually settled politically. A committee voted 23-17 Wednesday to hold Holder in contempt, and if the entire House follows, the matter will be referred to a U.S. Attorney who works for Holder, who will no doubt tell him not to prosecute. If Holder and Obama are prosecuted Obama will pardon both during his next term if elected or during his last day in office if not elected. Meanwhile, the American people can reach their own conclusions about Holder's credibility. His privilege claims make him and Obama very hard to believe.

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to colinkelly2:

Reagan signed into law an act passed by Congress. That's how our Constitution mandates that the Legislative and Executive branches of our government work. Obama did neither, He just decreed that something Congress had rejected was now law.
It amazes and amuses me that you cannot see the fundamental difference between the two actions, and the fundamental un-Constitutionality of what Obama did.

You're amazed?
You're amazed because you think President Obama, "decreed," "something Congress had rejected."

He didn't.

You're amazed that what you think President Obama did was unconstitutional. He didn't.
President Obama has a Law Degree form Harvard University, the 2nd most prestigious school in the world. He taught Constitutional Law at University of Illinois at Chicago, the 9th most prestigious school in the world. Anyone can say what he did was unconsitutional. Or write the lie.

What are your qualifications to write what he did was unconstitutional?
He wrote an executive order, just like past Presidents. Can you show us it was unconstitutional?

pmz writes:

in response to ChiDem:

When is the last time you offered proof from a reliable source for your babble.

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962

A little history shows that raising taxes on the wealthy produces less revenues. When Harding/Coolidge lowered taxes in the mid 20’s he went from 11% unemployment to 3.5% and went from 700 million to over 1 billion in revenues.

Hoover and FDR raised the tax rates and by 1935 they were doubled and the revenues went from over 1 billion to a mere 500 million.

Combine the tax rate deductions that produced the same results of the above like JFK, Reagan and Bush with spending cuts and we will get deficit reductions in the name of growth, not stealing the work product of Americans.

People can and do change their economic activities as tax rates go up and down.

By law the White House, the Congress and the Congressional Budget Office must consider the affects of all tax increases or decreases on a STATIC basis; in other words, they are not allowed to consider the possibility that some are going to change their behavior based on changes in our tax structure. This is simply absurd. Every person with a child knows that you get more of the behavior that you reward and less of the behavior that you punish. When the reward for hard work and economic activity goes up, people work harder and are more active in the marketplace. When the reward goes down. Human nature, folks. You can’t fight it.

The top 1% of income earners in this country right now earn about 19% of the total income. So if they earn 19% of the total income, and you’re all for everyone paying their fair share, what percentage of income taxes collected by the government do you think these horrible rich people should pay? Fact is, they pay about 40%. If you don’t think that’s a fair burden, then why don’t you share the proper figure with the rest of us?

All you need to know to understand that the politics being played by Obama here is just good old fashioned class warfare is to remember that on the one hand Obama is talking about raising taxes on those households earning over $250K per year, while on the other hand he and his socialist buddies refer to this group as “millionaires and billionaires.” There is no logic in his words ... only a desire to exploit jealousy and envy.

These evil rich with the 19% of the income also do a larger chunk of the SPENDING in the private sector. That spending produces ???????? Jobs!!! When Obama takes that money, his spending will produce ????????? Votes!!

People are not as dumb as politicians think they are, right? Yet you manage to parrot their talking points.

Remember, RELIABLE sources.

We are now $16T in debt due to the myth that "that raising taxes on the wealthy produces less revenues."

Yet the idea of the rich getting richer, when in fact that is the story of the last 30 years, is so compelling to the more for me, less for you crowd, that it's their crack cocaine.

Here's one of their number who somehow eluded the myth that what's good for me is good for everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5...

One of the reasons that neo-republican suckers fall for that myth every time that it's presented is, first that they want to believe that it's true, but they are not smart enough to realize that correlation doesn't prove causation.

The fact is that a few Presidents were lucky enough to allow major innovation expansion of the economy allow them to cut taxes and raise revenue. Bush is one that hoped for that luck, got reality instead, and the debt meter has been pegged ever since.

Until Rush robbed us culturally of our intelligence by selling the idea that's what is good for him is good for everybody, we in business knew that our economy is based on three elements. Innovation, workers, customers. Every time in our history when there's been major innovation, workers started producing, then went out and with the money they made for producing, bought.

The middle class is the entire equation.

But, the Rushpuppies, suckers that they are, fell for, look at Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, they are wealthy and the companies that they created create jobs. Right. After they started in the middle class and came up with innovative solutions to middle class problems.

The fact that ChiDim is both self serving enough to only care about his wallet, not the future of the rest of the country, and that overrides any functional intelligence that he may or may not have, he follows neo-republican dogma to the letter, unthinkingly. If it were only him that would be a problem for his parents, not the rest of us. But there are millions of Rushpuppies. And their blindly self serving lies have polluted our entire political system.

We sit here $16T in debt, 8% short of keeping the most productive workers on the planet fully engaged, Trying to wrap up the final of Bush's wars, wondering if we can afford health care that most of our competition take for granted, with Congress out for lunch for the last two years, and ChiDim is still whining that he's entitled to more. And more. And more.

It's a sickening threat to the American dream.

pmz writes:

in response to ChiDem:

Why is it that socialists yell "No one should have this much money"

Capitalists yell "Everyone should be able to have this much money!!!!!"

But then, if more people achieved the American Dream, there would be less votes for dependency orientated Democratic Socialists, would there.

Of course, by controlling an already failing government run education system, Democratic Socialists can reduce the number of achievers and teach dependency.

Is that what you want for your children and grand children? That will blend nicely with their government controlled health care.

Bad Grandpa.

How can you look at data that unequivocally proves that neo-republicanism is enriching the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else, and scream that you are entitled to more, and more, and more?

At what point will you admit to the total and complete failure of all of the snake oil you've been programmed to sell for years?

I can picture you on the endless landfill that used to be America, crying that we didn't give you enough. Rush promised you more.

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to ChiDem:

When is the last time you offered proof from a reliable source for your babble.

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962

A little history shows that raising taxes on the wealthy produces less revenues. When Harding/Coolidge lowered taxes in the mid 20’s he went from 11% unemployment to 3.5% and went from 700 million to over 1 billion in revenues.

Hoover and FDR raised the tax rates and by 1935 they were doubled and the revenues went from over 1 billion to a mere 500 million.

Combine the tax rate deductions that produced the same results of the above like JFK, Reagan and Bush with spending cuts and we will get deficit reductions in the name of growth, not stealing the work product of Americans.

People can and do change their economic activities as tax rates go up and down.

By law the White House, the Congress and the Congressional Budget Office must consider the affects of all tax increases or decreases on a STATIC basis; in other words, they are not allowed to consider the possibility that some are going to change their behavior based on changes in our tax structure. This is simply absurd. Every person with a child knows that you get more of the behavior that you reward and less of the behavior that you punish. When the reward for hard work and economic activity goes up, people work harder and are more active in the marketplace. When the reward goes down. Human nature, folks. You can’t fight it.

The top 1% of income earners in this country right now earn about 19% of the total income. So if they earn 19% of the total income, and you’re all for everyone paying their fair share, what percentage of income taxes collected by the government do you think these horrible rich people should pay? Fact is, they pay about 40%. If you don’t think that’s a fair burden, then why don’t you share the proper figure with the rest of us?

All you need to know to understand that the politics being played by Obama here is just good old fashioned class warfare is to remember that on the one hand Obama is talking about raising taxes on those households earning over $250K per year, while on the other hand he and his socialist buddies refer to this group as “millionaires and billionaires.” There is no logic in his words ... only a desire to exploit jealousy and envy.

These evil rich with the 19% of the income also do a larger chunk of the SPENDING in the private sector. That spending produces ???????? Jobs!!! When Obama takes that money, his spending will produce ????????? Votes!!

People are not as dumb as politicians think they are, right? Yet you manage to parrot their talking points.

Remember, RELIABLE sources.

A little history shows a significant increase in unemployment from the time the, "rich," were given there taxcuts through the extension of those taxcuts. An increase from 4.6% in 2006 to over 9% in 2009. The increase was stopped by President Obama to less than one percentage point after he took office.

I also very sneaky to mention percentages and not mention that the wealth of the U.S. is finite.
The amount of money that it takes to exist in this country with the essentials, food, clothing, and shelter, varies slihtly from area to area. Still, the poverty level increased after Bush tax cuts to 14%.

Taxes are to pay our bills. More personal income? More taxes. We owe a lot of money, apparently, as people keep reminding us.
What is your 4 year plan to pay the bills?

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to whalling:

The Attorney General is supposed to protect the President from legal pitfalls but now Holder has drawn Obama into a fight with Congress by invoking executive privilege to withhold documents. This raises new questions. Did White House officials know and approve Fast and Furious before it went awry, and did they advise the Justice Department on how to respond to Congress's investigation into the operation's failure? How can Obama invoke a privilege to protect documents he and the White House are supposed to have had nothing to do with? And what is so damaging or embarrassing in those documents that Obama is now willing to invest his own political capital to protect it from disclosure—at least until after the election? These document fights are usually settled politically. A committee voted 23-17 Wednesday to hold Holder in contempt, and if the entire House follows, the matter will be referred to a U.S. Attorney who works for Holder, who will no doubt tell him not to prosecute. If Holder and Obama are prosecuted Obama will pardon both during his next term if elected or during his last day in office if not elected. Meanwhile, the American people can reach their own conclusions about Holder's credibility. His privilege claims make him and Obama very hard to believe.

FYI-
Don't read your posts.
You constantly copy and paste from the extreme rightwing neocon sites under an assumed name.
What do you think you are going to accomplish?

whalling writes:

Remember a week or two ago, when President Obama was claiming to be a fiscal skinflint because some online columnist said so? That was fun. Recently, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report. The CBO's long-term budget outlook notes that federal debt held by the public—the kind we have to pay back—will surge to 70% of the economy by the end of this year. That's the highest share of GDP in U.S. history except World War II, higher than during the Civil War or World War I. It's also way up from 40% in 2008 and from the 40-year average of 38%. The Obama era is taking America to a place it has never been. Inside of a decade the country will have a debt-to-GDP ratio well into the 90% to 100% danger zone where economists say the economy begins to slow and risks mount. CBO notes that this level of debt increases the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its budget and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates. Of course, these forward looking statements are based on continuance of the same policies, that is the Obama policies. The one way to stop this terrible progression toward the cliff is to stop Obama from holding the presidency, otherwise, nothing will change.

swampfox writes:

in response to BobinNaples:

Two unnecessary wars and tax breaks for the rich are what sent the debt soaring. Guess you forgot about that too.

One of your two brain cells are not firing Boob. The debt went soaring because government spent too much. The problem started with progressive thinking in The Great Society Program. First time in history banks were told to lend money to those at high risk or risk being labeled as racist. As the years went on, this progressive policy blossomed with the help of Barney Frank,into the economy killer we have today. This was all part of a plan to bring the country to its knees.
I remember when Bush came into office, there was a tech bubble only months into his first year. Bush Policy didn't go into effect until the following year. The tech bubble grew under Clinton, who by the way got to bask in the good times because of Reaganomics. Following Enron and the tech bubble, 9/11 also happened in Bush's first year. Terrorism was not a concern of Clintons, so policy was lacking. Clinton downsized our security and military which Bush needed billions to "boot up" again and fight a new kind of war.

Two disasters in his first year! When people fled the stockmarket after the tech bubble, they jumped into the next big gamble, housing. Banks figured out early on that the risk of loaning to the unworthy was going to be a problem. They began to bundle these bad mortgages and sell them off. Pensions rose and so did the stock market. Fish were caught left and right in the smoke and magic that everyone thought was a sure thing. Gamblers all of them! This is what caused the problem, The Great Society Program.

The only thing that can save America is if we take our faith away from the government and put it back in the hands of God. Man is inherently evil.

Arushure writes:

> Why is it that socialists yell "No one should have this much money"
> Capitalists yell "Everyone should be able to have this much money!!!!!"

JUST THE OPPOSITE!!!
The tea idiots are complaining that public servants have decent health and pension benefits, but instead of demanding that other workers get the same basics, these masochists want to drag everybody to the bottom.

Arushure writes:

> [Obama] taught Constitutional Law at University of Illinois at Chicago

Actually, it was at the University of Chicago.

pmz writes:

Clearly neo-republicans are not about politics. They're not about America. They're not about the future.

They are about more for them, don't care if that means less for others. Others today or others tomorrow.

They remind me of Willy Sutton saying that he robs banks 'cause that's where the money is.

The middle class is where the money of America used to be. They've been successful in moving it all towards the wealthy, but there is still some left to harvest. So, their work is not done. "More" is not a destination, it's a never ending journey.

Scarcity thinking means that you never have enough.

swampfox writes:

Eric Holder sent all of those guns to Mexico. The only rational explaination I could accept would be, if by doing so, one cartel would eventually wipe out the others. This in effect would be a seven headed dragon with only one head left. Much easier to kill a one headed dragon. However, I can't give this Black Panther that much credit. His and Obomas goal is to "kill the blue eyed white devils".

pmz writes:

Remember, when the wealthy tell the middle class to "eat cake when you run out of bread" the correct response back is to tell them to "eat money, because that is all that you know how to make".

pmz writes:

in response to swampfox:

Eric Holder sent all of those guns to Mexico. The only rational explaination I could accept would be, if by doing so, one cartel would eventually wipe out the others. This in effect would be a seven headed dragon with only one head left. Much easier to kill a one headed dragon. However, I can't give this Black Panther that much credit. His and Obomas goal is to "kill the blue eyed white devils".

Why were you cheering when Alberto Gonzales did the same thing?

lb5361 writes:

in response to MiguelSangria:

You're amazed?
You're amazed because you think President Obama, "decreed," "something Congress had rejected."

He didn't.

You're amazed that what you think President Obama did was unconstitutional. He didn't.
President Obama has a Law Degree form Harvard University, the 2nd most prestigious school in the world. He taught Constitutional Law at University of Illinois at Chicago, the 9th most prestigious school in the world. Anyone can say what he did was unconsitutional. Or write the lie.

What are your qualifications to write what he did was unconstitutional?
He wrote an executive order, just like past Presidents. Can you show us it was unconstitutional?

Don't even try to explain facts and reality to these tea people ditto heads. It's like holy water or sunlight to a vampire. Bush & Company shredded the Constitution every which way to Sunday. So now the tea people, via FukNews, think Bush was operating lawfully in all he did, and Obama is wrong and unconstitutional. Here is a good rule to live by in these frustrating times. Whatever the tea people and FukNews are touting, the opposite is the reality and the fact. They are living in a parallel universe where up is down and down is up. You know, just like "Greed is good". Sheesh.

lb5361 writes:

in response to swampfox:

One of your two brain cells are not firing Boob. The debt went soaring because government spent too much. The problem started with progressive thinking in The Great Society Program. First time in history banks were told to lend money to those at high risk or risk being labeled as racist. As the years went on, this progressive policy blossomed with the help of Barney Frank,into the economy killer we have today. This was all part of a plan to bring the country to its knees.
I remember when Bush came into office, there was a tech bubble only months into his first year. Bush Policy didn't go into effect until the following year. The tech bubble grew under Clinton, who by the way got to bask in the good times because of Reaganomics. Following Enron and the tech bubble, 9/11 also happened in Bush's first year. Terrorism was not a concern of Clintons, so policy was lacking. Clinton downsized our security and military which Bush needed billions to "boot up" again and fight a new kind of war.

Two disasters in his first year! When people fled the stockmarket after the tech bubble, they jumped into the next big gamble, housing. Banks figured out early on that the risk of loaning to the unworthy was going to be a problem. They began to bundle these bad mortgages and sell them off. Pensions rose and so did the stock market. Fish were caught left and right in the smoke and magic that everyone thought was a sure thing. Gamblers all of them! This is what caused the problem, The Great Society Program.

The only thing that can save America is if we take our faith away from the government and put it back in the hands of God. Man is inherently evil.

This comment is an absolute PERFECT example of what happens when all you watch is FukNews for your information with a lil' Rushbo and Hannity thrown in for good measure. More proof of the parallel universe they live in.

God indeed.

ChiDem writes:

in response to pmz:

We are now $16T in debt due to the myth that "that raising taxes on the wealthy produces less revenues."

Yet the idea of the rich getting richer, when in fact that is the story of the last 30 years, is so compelling to the more for me, less for you crowd, that it's their crack cocaine.

Here's one of their number who somehow eluded the myth that what's good for me is good for everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5...

One of the reasons that neo-republican suckers fall for that myth every time that it's presented is, first that they want to believe that it's true, but they are not smart enough to realize that correlation doesn't prove causation.

The fact is that a few Presidents were lucky enough to allow major innovation expansion of the economy allow them to cut taxes and raise revenue. Bush is one that hoped for that luck, got reality instead, and the debt meter has been pegged ever since.

Until Rush robbed us culturally of our intelligence by selling the idea that's what is good for him is good for everybody, we in business knew that our economy is based on three elements. Innovation, workers, customers. Every time in our history when there's been major innovation, workers started producing, then went out and with the money they made for producing, bought.

The middle class is the entire equation.

But, the Rushpuppies, suckers that they are, fell for, look at Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, they are wealthy and the companies that they created create jobs. Right. After they started in the middle class and came up with innovative solutions to middle class problems.

The fact that ChiDim is both self serving enough to only care about his wallet, not the future of the rest of the country, and that overrides any functional intelligence that he may or may not have, he follows neo-republican dogma to the letter, unthinkingly. If it were only him that would be a problem for his parents, not the rest of us. But there are millions of Rushpuppies. And their blindly self serving lies have polluted our entire political system.

We sit here $16T in debt, 8% short of keeping the most productive workers on the planet fully engaged, Trying to wrap up the final of Bush's wars, wondering if we can afford health care that most of our competition take for granted, with Congress out for lunch for the last two years, and ChiDim is still whining that he's entitled to more. And more. And more.

It's a sickening threat to the American dream.

I'll ask the question again.

When is the last time you offered proof from a reliable source for your babble?

Do you ever plan to offer proof from a reliable source.

Simple question.

We have already proven, from reliable sources (government sites), that under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush, tax REVENUES increased with tax reductions.

And then there is the massive 1920 18 MONTH depression and the 1929 19 YEAR depression, with supporting facts from Obama's first Chief Economic Adviser for 1920 and FDR's Treasury Secretary for 1929.

pmz writes:

in response to ChiDem:

I'll ask the question again.

When is the last time you offered proof from a reliable source for your babble?

Do you ever plan to offer proof from a reliable source.

Simple question.

We have already proven, from reliable sources (government sites), that under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush, tax REVENUES increased with tax reductions.

And then there is the massive 1920 18 MONTH depression and the 1929 19 YEAR depression, with supporting facts from Obama's first Chief Economic Adviser for 1920 and FDR's Treasury Secretary for 1929.

One of the scotomas in neo-republican thinking is that the fact that two things that might happen near the same time, some of the time, is proof that one (the one of their choice) caused the other.

Think a little. Do you really believe that macroeconomics is a one variable process? That the only thing that the economic output of a country is dependent on is tax policy?

I'd have to say that is unbelievable.

You seem to think that I am obligated to educate you on some pretty simple stuff. Like capital gains tax rates from the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts compared to rates for earned income.

I've assumed that you are at least capable of knowing that without me. But if I'm mistaken, let me know and I'll post proof.

pmz writes:

"We have already proven, from reliable sources (government sites), that under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush, tax REVENUES increased with tax reductions."

Where is your proof that in those situations the economy expanding under innovation did not permit or cause the tax rate reductions but increased revenue?

As Nick Hanauer says, if your thesis is correct, after the Bush tax reductions more than a decade ago we should be drowning in jobs now. Last I checked, that's not the case.

ChiDem writes:

in response to pmz:

One of the scotomas in neo-republican thinking is that the fact that two things that might happen near the same time, some of the time, is proof that one (the one of their choice) caused the other.

Think a little. Do you really believe that macroeconomics is a one variable process? That the only thing that the economic output of a country is dependent on is tax policy?

I'd have to say that is unbelievable.

You seem to think that I am obligated to educate you on some pretty simple stuff. Like capital gains tax rates from the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax Cuts compared to rates for earned income.

I've assumed that you are at least capable of knowing that without me. But if I'm mistaken, let me know and I'll post proof.

Trying to say something without proof again?

But lets do your "proof" with Kennedy and Reagan. Not the time period where we were slowing down damage and beginning to recover from the Dot.com bubble burst. Are you that ignorant that you would believe that would be some kind of "proof"?

Government web site have revenue figures. Look at them before you begin your babble..

swampfox writes:

in response to lb5361:

This comment is an absolute PERFECT example of what happens when all you watch is FukNews for your information with a lil' Rushbo and Hannity thrown in for good measure. More proof of the parallel universe they live in.

God indeed.

What the truth? Didn't come from Fox news. I remember most of this, what I don't was explained to me by my father. As soon as they announced the Great Society Program, my Dad predicted that this is where we would end up. The only thing he didn't know is how long it would take to get here. We saw the housing bubble approaching. It was not hard to figure out in 2001 that it couldn't go on for ever. It was unnatural for people to be buying houses the way they were, especially with no money down.

I was raised to not buy something unless you had the money to pay for it. Modesty is something lost on this country now.

Live within your means? Who does that anymore? He has this, he has that, I want, I want, ga ga ga!. Only a dingaling depends on government to live their life for them!

swampfox writes:

in response to Arushure:

> Why is it that socialists yell "No one should have this much money"
> Capitalists yell "Everyone should be able to have this much money!!!!!"

JUST THE OPPOSITE!!!
The tea idiots are complaining that public servants have decent health and pension benefits, but instead of demanding that other workers get the same basics, these masochists want to drag everybody to the bottom.

They are not servants, servants don't get paid. The people you are refering to are compensated double what the average American makes.

Arushure writes:

> servants don't get paid. The people you are refering to are compensated double what the average American makes.

Why do you behave like an idiot?

1) Servants do get paid. Just try to hire one.

2) Your compensation figure is totally invented.

3) Thank you for proving my point about your ilk wanting everybody to dive for the bottom.

pmz writes:

in response to swampfox:

What the truth? Didn't come from Fox news. I remember most of this, what I don't was explained to me by my father. As soon as they announced the Great Society Program, my Dad predicted that this is where we would end up. The only thing he didn't know is how long it would take to get here. We saw the housing bubble approaching. It was not hard to figure out in 2001 that it couldn't go on for ever. It was unnatural for people to be buying houses the way they were, especially with no money down.

I was raised to not buy something unless you had the money to pay for it. Modesty is something lost on this country now.

Live within your means? Who does that anymore? He has this, he has that, I want, I want, ga ga ga!. Only a dingaling depends on government to live their life for them!

Your Dad gave you good advice. Except for cause.

Remember Clinton? Remember what he gave to Bush. The debt reasonable and being paid down. Peace in the world. The WTC still standing. The economy humming along. Congress in session and functional. Progress on energy and eduction and the environment.

Remember what Bush gave Obama? Two wars, a skyrocketing debt along with a debilitated economy. Holes in the ground where the WTC once stood as a proud symbol of the American way. Zero progress on education, energy and the environment (except for No Child Left Behind which everybody agreed was a huge waste). An American political party publicly dedicated to the failure of the Presidency and the country. Grover Norquist actually getting congressmen to pledge in public and in writing to put his needs ahead of their constituents.

Now you are saying that after four years Obama has not made rapid enough progress undoing the damage. That we should go "back to Bush" in the person of Mitt Romney.

Are you nuts? Do you think that we are? The only thing that has kept the neo-republican mob from being forever banished to hell is their 24/7/365 propaganda ministry forever broadcasting negative campaign ads.

Maybe Daddy was smart, but that certainly missed your generation.

pmz writes:

in response to ChiDem:

Trying to say something without proof again?

But lets do your "proof" with Kennedy and Reagan. Not the time period where we were slowing down damage and beginning to recover from the Dot.com bubble burst. Are you that ignorant that you would believe that would be some kind of "proof"?

Government web site have revenue figures. Look at them before you begin your babble..

Correlation does not indicate cause. Even on government web sites.

You are apparently not smart or educated enough to live in the modern world. You prove that every day here. It's not necessary for me to provide additional evidence.

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to Arushure:

> [Obama] taught Constitutional Law at University of Illinois at Chicago

Actually, it was at the University of Chicago.

You are correct!

They are only a couple of miles apart.

Arushure writes:

> They are only a couple of miles apart.

Some would say light years.

The trouble is that the University of Chicago gave us both the economic and legal conservatism that are strangling us today.

pmz writes:

in response to SoldierStrong:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Keep that head right inside the dark place.

pmz writes:

in response to SoldierStrong:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Are you claiming that correlation does prove cause?

pmz writes:

in response to SoldierStrong:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

"the DEBT soared because of foreclosures..."

Had Clinton taken out a mortgage on the US?

All that Clinton signed was prohibition of "red lining". Of course, you would have been in favor of that.

ruf462 writes:

in response to pmz:

Are you claiming that correlation does prove cause?

You obviously liked my point from yesterday. So much so, that you've paraphrased it twice today.

BTW, do you know when the correct answer is "Yes"?

Arushure writes:

> the DEBT soared because of foreclosures...

I'm curious. Please explain how the national debt soared because of foreclosures on house loans.

FloridaVoter writes:

in response to trader9:

Bud,
Your analysis of your own "facts" leaves much to be desired.

By your own statements, Reagan signed laws that had been created through due process by Congress.

He wasn't declaring that he had instructed a federal agency to disregard existing laws because, well, he just doesn't like them.

Try again.

That's because some radical minority had not yet discovered the "filibuster" as a tool to counteract democracy.
The Dream Act had a majority in both houses until some radicals made it fail.
Another "forgotten" (or repressed) fact.

trader9 (Inactive) writes:

in response to FloridaVoter:

That's because some radical minority had not yet discovered the "filibuster" as a tool to counteract democracy.
The Dream Act had a majority in both houses until some radicals made it fail.
Another "forgotten" (or repressed) fact.

Don't ya' hate it when the process just works and let's everyone have their say?

Like the "good guys" never applied the same darn "procedure" in the past, eh? I guess it was just O.K. by you then though?

Can't have your cake and eat it too. Radical minorities can be managed if the rest of the folks choose to.

Gosh darn it! Hypocrites can be so entertaining.

MiguelSangria writes:

in response to SoldierStrong:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

The banks are paying off their bailout.
Do some research.

The United States has had a public debt since its founding in 1791. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation amounted to $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791.

About 15 trillion is the total of the Federal and the public debt, combined. China holds about 1/15th of the Treasury securities.

The bailout of the banks in 2008 was rather miniscule. The actual bailout of banks in TARP was only actually part of a 12 Trillion dollar Federal support for the economy. This was intitiated by Bush in 2008.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/...

The foreclosures and bad loans you think are a large part of the debt are not due to people's inabitlity to pay their mortgage. Over 60% of the people walked away from their investments when the real estate bubble burst and their investments exceeded the worth of the houses and real estate they purchased on credit.

Examples of this are found in Collier County. Over 3,000 empty homes owned now by banks that would have resorted to lost capital and insurance claims. Freddie and Fannie Mae insurance coverage? $400 billion went to them to cover those losses.

Total money out for the TARP is about $600 billion.
$308 billion has been returned.
AND the Treasury earned about $82 billion on it.
About 212 billion is left to be repaid.

As for your insults to our President over the debt, jagged?
Your ignorance shown here requires all of our pity, and we consider you quite precious...

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features