To a Liberal, Taxation Is About “Fairness”

If you try engaging in a conversation about taxes with a liberal, you can expect for your conversation to last less than one minute.  This is because the only argument that liberals have about raising taxes is “fairness”.

I just can’t shake this idea that the purpose of taxation is to raise the revenue that is needed to fund the essential and constitutionally appropriate functions of government.  The looting left goes much further with this.  They view the power to tax – the power to seize property from an individual citizen at the point of a gun – as the power to reorder a free society to their ideas and desires.  This is why these social engineers will always start bleating about “fairness” When “progressives” (liberals afraid to call themselves “liberals”) start talking about “fairness”, what small chance you had for a rational discussion is gone, finished and out the window.

Two points:

#1: What is considered “fair” and who gets to define it? 

What would you consider fair?  Most liberals cannot tell you how much the evil rich earn compared to what they pay in taxes.  The answer, by the way, is that the top 1% of taxpayers earn about 20% of the income, yet they pay close to 40% in taxes.  Doesn’t matter.  To your friendly neighborhood “progressive”, that just isn’t enough.  And the fact that almost 51% of wage earners pay no federal income taxes at all?  Is this considered fair?  Should these people be getting a completely free ride?  A liberal will probably stutter and stammer and try to avoid answering the question.  So you give them a break.  “Progressives” also can’t give you specific number on how much the evil rich need to pay in order for our tax system to be fair.  They are just certain that it is more than they’re paying now.  And never forget — it is not for you to determine just how much money you can earn and keep.  That’s up to the government.  Remember that is was our Dear Ruler who said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

During obAMATEUR’s press conference earlier in the week, we heard one of the most absurd and dangerous quotes I’ve ever heard from a president.  Here’s the quote:

I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.

Asked to do nothing?  Oh .. I see.  So we’re all supposed to be sitting around just waiting for our orders from the Imperial Federal Government.  “What do you want me to do today, Dear Ruler?”  The fact is that the best thing any citizen can do is to strive to be a self-reliant and independent citizen who is NOT running to the federal government for help every day of their life.

But let’s discuss this “I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need.”    “ABLE TO KEEP?”  Are you kidding me?  That amazing statement belies a belief that everything obAMATEUR – or any other citizen earns for that matter – actually belongs to the government, and it is the political class and government bureaucrats who will decide just how much of those earnings each individual will be “ABLE TO KEEP”.  It is these looters’ belief that your wealth is to be determined by government, not by your own initiative, hard work and good decision-making.  Consider the “DON’T NEED” part of obAMATEUR’s statement.  WHO gets to decide how much of what you earn you “NEED”?  Can anyone make that choice except you?  Well, not in a free society.  But this is the obAMATEUR Society, where government knows how much you have earned, then decides what you “NEED” and then determines what you will be “ABLE TO KEEP”.

Karl Marx would be so proud of Barack Obama.  While obAMATEUR is not a true Marxist, he has Marxist beliefs and leanings.  (The drones will latch on to this one!!! …and ignore everything else.)

#2: Increasing taxes does not mean increasing revenue. 

And the converse is true as well; decreasing taxes does not necessarily mean a decrease in revenue.  The history books show countless examples of tax revenues increasing when tax rates decline (Kennedy did it).   Let’s just take the Bush tax cuts as an example.  These liberals love to scream aboutthe Bush tax cuts costing us billions of dollars!  The fact is that revenues actually increased after the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003.  The Heritage Foundation has the facts: “Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages.  The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965-1967.”  On a more macro scale, “Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92 percent to 35 percent, and tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining constant as a percent of GDP.”  In other words, revenues are not about increasing tax rates … they are about economic growth: producing more and/or creating new tax payers.  Here are some more historical examples for your liberal drones to consider (if they have the courage).  Or even take capital gains taxes.  Historically, as capital gains tax rates dropped, revenues from the tax increased?  Conversely, in the 1980s when the rate was increased to 28%, revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?  Oh wait!! Somebody did ask this question.  It was Charlie Gibson, who asked that question to Barack Obama in 2008.  Barack Obama’s response: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of FAIRNESS.”

You can’t argue with logic like that.

Advertisements

59 thoughts on “To a Liberal, Taxation Is About “Fairness”

  1. Green Mountain Boy July 16, 2011 / 7:37 am

    I have asked repeatedly to the libs around here just how much of my money is thier “fair share”. So far I have recieved no answer. Thomas, Vandregg, casper, monty, any of you care to answer this one small question?

  2. RetiredSpook July 16, 2011 / 9:26 am

    I’m going to play devil’s advocate here and beat our resident Lefties to the punch.

    But, but, but, but Reagan RAISED taxes 11 times.

    Reagan did sign tax reform legislation that tightened the tax code, and reduced or eliminated a number of deductions and loopholes, but his own advisers have said that he did not initiate the legislation, and he signed it reluctantly. And who controlled the Congress that initiated all that tax reform legislation? Democrats. The closest thing to actually being complicit in raising taxes was the bipartisan agreement Reagan signed to gradually begin raising the earnings cap on which FICA was withheld, an agreement, BTW, that made Social Security solvent for 3 more decades. Someone please make the argument for me that Reagan should have vetoed that legislation.

    The fact remains that the top marginal tax rate during Reagan’s 2 terms was reduced from 70% to 28% and tax revenues went up — dramatically.

    I’d also like any or all of our resident Libs to answer two simple questions. If you had the power to establish a maximum national income, what would it be, and why? And, what would be your top marginal tax rate? OK, technically 3 questions.

    • neocon1 July 16, 2011 / 9:49 am

      fair share = ALL PAY a national sales/fair tax.

    • tiredoflibbs July 16, 2011 / 10:31 am

      Along with the deal Reagan made, the Democrats also promised FUTURE spending cuts that NEVER happened. In typical fashion, the Democrats “stabbed him in the back”. Now they have a talking point they can regurgitate endlessly – “Reagan raised taxes”.

      Now, they want raise taxes immediately along with FUTURE spending cuts.

      Nothing ever changes with these looting Democrats.

      After raising the budgetary baseline by 25%, obAMATEUR claims that there are no room for cuts. When will there be?

      Again, it is about fairness and not “fiscal responsibility”. The man is looking to get reelected. He needs to shore up is base he lost when he extended ALL of the Bush tax cuts. Presiding by polls, what a way to lead the country.

  3. bardolf July 16, 2011 / 10:48 am

    “I just can’t shake this idea that the purpose of taxation is to raise the revenue that is needed to fund the essential and constitutionally appropriate functions of government.” -Tiredofcliches

    Yep, agriculture subsidies are in the constitution, 700 bases in other countries around the world that’s in the constitution, large increases in medicare under Bush is in the constitution. Surely the Department of Veterans affairs wasn’t formed in 1930 as stated on Wikipedia. I need to mention the Department of Homeland Security formed in 2002 with a nearly 50 billion dollar budget.

    I’m warming to the idea of a ‘fair tax’ as Neoconehead puts it. Of course to be FAIR it should include new home purchases, stock purchases, auto purchases, spending on services … Of course there is always a bait and switch with the wingers. Something which makes stock purchases immune to a 7% national sales tax on them because they are more noble than buying a TV. Of course a national sales tax would have kept people from thinking that flipping houses was an honest way to contribute to the economy.

    There are 2 sides to the ‘fairness’ equation. How much money is fair to ask from you in taxes and how many services is it fair that the government provides to you. It’s pretty easy to complain about public schools after ones children have long passed through the doors e.g.

    • Cluster July 16, 2011 / 10:59 am

      Of course there is always a bait and switch with the wngers. – barstool

      Boy isn’t that the truth. The minute democrats get their tax increases, they completely ignore their promises of cuts or fiscal responsibility. Or once they achieve their amnesty goals on the back of border security promises, they walk that back as well. They are transparent aren’t they barstool?

      • bardolf July 16, 2011 / 12:29 pm

        Clueless

        I never said the Democrats were transparent. Don’t know what tax increases you are talking about since Obama caved in to the extension of the Bush tax cuts. You are also mistaken in believing the Democrats preach fiscal responsibility, that is a GOP tagline. As I already commented before it’s just as much a fraudulent talking point today as it was under GWB. Just this week Mitch has been childish enough to put forth legislation that will allow Obama to raise the debt ceiling so he can hopefully hang the Democrats in 2012.

        As a winger I assume you find stock purchases more worthy than a TV and they would be exempt from Neoconeheads fair tax. Also no comment on the Red State handouts so they must be more honorable as well.

      • Amazona July 16, 2011 / 1:08 pm

        So dolf is in “winger” land—-nice place for him, all snippy and peevish and full of silly words like ‘winger’. Nice of him, though, to lead off with a hint about the general inanity of what is to follow.

        Did anyone ever say ag subsidies are in the Constitution? ANY level of Medicare? (Note that dolf only bleats about the Bush increases in Medicare not being in the Constitution, as if any part of it, or Social Security for that matter, IS.)

        I guess it is much easier to be dolf if you just ignore what has been said so often before, such as the criticisms of so many Republicans for going along with non-Constitutional things like Medicare. If he turns a blind eye to reality, he can post even MORE of his silly, irrelevant, nonsense.

        The Constitution DOES, however, enumerate national defense as a duty of the federal government. I suppose dolf will argue that this covered only forts in the West to deal with security regarding Indians. Evidently once that little problem was solved, national security was in the bag, and everything after that is unconstitutional.

        But you know, I look at military bases, and an agency created to help protect the nation from attack, and I see—-national security.

        Whatever——-then he wanders off into the weeds with silly stuff about the nobility of buying televisions and just proves, once again, that he is a silly twit.

      • Amazona July 16, 2011 / 1:11 pm

        “honorable”
        “noble”
        “fair”
        “worthy”

        dolf appears to be stuck in feely-land today. Good place for him, though, with no pesky ideas to confuse him. He can emote all he wants.

      • tiredoflibbs July 16, 2011 / 3:27 pm

        Yes Amazona, that is one people like balddoof do, focus on one little aspect and try to change or deflect from the argument.

        That is all they have when they cannot defend their side.

      • bardolf July 16, 2011 / 4:42 pm

        Amy

        John Winger is Bill Murray’s out of touch with reality character in the movie Stripes. I’m all giddy from one of the best lines — Sergeant Hulka: “I’m talking about something important, like discipline and duty and honor and courage. And you ain’t got none of it!” Pretty much sums up twits like you who think they are the true descendants of the pioneer spirit when you are actually just blogging from a trailer.

        Not an honest answer from the lot of you ‘fair tax’ people about why you would exclude stock purchases from the tax. Wouldn’t want to offend the billionaires who might move next door= suck up.

        Most of the GOP faithful here on B4V are only pretend fiscal conservatives. Spook and GMB are consistent and Neo on a good day can understand that you can’t keep the DOD from serious cuts and reduce the deficit. You, on the other hand, are as rigid as you accuse GMB of being.

        Your notion that national ‘defense’ means ‘whatever we want’ is an extremism comparable to Hirohito’s Japan. That goes well with your name calling and general spiteful demeanor. I even left out my favorite example of GOP thinking. The ‘ranchers’ who use public lands for free and then argue that that they are actually just being good ‘stewards’. Snort, pioneer spirit indeed.

        @Tired
        I don’t need to deflect straw man ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ commentary that passes as deep insight among the faithful. When Mitch gave Obama a ‘print money’ card in the hopes the GOP will win in 2012 it’s pretty much saying you guys are out of ideas.

        I must have missed all your posts condemning Mitch for his plan to let Obama raise the debt ceiling 3 times unless a supermajority of 2/3 opposes the raises. That’s strange since now you are even a quasi-official commentator nowadays.

        @Neo
        You should be preparing your party, or are you going to make your wife do that too? Happy 35th!

      • Amazona July 16, 2011 / 7:17 pm

        Oooh, dolf, you really do have your panties in a twist, don’t you? That lace a little scratchy? No complaints about the thong, though, I’ll bet.

        First, kudos for the admission of fiscal bigotry. You need to confer with your fellow Lefties, who have decided I am a millionaire cattle farmer. But then, maybe it’s a really nice trailer…….

        You guys do tend to focus on the really important stuff, though, don’t you? And do you all go to clinics to learn to invent statements you can then sneer at? Did I ever claim to be “a true descendant of the pioneer spirit”?

        Nah, I guess I didn’t, which makes that bitchy little comment of yours simply a lie.

        What is so funny is that I really AM a true descendant of the pioneer spirit. My grandmother came to northern Colorado in a covered wagon and homesteaded a section of land. When her wimpy brother (I think he may have been named Bardolf) wimped out (“….it’s so haaarrrdd! And there’s no ZINFANDEL !!!!) she took over his section as well, building two soddies, digging two wells, fencing both properties and farming them both. Just this morning I was visiting with a relative who said I remind him of this woman, who is my hero.

        But I digress.

        BTW, ranchers do not use public lands “for free”—are you trying for a new personal best for Most Lies In One Post?—-and you might do a little research into what was learned about the condition of that ‘public land’ when grazing was not allowed. Hope the intrusion of a fact into your hateful attitude toward agriculture won’t strain anything. Give it a try, just for a change.

        “Spook and GMB are consistent and Neo on a good day can understand that you can’t keep the DOD from serious cuts and reduce the deficit. You, on the other hand, are as rigid as you accuse GMB of being.”

        ????????????

        Great going, dolf—a hat trick only halfway through your rant. Lie # 3, if you are claiming, as it appears, that I have argued against cuts in the defense budget. Utter nonsense. Never said it.

        Wow, you really ARE on a roll today. What’s the matter? Get a batch of bad figs? I hear that can freak out someone like you for days. But you are not content with only 3 lies and have to go for 4— “Your notion that national ‘defense’ means ‘whatever we want’ is an extremism comparable to Hirohito’s Japan”

        What IS it with you Lefty Loons and your conviction that you can just invent a statement, claim someone made that statement, and then get away with sneering at it? “Hirohito’s Japan”??? Tired of using Hitler?

        What I did say, in response to your whingeing about military bases and DHS not being in the Constitution, was that they are part of national defense. Why not just tell us why they are not instead of delving into such silliness? Why let the fact that they so demonstrably ARE deter you from claiming they are not? You haven’t let facts slow down this shrill screed, so go for it!

        You may not like the fact that they are, but even you and your bizarre disconnect with reality can’t really claim they are not. So all that is left to you is to invent a wholly false statement, attribute it to me, and then let fly at that. Unfortunately, you let fly like the monkeys in the zoo, and with the same ammunition, from the same endless source.

        Why do you persist in coming here to strut and preen in your imagined brilliance when you simply cannot stop shooting yourself in the foot by constantly making these bizarre and bogus claims?

        Go eat a fig. Maybe you and your little friends can get into a spirited spat about fruits. But you are way out of your depth here, as proved time and time again.

        Just look at the quality of your arguments today: Snobbishness, lying, lying, lying, and lying, all with a distinct note of petty bitchiness. EEuuwwwww.

      • bardolf July 16, 2011 / 9:22 pm

        Amy who calls herself Amazona

        Did something hit close to home or should I say did something hit close to the trailer? Twisters can pick those things up and have you believing you are in Oz and that the straw men you knock down are real. I can almost hear your grandma Em and her lazy brother Henry calling you to get in the cellar where you belong. The cowardly fat cat is another thread that Mark has started just for you.

        From your need to play with gender roles in your comments, I’m thinking you’re got more Willa Cather in you than O Pioneers. Of course your writing is limited to grammar corrections on B4V so I don’t want to offend Cather’s memory. You constantly bark on and on about the founding fathers intentions but in 2011 it is really only Toto barking. Founding fathers + your supposed past liberal life + your shy little school girl routine = spirit of the pioneers. Nice pack of lies handed down by ‘your grandma’ about her own brother. All that hard work and yet she is just as dead, but now complete strangers think she was bitter and hateful to boot. I can understand why she is your hero but your relative was paying you a back handed compliment. Together with the great 8th grade move you have enough to fill a psychologists’ notepad for a solid hour.

        You never make comments about a reasonable size to the DOD. You are among the vaguest of the vague on why the US is made secure by the military’s current size. Instead you offer a philosophy of we needs to defend the fort even if it means going to the next valley and killing the injuns in their teepees. You defended Madelaine Albright’s commented that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children from an embargo was ‘worth it’ by ___ questioning the source’. Albright could be the Wicked Witch of the West in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

        Of course the environmental movement is filled with hateful loons, otherwise why would they have a different point of view wrt ranching on public lands? Why don’t you go educate yourself instead of drinking the cool-aid? Your idea that public land is in some sort of ‘condition’ if it is left in its natural state is truly bizarre. I sense an inner light religious experience from your hippy days. Maybe that’s why in your religion you save yourself somehow through your own righteousness and merit. Of course now hippy=foodie among the hipster set so you had to throw in a Zinfandel reference for the Californians on board.

        I could ask you why you come on the blog? 90% of your posts are just attacks on other posters 5% are attacks on boogeymen imagined RRL or whatever you call liberals or what you used to be before you started a thinkin’ and the rest is 5% your heart rendering view of the good old tymee days when the constitution was written..

      • Amazona July 17, 2011 / 1:24 pm

        Oh, my goodness, dolf is all wound up! Gotta get back on those meds, dolfie–a few more forays into total insanity like your latest post and they WILL be after you with nets and one of those cute long-sleeved jackets.

        I’m not sure it if is a step forward or backward to shift from Stripes to The Wizard of Oz as the basis for a post, but dolf still shows his reliance on fantasy as the basis for what might laughingly be called his “opinions”.

        There is the fantasy of Movieland, and then there is the inner fantasy of Dolfland, where lies are generated and strange obsessions fester. (His preoccupation with a two-month period of my adolescence is both creepy and weird. He seems obsessed by it, and indulges in a series of quite elaborate fantasies about it, which he apparently has integrated into his consciousness as actual fact.)

        I don’t need to go into the general toxic insanity of his first couple of paragraphs. From his claim that my name is Amy but I pretend to be Amazona to his weird riff on The Wizard of Oz to his determination that “complete strangers” now find my late grandmother to be “bitter and hateful” (though dolf IS completely strange) to the utterly bizarre statement about my grandmother of “All that hard work and yet she is just as dead…” it is a litany of mental disturbance.

        (Though the comment of “All that hard work and yet she is just as dead,” may be a reflection of a personal philosophy, that work is useless as you die anyway. This might explain the career choice of math teacher at a second-rate Southwestern college.)

        But what caught my attention, after I waded through the mental clutter that, more and more, defines dolf’s efforts to post here, was the number and variety of out-and-out lies.

        “your writing is limited to grammar corrections on B4V..”

        “…..you offer a philosophy of we needs (sic) to defend the fort even if it means going to the next valley and killing the injuns in their teepees…”

        “You defended Madelaine Albright’s commented (sic) that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children from an embargo was ‘worth it’ …”

        “90% of your posts are just attacks on other posters 5% are attacks on boogeymen imagined RRL or whatever you call liberals or what you used to be before you started a thinkin’ and the rest is 5% your heart rendering (sic) view of the good old tymee days when the constitution was written.”

        ….and so on. Some of the drivel is a mishmash of lies and sad sick fantasy: “I sense an inner light religious experience from your hippy days. Maybe that’s why in your religion you save yourself somehow through your own righteousness and merit.”

        And some is cluelessness: “…you had to throw in a Zinfandel reference for the Californians on board. ” ( I “threw in” the Zinfandel reference as a sly dig at dolf hissownself, for his pseudo-sophisticate posturing when he bragged about drinking Zinfandel with brie.)

        More cluelessnses: “…now hippy=foodie among the hipster set…” when dolf himself is the one making references to food, in a preening self-satisfied tone. Zinfandel with brie, kabobs on the grill followed by figs, references to TV food show gurus, etc.

        But all in all, dolf is just a sad sick pundit wannabe who simply cannot overcome his mental and emotional instability long enough to actually string together any coherent and accurate commentary.

      • Amazona July 17, 2011 / 1:43 pm

        dolf bleats, in typical ignorance: “Your idea that public land is in some sort of ‘condition’ if it is left in its natural state is truly bizarre.”

        Aside from the obvious—a nattering quibble over the difference between “condition” and “state”—-he is, quite simply, wrong again.

        The “natural state” of rangeland and forested grazing areas is one of constant grazing activity by various herbivores. This activity has several effects on the “condition” or “state” of the area.

        As we know from mowing our lawns, cutting growing grass stimulates growth and extends the growing season. Cutting the grass (by teeth, in this example) means there is not a burden of laid-down grass on the new growth the next spring, meaning that light and water can penetrate to the new shoots as the soil warms.

        Grazing animals also eat young weeds, before they mature and go to seed, controlling invasive weed populations.

        The soil is constantly broken up by the hooves of the grazing animals, meaning water can penetrate deeper and more easily. This has two effects: It makes the grass stronger by having water deeper in the soil, meaning that roots go deeper to find it, which makes the grasses less vulnerable to dry conditions, and it lessens erosion as water sinks into the soil instead of remaining on the surface and then running downhill, as surface water is wont to do. Penetration of water also fills aquifers under the surface of the earth.

        The presence of grazing animals also provides an ongoing source of fertilization.

        This “natural state” was maintained for eons due to the grazing of native species, such as bison, elk and deer. Now, with the elk and deer populations decreased, and bison no longer roaming the plains, we accomplish the same thing by using the land for grazing by cattle, horses, sheep and goats. The only differences are that these grazers are domestic instead of wild, and that the owners of the livestock monitor the grazing land and move the animals around to reduce overgrazing in some areas and push the animals into areas where more intensive grazing is desired, such as areas of more weed infestation.

        Ranchers (or, as the RRL now seems to choose to refer to them, “farmers”) do not use these lands “for free”. They pay grazing fees and they are subject to supervision by government employees. It’s a win-win situation for everyone but the hysterical know-nothings who get the vapors over the idea of this land actually being used for people who will then (gasp!!) PROFIT from it.

        Like we see from the freak-outs over the evils of allowing loggers to (gasp!!) PROFIT from logging in national forests resulting in decades of non-management of those forests and the resulting destruction of nearly all of the native pine species in them, abandoning land to no use at all merely lets it degrade.

      • bardolf July 17, 2011 / 2:05 pm

        Amy

        1. Bush increased medicare so the elderly like yourself would have access to your meds another example of the looting class

        2. No obsession with your 8th grade, just saying you’ll never admit when overbearing authority figures you admire make mistakes-

        3. I don’t care to know your real name, but your mythologizing of yourself (Amazona) and your forefathers always needs a counterpart in the story of the lazy guy. That sums up your pseudo-meritocracy philosophy.

        4. If you think I disagree with the ‘hard work is its own reward’ nonsense you are correct. Sorry if I worked a lot harder in school and college than you did (you did go to college right?). Not going to turn that hard work into 50 weeks of hating a job for 2 weeks vacation even if it is not the best university in the world.

        5. You’ve done nothing to dispel the notion that your contributions are limited to personal attacks on posters, abstract attacks on the LEFT and heart rending accounts of the founders. The grammar corrections are the most useful thing you do. I think once you said something useful about energy and another time about specifics of ranching so I’ll move the 90% to 89% and add a 4th category where you post worthwhile material 1% of the time.

        6. Maybe you think your relative was paying you a complement by comparing you with a woman who thought her brother was a good-for-nothing. More likely it’s a sign of your toxic dislike for people who enjoy their lives and don’t think work is its own reward.

      • Amazona July 17, 2011 / 2:42 pm

        dolf, once again, I remind you of the First Rule Of Holes. Quit digging, OK?

        We’ve already noticed, and commented on, the way a simple idea is distorted beyond recognition by the time it passes through the Dolf Filter. You don’t need to keep offering up more examples.

        1. Bush increased medicare so the elderly like yourself would have access to your meds another example of the looting class.

        A. More bigotry, in this case ageism instead of financial snobbery.
        B. What does this have to do with the previous posts?
        C What makes you think I will need or accept Medicaid or Medicare, or the prescription drug benefit
        D I was one who, openly and repeatedly, on this blog, objected to the Bush prescription drug bill.

        Not that any of this is in any way relevant to what I said in my posts,

        2. No obsession with your 8th grade, just saying you’ll never admit when overbearing authority figures you admire make mistakes-

        A Except for your repeated insistence that I was stupid for using the term “nearly 8 years”
        B Except for your repeated insistence that I was “kicked out” of my parochial school by the nuns who were “fed up” with me
        C You are the only one who considers our family move a “mistake”
        D Interesting that you describe my father as an “overbearing authority figure”. Another inadvertent peek into dolf pathology?
        E Your incessant reference to this short period of my life, as well as your constant reframing of the information I have given about it, coupled with your strange need to invent and attach all sorts of weird/sinister/disturbing elements to it all show a sick preoccupation with something that now exists, in its distorted form, only in your highly individual reality

        3. I don’t care to know your real name, but your mythologizing of yourself (Amazona) and your forefathers always needs a counterpart in the story of the lazy guy. That sums up your pseudo-meritocracy philosophy.

        A Then don’t bleat about what I call myself
        B There is no “mythologizing” of myself by the use of my nom de blog. As I have repeatedly explained, a friend from South America once told me that the word in his country for a woman who rides horses is “una amazona”. I ride horses: Amazona
        C I have made one reference to my father, only after your repeated bleating about the stupidity or dishonesty of using the phrase “nearly 8 years” to describe my time in a parochial school. I said he had a better job opportunity so we moved. “Mythologizing”? Get real.
        D. I made one reference to a grandmother, after you invented (what we call “lying’) some cockamamie story about me claiming to be “a true descendant of the pioneer spirit”. “Mythologizing”? You’re crazy.
        E. My alleged “pseudo-meritocracy philosophy” is nothing but another of your sad, silly, inventions, existing only in the murky wasteland of your own mentality.

        4. If you think I disagree with the ‘hard work is its own reward’ nonsense you are correct. Sorry if I worked a lot harder in school and college than you did (you did go to college right?). Not going to turn that hard work into 50 weeks of hating a job for 2 weeks vacation even if it is not the best university in the world.

        A I never made the slightest reference to ” ‘hard work is its own reward’ “.
        B If I didn’t work as hard in college as you did (and yes, I did go to college) it is probably because I didn’t have to
        C Nice effort to put a glossy spin on the fact that you could not get a better job. Or do those who teach in “the best universities in the world” hate their jobs and put up with them for only 2 weeks vacation a year?

        5. You’ve done nothing to dispel the notion that your contributions are limited to personal attacks on posters, abstract attacks on the LEFT and heart rending accounts of the founders. The grammar corrections are the most useful thing you do. I think once you said something useful about energy and another time about specifics of ranching so I’ll move the 90% to 89% and add a 4th category where you post worthwhile material 1% of the time.

        A I have to do nothing to “dispel” your fantasy notions. I not only have no access to the strange and creepy world where they exist, I don’t want to. Yecchhh.
        B Too bad the grammar corrections have for the most part gone over your head
        C Sorry the rest of my posts, particularly about the real meaning of politics as the blueprint for governing the nation, have also slipped past you. Guess you were working on that elaborate fantasy of me being kicked out of school by irate nuns
        D Given the math skills you have exhibited here, I can see why you had to settle when it came to finding a job.
        E How is quoting the words of the Founding Fathers “heart rending”? Does it bring a tear to your eye when my comments point out the depth of your ignorance about the history of our nation? Can you quote one single thing I have ever said about any of the Founding Fathers which had an emotional content?

        6. Maybe you think your relative was paying you a complement by comparing you with a woman who thought her brother was a good-for-nothing. More likely it’s a sign of your toxic dislike for people who enjoy their lives and don’t think work is its own reward.

        A Just as you had to invent a fantasy about my father being an overbearing authority figure you have had to invent another lie about my grandmother thinking her brother was a good-for-nothing. In fact, she never said a bad word about him. It was the family that thought it pretty shameful for him to leave a young woman alone on the prairie to take on such work and responsibility. You appear to be defending this kind of weakness.
        B. Yet another of your strange dismal fantasies—that I have a “toxic dislike for people who enjoy their lives”. What a strange creature you are, to have to invent such elaborate and despicable personas for people.
        C. Another repetition of the lie that I have said “work is its own reward”.

        You either believe the crap you have posted, in your comments 1-6, or you know they are lies but worked on inventing them and thought you might score a point or two by posting them

        Not that it matters. It is still just vintage dolf.

      • bardolf July 17, 2011 / 4:54 pm

        Amy,

        Keep digging, you’re half way to China.

        1. Bush increased medicare so the elderly like yourself would have access to your meds another example of the looting class.

        A. More bigotry, in this case ageism instead of financial snobbery.
        1. You mentioned that I needed medication and I responded that your president thought you did.
        2. Not ageism, just reminding you that you are the Al Gore and Bill Clinton worst generation in history demographic as Ann Coulter calls it.
        B. What does this have to do with the previous posts?
        1. It has to do with your temper tantrums disguised as commentary.
        2. It also demonstrates the point of ‘looters’ who pretend they get nothing from the government.
        C What makes you think I will need or accept Medicaid or Medicare, or the prescription drug benefit
        1. Seems likely. You ‘deserve’ them since SS was taken at the point of a gun instead of you being allowed to invest it in the stock market.
        D I was one who, openly and repeatedly, on this blog, objected to the Bush prescription drug bill.
        1. Yet that never tops your list of things to cut from the budget, pure coincidence.

        Not that any of this is in any way relevant to what I said in my posts,

        2. No obsession with your 8th grade, just saying you’ll never admit when overbearing authority figures you admire make mistakes-

        A Except for your repeated insistence that I was stupid for using the term “nearly 8 years”
        1. Nope
        2. Again the Count tried to explain your nearly w/o success
        B Except for your repeated insistence that I was “kicked out” of my parochial school by the nuns who were “fed up” with me
        1. That was a joke for the uninitiated.
        C You are the only one who considers our family move a “mistake”
        1. Then what did you mean with your public schools are hell rant?
        D Interesting that you describe my father as an “overbearing authority figure”. Another inadvertent peek into dolf pathology?
        1. No, just putting into context your support for GWB’s wars and your suckup to corporate power
        E Your incessant reference to this short period of my life, as well as your constant reframing of the information I have given about it, coupled with your strange need to invent and attach all sorts of weird/sinister/disturbing elements to it all show a sick preoccupation with something that now exists, in its distorted form, only in your highly individual reality
        1. Trying to give you something to talk about with your horses.

        3. I don’t care to know your real name, but your mythologizing of yourself (Amazona) and your forefathers always needs a counterpart in the story of the lazy guy. That sums up your pseudo-meritocracy philosophy.

        A Then don’t bleat about what I call myself
        1. Never claimed your name was Amy, so you lied.
        B There is no “mythologizing” of myself by the use of my nom de blog. As I have repeatedly explained, a friend from South America once told me that the word in his country for a woman who rides horses is “una amazona”. I ride horses: Amazona
        1. Surprised you don’t yourself Catherine the Great
        2. Not surprised that a friend had to tell you since your skill set seems to have little intersection with skills like languages, math, science, …
        C I have made one reference to my father, only after your repeated bleating about the stupidity or dishonesty of using the phrase “nearly 8 years” to describe my time in a parochial school. I said he had a better job opportunity so we moved. “Mythologizing”? Get real.
        1. Ever make a hateful reference to someone else’s parents on this blog?

        4. If you think I disagree with the ‘hard work is its own reward’ nonsense you are correct. Sorry if I worked a lot harder in school and college than you did (you did go to college right?). Not going to turn that hard work into 50 weeks of hating a job for 2 weeks vacation even if it is not the best university in the world.

        A I never made the slightest reference to ” ‘hard work is its own reward’ “.
        1. Then stop complaining that you work to hard.
        B If I didn’t work as hard in college as you did (and yes, I did go to college) it is probably because I didn’t have to
        1. Nice spin on the basket weaving degree from nowhere community college
        2. Of course you didn’t have to work hard in cc. There wasn’t anything useful you had planned for your degree. It’s not like you wanted to be a scientist or engineer or medical doctor.

        C Nice effort to put a glossy spin on the fact that you could not get a better job. Or do those who teach in “the best universities in the world” hate their jobs and put up with them for only 2 weeks vacation a year?
        1. Of course I couldn’t get a better academic job than the one I have. If I could get a better academic job I would.
        2. Better paying job would be easy, but I prefer my time over money.
        3. Those at the best universities make more $ and prestige, but otherwise my job is pretty much the same.

        5. You’ve done nothing to dispel the notion that your contributions are limited to personal attacks on posters, abstract attacks on the LEFT and heart rending accounts of the founders. The grammar corrections are the most useful thing you do. I think once you said something useful about energy and another time about specifics of ranching so I’ll move the 90% to 89% and add a 4th category where you post worthwhile material 1% of the time.

        A I have to do nothing to “dispel” your fantasy notions. I not only have no access to the strange and creepy world where they exist, I don’t want to. Yecchhh.
        1. Personal attacks go into the 89%.
        B Too bad the grammar corrections have for the most part gone over your head
        1. I think I make fewer mistakes thanks to you.
        C Sorry the rest of my posts, particularly about the real meaning of politics as the blueprint for governing the nation, have also slipped past you. Guess you were working on that elaborate fantasy of me being kicked out of school by irate nuns

        D Given the math skills you have exhibited here, I can see why you had to settle when it came to finding a job.
        1. 90% was decreased to 89% with the 1% going toward the category of ‘Amy’s useful posts’. When you have trouble with subtraction give up.
        E How is quoting the words of the Founding Fathers “heart rending”? Does it bring a tear to your eye when my comments point out the depth of your ignorance about the history of our nation? Can you quote one single thing I have ever said about any of the Founding Fathers which had an emotional content?
        1. Irony fails.

        6. Maybe you think your relative was paying you a complement by comparing you with a woman who thought her brother was a good-for-nothing. More likely it’s a sign of your toxic dislike for people who enjoy their lives and don’t think work is its own reward.

        A Just as you had to invent a fantasy about my father being an overbearing authority figure you have had to invent another lie about my grandmother thinking her brother was a good-for-nothing. In fact, she never said a bad word about him. It was the family that thought it pretty shameful for him to leave a young woman alone on the prairie to take on such work and responsibility. You appear to be defending this kind of weakness.
        1. It’s shameful if the story is true.
        B. Yet another of your strange dismal fantasies—that I have a “toxic dislike for people who enjoy their lives”. What a strange creature you are, to have to invent such elaborate and despicable personas for people.
        1. So, you’ve never had anyone call you hateful on this blog?
        C. Another repetition of the lie that I have said “work is its own reward”.

        You either believe the crap you have posted, in your comments 1-6, or you know they are lies but worked on inventing them and thought you might score a point or two by posting them

        Not that it matters. It is still just vintage dolf.

      • Amazona July 17, 2011 / 6:47 pm

        1. Bush increased medicare so the elderly like yourself would have access to your meds another example of the looting class.

        A. More bigotry, in this case ageism instead of financial snobbery.
        1. You mentioned that I needed medication and I responded that your president thought you did.
        Yet George has never mentioned that to me. Do you mind sending on the memo?
        2. Not ageism, just reminding you that you are the Al Gore and Bill Clinton worst generation in history demographic as Ann Coulter calls it.
        Yet you did no such thing, “reminding” me of anything, but merely indulged in a petty effort to make age an insult.
        B. What does this have to do with the previous posts?
        1. It has to do with your temper tantrums disguised as commentary.
        No, it does not.
        2. It also demonstrates the point of ‘looters’ who pretend they get nothing from the government.
        It illustrates only the default position of the Left to drag in Bush when they realize they have nothing else to say.
        C What makes you think I will need or accept Medicaid or Medicare, or the prescription drug benefit
        1. Seems likely. You ‘deserve’ them since SS was taken at the point of a gun instead of you being allowed to invest it in the stock market.
        “seems?” “SEEMS LIKELY ?
        dolf, you simply have to stop dragging fantasies out of that feverswamp of a brain and presenting them as fact. You are not only inventing a scenario based on your own bias, you are attributing a statement of someone else to me. A nice change, I suppose, from merely inventing one on your own.

        D I was one who, openly and repeatedly, on this blog, objected to the Bush prescription drug bill.
        1. Yet that never tops your list of things to cut from the budget, pure coincidence.
        Sorry. I guess I thought that when I said I wanted all unconstitutional bills, policies and agencies dismantled, you might understand that when I said Medicare was not included in the Constitution that would include all addenda to Medicare. Perhaps I thought that the title “Medicare Part D” would spell it out for you.

        Not that any of this is in any way relevant to what I said in my posts,

        2. No obsession with your 8th grade, just saying you’ll never admit when overbearing authority figures you admire make mistakes-

        A Except for your repeated insistence that I was stupid for using the term “nearly 8 years”
        1. Nope
        You didn’t? You didn’t harp on it over and over again and try to make it out to be some indictment of my honesty or my intelligence?
        2. Again the Count tried to explain your nearly w/o success
        W/O success seems to mean you still could not understand any of the ways “nearly” could be explained. Guess that obsession of yours got in the way.
        B Except for your repeated insistence that I was “kicked out” of my parochial school by the nuns who were “fed up” with me
        1. That was a joke for the uninitiated.
        “Uninitiated”? Initiated into WHAT? Some weird cult where someone makes up the snottiest lie he can and others pretend it is a joke? You repeated it several times. Not sorry I missed THAT ‘initiation”
        C You are the only one who considers our family move a “mistake”
        1. Then what did you mean with your public schools are hell rant?
        It was really a comment on “teaching to the test”. I thought you might be able to figure that out, as it was actually ABOUT “teaching to the test”, gave an example of “teaching to the test” and made references to “teaching to the test” in a thread about “teaching to the test”. There was nothing in it about public schools in general, just about that one in particular, in the context of “teaching to the test”.
        D Interesting that you describe my father as an “overbearing authority figure”. Another inadvertent peek into dolf pathology?
        1. No, just putting into context your support for GWB’s wars and your suckup to corporate power
        Oh, I am starting to see the source of your confusion. You think that George W. Bush is my father.
        Or you think that being glad my father decided to move to a bigger town is really code for sucking up to corporate power. Gee, why didn’t I see that?

        E Your incessant reference to this short period of my life, as well as your constant reframing of the information I have given about it, coupled with your strange need to invent and attach all sorts of weird/sinister/disturbing elements to it all show a sick preoccupation with something that now exists, in its distorted form, only in your highly individual reality
        1. Trying to give you something to talk about with your horses.
        Oh, tee hee, titter titter. Nothing like a little fey “humor” to lighten the day. Too bad it does nothing to distract from the fact that you can’t deny what I said.

        3. I don’t care to know your real name, but your mythologizing of yourself (Amazona) and your forefathers always needs a counterpart in the story of the lazy guy. That sums up your pseudo-meritocracy philosophy.

        A Then don’t bleat about what I call myself
        1. Never claimed your name was Amy, so you lied.
        bardolf July 16, 2011 at 9:22 pm
        Amy who calls herself Amazona
        So when you say ” Never claimed your name was Amy, so you lied” you lied.

        B There is no “mythologizing” of myself by the use of my nom de blog. As I have repeatedly explained, a friend from South America once told me that the word in his country for a woman who rides horses is “una amazona”. I ride horses: Amazona
        1. Surprised you don’t yourself Catherine the Great
        tee hee titter titter but spare us your sexual fantasies
        2. Not surprised that a friend had to tell you since your skill set seems to have little intersection with skills like languages, math, science
        meow
        And a slightly obscure reference in a foreign language has absolutely nothing to do with my overall knowledge of any other language (the entire conversation was in Castellano) much less math or science. Those with even a basic knowledge of language know that different South and Central American countries have different accents and regional usages.

        C I have made one reference to my father, only after your repeated bleating about the stupidity or dishonesty of using the phrase “nearly 8 years” to describe my time in a parochial school. I said he had a better job opportunity so we moved. “Mythologizing”? Get real.
        1. Ever make a hateful reference to someone else’s parents on this blog?
        I don’t remember doing so.
        And your reference was not to my father but to me, claiming I “mythologize my ancestors”. Do try to keep up, at least with your own comments.

        4. If you think I disagree with the ‘hard work is its own reward’ nonsense you are correct. Sorry if I worked a lot harder in school and college than you did (you did go to college right?). Not going to turn that hard work into 50 weeks of hating a job for 2 weeks vacation even if it is not the best university in the world.

        A I never made the slightest reference to ” ‘hard work is its own reward’ “.
        1. Then stop complaining that you work to hard.
        I don’t. Another dolf fantasy/lie. Even if I did, it would not be even remotely related to the claim that I believe “hard work is its own reward” And totally unrelated to the utterly stupid comment of All that hard work and yet she is just as dead
        B If I didn’t work as hard in college as you did (and yes, I did go to college) it is probably because I didn’t have to
        1. Nice spin on the basket weaving degree from nowhere community college
        <b. Uh-oh…yet another dolf fantasy, or as we call them, lies. Bitchy, catty, and oh-so lame, with origins in that dark and dismal place where you have to demean others to feel more like a man. You know nothing about where I went to school, what I studied, etc.,
        2. Of course you didn’t have to work hard in cc. There wasn’t anything useful you had planned for your degree. It’s not like you wanted to be a scientist or engineer or medical doctor.
        Nice try to spin away from the obvious fact that you walked right into the obvious comment that I didn’t have to work as hard because I am smarter than you. You, who are also not a scientist, or a doctor, or a lawyer. Since I own my own business and am clearly more successful than you, the end result of our comparative choices is pretty obvious.

        C Nice effort to put a glossy spin on the fact that you could not get a better job. Or do those who teach in “the best universities in the world” hate their jobs and put up with them for only 2 weeks vacation a year?
        1. Of course I couldn’t get a better academic job than the one I have. If I could get a better academic job I would.
        2. Better paying job would be easy, but I prefer my time over money.
        3. Those at the best universities make more $ and prestige, but otherwise my job is pretty much the same.
        Otherwise. In other words, you do pretty much the same work, though on a lower level as you admit the other jobs would be “better”, for less money and less status. But you prefer to work as hard (“my job is pretty much the same”) for less money and less prestige because, well, because you just do. Make up your mind: “Better paying job would be easy” but “Of course I couldn’t get a better academic job than the one I have. If I could get a better academic job I would” but “but I prefer my time over money.” in spite of the fact that “Those at the best universities make more $ and prestige, but otherwise my job is pretty much the same.”
        wow…that has to be a record for self-contradiction and failed spin, even for you.

        5. You’ve done nothing to dispel the notion that your contributions are limited to personal attacks on posters, abstract attacks on the LEFT and heart rending accounts of the founders. The grammar corrections are the most useful thing you do. I think once you said something useful about energy and another time about specifics of ranching so I’ll move the 90% to 89% and add a 4th category where you post worthwhile material 1% of the time.

        A I have to do nothing to “dispel” your fantasy notions. I not only have no access to the strange and creepy world where they exist, I don’t want to. Yecchhh.
        1. Personal attacks go into the 89%.
        B Too bad the grammar corrections have for the most part gone over your head
        1. I think I make fewer mistakes thanks to you.
        C Sorry the rest of my posts, particularly about the real meaning of politics as the blueprint for governing the nation, have also slipped past you. Guess you were working on that elaborate fantasy of me being kicked out of school by irate nuns

        D Given the math skills you have exhibited here, I can see why you had to settle when it came to finding a job.
        1. 90% was decreased to 89% with the 1% going toward the category of ‘Amy’s useful posts’. When you have trouble with subtraction give up.
        Yet you still claim that 90% of my posts are devoid of political content. Or 89%. Still piss-poor math. Hint: Basing a fake mathematical formula on a lie does not make the math correct.
        E How is quoting the words of the Founding Fathers “heart rending”? Does it bring a tear to your eye when my comments point out the depth of your ignorance about the history of our nation? Can you quote one single thing I have ever said about any of the Founding Fathers which had an emotional content?
        1. Irony fails.
        In other words, no. In other words, this is just another of your silly, simpering pseudo-insults without a hint of basis in fact.

        6. Maybe you think your relative was paying you a complement by comparing you with a woman who thought her brother was a good-for-nothing. More likely it’s a sign of your toxic dislike for people who enjoy their lives and don’t think work is its own reward.

        A Just as you had to invent a fantasy about my father being an overbearing authority figure you have had to invent another lie about my grandmother thinking her brother was a good-for-nothing. In fact, she never said a bad word about him. It was the family that thought it pretty shameful for him to leave a young woman alone on the prairie to take on such work and responsibility. You appear to be defending this kind of weakness.
        1. It’s shameful if the story is true.
        So you agree that my grandmother never said a harsh word about her brother but that the family was correct in its assessment of his character. Or are you pulling one of your coy little passive kinda-accusations that I, or other family members, or my grandmother, have lied about this? Wow—who could have thought you could have stooped any lower?
        B. Yet another of your strange dismal fantasies—that I have a “toxic dislike for people who enjoy their lives”. What a strange creature you are, to have to invent such elaborate and despicable personas for people.
        1. So, you’ve never had anyone call you hateful on this blog?
        Well, this is not what you said. What you SAID is that I have a “toxic dislike for people who enjoy their lives” If you wanted to talk about how people try to shift the focus of their own mistakes to the one who points them out, then try posting something about some people calling me ‘hateful’. You’re really bad at this, aren’t you?
        C. Another repetition of the lie that I have said “work is its own reward”.

        You either believe the crap you have posted, in your comments 1-6, or you know they are lies but worked on inventing them and thought you might score a point or two by posting them

        Not that it matters. It is still just vintage dolf.
        As are the catty, bitchy, impotent and dishonest efforts to deny, explain or justify his post.

    • tiredoflibbs July 16, 2011 / 3:25 pm

      Sorry balddoof, but I and others here on this blog openly criticized Bush and the GOP for their unconstitutional and excessive spending.

      Perhaps if you had paid attention…..

      • neocon1 July 16, 2011 / 4:01 pm

        Tired

        “Perhaps if you had paid attention”…..
        not one of baldorks traits.

      • Amazona July 16, 2011 / 7:19 pm

        tired, it is not a matter of paying attention. dolf either cannot process information correctly and therefore sees things in statements that are simply not there, or he just invents things that were not said because for some strange reason he thinks he can then swipe at it.

  4. Amazona July 16, 2011 / 1:16 pm

    If the thread is about the idea of whether or not taxation should be based on anyone’s idea of “fairness”, here are some ideas that might help explain why our Constitution was written the way it was.
    ***************

    “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

    “A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
    -Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

    “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
    -Thomas Jefferson

    “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
    -Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 15:332

    “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788

    “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
    -John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

    James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
    “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

    In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
    -James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

    “…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
    -James Madison

    “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
    -James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).

    “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”
    -James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788

    “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
    -James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

    • neocon1 July 16, 2011 / 3:36 pm

      Hmmmmmm

      Jackson Lee: Congress complicating debt ceiling because Obama is black
      By Josiah Ryan – 07/15/11 03:02 PM ET

      Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Friday strongly suggested that members of Congress are making it difficult for President Obama to raise the debt ceiling because of his race.

      “I do not understand what I think is the maligning and maliciousness [toward] this president,” said Jackson Lee, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “Why is he different? And in my community, that is the question that we raise. In the minority community that is question that is being raised. Why is this president being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times? Why did the leader of the Senate continually talk about his job is to bring the president down to make sure he is unelected?”

      funny that wasnt the case in 2006

      • neocon1 July 16, 2011 / 4:06 pm

        Is The First Dude Still Toking?
        Russ Vaughn

        Obama famously admitted using marijuana and cocaine and the media gave him a pass unlike their skewering of his predecessor for similar youthful indiscretions. The question in my mind today is this, “Is this guy still toking?”

        That could explain the huge discrepancy in The One’s delusional claim of support for his desired tax increases and the reality of a national poll on the same issue. According to The Hill,

        Obama said 80 percent of Americans are on his side in the debate over what to include in the debt package. Voters are paying attention to “who seems to be trying to get something done,” the president said. “It’s going to be in the interests of everybody who wants to serve in this town to make sure they are on the right side of that impression.”

        This coming at the very same time Rasmussen’s poll on this very topic is reporting that:

        Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not.

        A discrepancy that large is hard to explain away. We know he’s still smoking but is the guy still toking?

        PAGING Larry Sinclair!!

      • neocon1 July 16, 2011 / 5:01 pm

        So the credit-rating agencies that helped to create the financial crisis that led to a deep recession are now warning that the U.S. could lose the AAA rating it has had since 1917. As painfully ironic as this is, there’s no benefit in shooting the messengers. The real culprit is the U.S. political class, especially the President who has presided over this historic collapse of fiscal credibility.

        Moody’s and the boys are citing the risk of a default on August 2 as the proximate reason for their warning. But Americans should understand that the debt ceiling is merely the trigger. The gun is the spending boom of the last three years and the prospect that Washington lacks the political will to reduce it in the years to come.

        On spending, it is important to recall how extraordinary the blowout of the last three years has been. We’ve seen nothing like it since World War II. Nothing close. The nearby chart tracks federal outlays as a share of GDP since 1960. The early peaks coincide with the rise of the Great Society, the recession of 1974-75, and then a high of 23.5% with the recession of 1982 and the Reagan defense buildup.

        From there, spending declines, most rapidly during the 1990s as defense outlays fell to 3% of GDP in 2000 from its Reagan peak of 6.2% in 1986. The early George W. Bush years saw spending bounce up to a plateau of roughly 20% of GDP, but no more than 20.7% as recently as 2008.

        Then came the Obama blowout, in league with Nancy Pelosi’s Congress. With the recession as a rationale, Democrats consciously blew up the national balance sheet, lifting federal outlays to 25% in 2009, the highest level since 1945. (Even in 1946, with millions still in the military, spending was only 24.8% of GDP. In 1947 it fell to 14.8%.) Though the recession ended in June 2009, spending in 2010 stayed high at nearly 24%, and this year it is heading back toward 25%.

        This is the main reason that federal debt held by the public as a share of GDP has climbed from 40.3% in 2008, to 53.5% in 2009, 62.2% in 2010 and an estimated 72% this year, and is expected to keep rising in the future. These are heights not seen since the Korean War, and many analysts think U.S. debt will soon hit 90% or 100% of GDP.

  5. Ryan Aaron July 16, 2011 / 8:56 pm

    Liberals, such as Bardolf, only believe in spending for things that even charitably are constitutionally dubious and thinks we should CUT spending on things that are actually IN the writing in the constitution.Every area of spending liberals want to actually cut are things that we are authorized to spend, everything they want to increase are things that you have to engage in tortured mental gymnastics to give us the right to spend on.

    • bardolf July 16, 2011 / 9:31 pm

      VA not in the constitution. Farm subsidies not in the constitution. DHS not in the constitution. See above. Again the writers of the constitution would hardly have envisioned ‘national defense’ as synonymous with the world police officer role of today’s military.

      How about you fiscal conservatives killing NCLB or some of the federal departments like Department of Education or HUD? Maybe Ryan can comment on the Mitch McConnell sell out on the debt ceiling.

  6. tiredoflibbs July 16, 2011 / 9:34 pm

    balddoof: “I don’t need to deflect…”

    You don’t? Why do you keep doing it then? You are all over the place.

    • bardolf July 16, 2011 / 9:54 pm

      No

      I’ve addressed both sides of the equation. It makes no sense to talk about what is fair for a person to pay without speaking about what is fair for a person to receive.

      The biggest receivers are the biggest payers and the smallest receivers are the smallest payers. Seems pretty fair to me. Since Red States receive more federal funding than Blue States per capita I can understand why you only want to talk about imagined welfare queens.

      If a state educates a person who then uses his talents in the service of an employer the Employer has received something from the state.

      Do you support a federal fair tax which would apply to homes, TV’s and stock purchases equally?

      • tiredoflibbs July 16, 2011 / 11:55 pm

        baldoof: “I can understand why you only want to talk about imagined welfare queens.”

        That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the motivation for taxes and their increases from the left. Their argument has nothing to do with “both sides of the equation”. They are looking to play the class warfare game in order to strengthen their power and control through the purchase of votes with tax payer dollars.

        Why would the obAMATEUR be resistant to extending the Bush tax cuts (because of “fairness”), then cave and extend ALL OF THEM, then be back to his old tricks again about fairness by pushing to raise taxes once again???

        But apparently you cannot comment on the subject without trying to change it or deflect away from it.

      • bardolf July 17, 2011 / 10:39 am

        The motivation for tax increases is to pay the bills of the government, mostly military, Social Security and Medicare.

        One could as well ask what the motivation on taxes and their decreases on the right without accompanied reductions in benefits.
        Obama plays politics 24/7 as I’ve said. He knows the tax cuts haven’t kept jobs in America and that the Bush ‘recovery’ was the giant housing bubble. What he is debating is whether there is any political or economic harm caused by reverting to the tax levels under Clinton.

        Up to now he has guarded himself against accusations like yours that he is a tax and spend liberal. Voters won’t buy the argument that Obama deep down is going against everything he has actually done. What the public might buy is that the extension of the tax cuts haven’t improved the economy as their proponents promised.

        Still waiting for your opinion on Mitch’s abandonment of his responsibility. Chirp. Chirp.

        Moderator: “What he is debating is whether there is any political or economic harm caused by reverting to the tax levels under Clinton.” Uh, we had this debate in December when he caved and passed every tax cut extension. And you expect the economy to recover in less than 6 months after its passage? PLUS the passage of massive spending, regulation and forced health care laws??? The tax bills (other taxes and regulations, there adherence costs are not free, and fees besides income taxes) on businesses have changed before any consideration of extending tax cuts. The playing field has changed and you think that the economy can recover that quickly?

        “What the public might buy is that the extension of the tax cuts haven’t improved the economy as their proponents promised.”

        Moderator: Only the mindless drones will buy that.

        But then again, this is not what we are discussing.

      • Amazona July 17, 2011 / 2:06 pm

        Keep in mind that a tax RATE cut which is openly described as temporary, accompanied by an overt threat to repeal it at the first opportunity, is not likely to inspire a lot of confidence in investing in the economy.

        This is where the Left shows its ignorance of economics.

        They seem to think that the purpose of a tax RATE cut is simply to put more money in the pockets of Americans, for a finite and short period of time. This is why they are so impressed with the bogus tax cuts of Obama, where payroll taxes were cut. Gee, people had a little more in their pockets till April 15 of the next year—what’s not to celebrate about that?

        But the most important factor in economic growth is predictability. People need to be able to look into the future and see that what is going on now will be going on in the predictable future, regarding the tax burden they will be told they will have to shoulder.

        A short-term tax RATE cut will put a little money in the pockets of Americans. And that is where it will stay, if they can’t look forward with some degree of confidence that the tax RATE cuts will remain, so they can move forward with investment and expansion.

      • Amazona July 17, 2011 / 3:02 pm

        dolf doesn’t just “address both sides of the equation”.

        He addresses all sides, including those that exist only in the feverswamp of his own tortured consciousness.

        And it is a dark and murky place, where stuff like this apparently seems to make sense:

        “It makes no sense to talk about what is fair for a person to pay without speaking about what is fair for a person to receive. ”

        ???????

        First of all, this is just more application of emotion to what should be a totally objective decision. “Fairness” is subjective and emotion-driven and has no place in deciding the tax burden of anyone. Or at least it should not.”

        “…what it is fair for a person to receive..”? Well, I suppose we could start with what a person earns….

        “The biggest receivers are the biggest payers and the smallest receivers are the smallest payers. ”

        Really? So the successful businessman, who pays the highest taxes, uses more of the infrastructure of the nation than the guy who pays no taxes?

        He drives a better car, in better condition, so he fouls the air less. He may fly in his own airplane, so he uses the roadways even less. He has insurance, or pays his own way, so the government has no expense for his health care. He pays for an educational system he does not use, as he pays an additional sum for private education for his children. In what way is he a “bigger receiver” than the guy who has his health care paid for or subsidized by government, whose car spews pollution into the air, whose children are educated thanks to taxpayer dollars, who may get money from the government while Mr. Productive is paying his taxes?

        “If a state educates a person who then uses his talents in the service of an employer the Employer has received something from the state.”

        Well, gee, that “Employer” has contributed to the cost of educating that employee, and what’s more the employee is being paid for the work he does. (If he is in a union, he is probably being paid for work he doesn’t do. If he is a college teacher he is probably being paid for work he is thinking about doing, or work he writes about someone else doing.) While the “Employer” is paying the employee, he is also paying additional taxes for the benefit of having the employee work for him—Social Security, Medicare, probably health insurance, probably retirement benefits.

        Sounds to me like the state is receiving something from that Employer, as the employee is also paying taxes on his income, and sales taxes on everything he buys with that income.

      • Amazona July 17, 2011 / 3:03 pm

        CORRECTION—hit the ‘submit’ key before correcting the inclusion of health insurance and retirement benefits as “taxes” instead of simply being additional costs to the employer.

  7. Green Mountain Boy July 16, 2011 / 10:08 pm

    Bardolf, Amazona is right. I am rigid in my thinking. It is my contention that the reason why we are in this mess today is the republican party has not been rigid enough. They WANT to she shays of gray so they can “get along” with the other side. I belive that they have abandoned thier responsibility to be the opposition, even when the repubs controlled all three brances during the 2000-2006 era.
    I expected a lot from the repubs and got nothing. And yes a tax break was nothing compared to what could have been accomplished.
    You are right about the DVA and other government agencies that are not provided for in the constitution. They should be defunded and shut down immiediately. Also every and any government welfare program, no matter who benifits should suffer the same fate.
    Though, unfortunenatly today, both major political parties are in the vote buying business and not into what they are supposed to be doing.
    My advice to anyone who cares to take it would be not to plant a crisis garden. Plant a armageddon garden and be prepared to defend it.

    • neocon1 July 17, 2011 / 12:30 pm

      Plant a armageddon garden and be prepared to defend it.

      yup

  8. Amazona July 17, 2011 / 1:59 pm

    GMB, I agree with you, with one caveat:

    I think the VA is a legitimate part of national defense, in that it is support for the military, and therefore part of the enumerated duty to provide for the national defense. We either pay for the medical care of military injured in the course of their service, or we pay for insurance for them for the same thing. I prefer the second, but in any case I cannot defend refusing to provide care for those who act in their Constitutional duty to protect this nation.

    Other, non-Constitutional, agencies should be removed.

    I am pretty much a Goldwater-style conservative, if you go by these statements of his:

    * I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

    * I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
    o Acceptance Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate.

    (Variants and derivatives of this that are often quoted include:
    Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue.
    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
    Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.)

    * Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism

  9. MontyBurns July 18, 2011 / 1:48 am

    “Let’s just take the Bush tax cuts as an example.”

    OK; the Bush tax cuts dropped revenues for three straight years; after the 2001 cuts, revenue didn’t return to 2001 levels until 2005. And then revenues rose at a lower rate than they would have without those tax cuts in place. (I can’t wait for you to scream and attack the source. Facts have a liberal bias, dammit!)

    But anyway, the real reason liberals and conservatives talk past each other when it comes to taxes is because they view taxes in very different ways. Liberals look to adjust tax policy in order to create a certain outcome; conservatives have one and only one tax policy–cut taxes!–and they don’t view it as a means to an end, they view it as an end unto itself. This is why conservatives will press for tax cuts in every single economic climate.

    • Amazona July 18, 2011 / 10:32 am

      Monty, you never fail to come through with yet more idiocy.

      Nice to know that the Bush tax RATE cuts were the only reason for decreased revenue for three years. Good to know that fuss about the hits to the economy after the 9/11 attacks were just, well, fuss.

      Also interesting to see that if a new policy does not result in instantaneous results, it is a failure.

      Except, of course, the “stimulus” boondoggle—-we should not, most definitely NOT, expect THAT to show much of a change for quite some time.

      You see, allowing the economy to grow is supposed to show immediate results, while forcing the economy to grow, not so much.

      But you were really just building up to your grand finale, your ultimate expose of the mind-set of the “conservative”.

      “conservatives have one and only one tax policy–cut taxes!–and they don’t view it as a means to an end, they view it as an end unto itself.”

      Now, wait a minute—-didn’t you start off this post with a whine about the Bush tax RATE cuts not showing an increase in revenue for three years? And then you state that reducing tax RATES is really not a means to an end, but merely an end unto itself. Yet your own comments show that the reason for a tax RATE cut is to eventually increase tax revenue by allowing the economy to grow more quickly, resulting in a larger source of tax revenue even though the RATE of taxation is lower.

      Oh, that’s right—you tried to cover your donkey by merely stating, with typical absolute certainty, that when tax revenues did rise after the Bush tax RATE cuts, well, gee, they would have risen more without them. “Would have”—-a standby of the Left.

      It’s always so funny to watch Libs get all tangled up in their own hysterical rhetoric.

      Yet none of this explains why we need more tax revenue, if we are not trying to subvert the Constitution by using a grossly expanded federal government to do things the Constitution forbids it to do.

      It’s just so much easier, though completely dependent on lying, to simply claim that the conservative efforts are not to return us to a lawful, Constitutional, form of government, which includes taxation only for Constitutionally permitted federal uses, but are just sillies who can’t think beyond the simple-mindedness of “must cut taxes, must cut taxes, must cut taxes”.

      And it is so much easier, though equally dependent on lying, to pretend that the real goal of you Lefties is not to replace our Constitution with a Leftist political model in which the federal government has every right to confiscate our private property for redistribution by the State.

      • tiredoflibbs July 18, 2011 / 12:23 pm

        No one expects Monty(little jeffy) to catch his own entanglements. He is just regurgitating dumbed down talking points. Only in this case, he tried to “think” of a way to disguise them only to fail so miserably as obAMATEUR’s stimulus plan.

        To him, Bush’s tax cuts were a complete failure because revenues went down <2%, GASP!!!!!, for three years (his source) and they did not accomplish 100% of what their touters said it would.

        BUT, BUT, BUT…. don't you dare use the same "logic" when discussing obAMATEUR's stimulus and other spending plans, they were all complete successes no matter what the outcome.

        Monty(little jeffy) is a useful idiot drone regurgitating dumbed down talking points incapable of debate as we have seen oh so many times.

      • MontyBurns July 18, 2011 / 1:19 pm

        No, tired, the Bush tax cuts were a complete failure because everything Bush said they would do failed to actually happen. Hence, failure (something you’re quite familiar with, actually).

        But again, I don’t expect you to do anything but scream and complain about the liberal bias of facts. Just stick to your talking points, kiddo, and let Amazona handle the hysterical ranting. That plays to both your strengths.

        Amazona: Are they any instances in which you would not argue for more tax cuts? Don’t be shy, now!

        Moderator: It would go along way if you proved your regurgitated “Bush tax cuts were a complete failure because everything (100%) Bush said they would do failed to actually happen.” dumbed down talking point. You keep proving my point. For a Republican to succeed, 100% of what they say has to happen – for a Democrat to succeed, all they have to do is say he/she did. Remember, you keep claiming “just because you say it, doesn’t make it true”. But you haven’t proved anything before, but attack, dodge and deflect. Why start now?

      • MontyBurns July 18, 2011 / 6:40 pm

        I already have, tired. And then you did exactly what I predicted you’d do: You freaked out and attacked the source. Because you’re unable to deal with the facts. But your inability to deal with facts doesn’t make them go away, you know.

        Also, your severe reading comprehension problems are getting the better of you. I’m not saying that because Bush’s tax cuts didn’t deliver 100 percent of what they promised, that makes them a total failure. I’m saying that Bush promised his tax cuts would accomplish several things, and they accomplished none of them. That’s what makes them a total failure. Do I need to draw you a diagram? Or would that just be more casting pearls before swine on my part?

        Moderator: Now you are just a bold-faced liar. You haven’t proven anything. Your source stated that Bush’s tax cuts only brought in 97%-98% of the previous revenues for three years before exceeding pre-taxcut revenues. It did not discuss anything else of the Bush tax cuts. But that is not the only lie you told.

        Little jeffy: “I’m not saying that because Bush’s tax cuts didn’t deliver 100 percent of what they promised, that makes them a total failure.”

        Moderator: You previously stated AGAIN and AGAIN: “No, tired, the Bush tax cuts were a COMPLETE FAILURE because EVERYTHING Bush said they would do failed to actually happen. Hence, FAILURE”. There your own words to prove you a liar AGAIN. Unless you don’t read what you copy and paste from your dumbed down talking points.

        People you can’t debate a leftist liar and a drone.

      • MontyBurns July 18, 2011 / 8:30 pm

        Just because you don’t like the truth doesn’t make the truth a lie, tired.

        Moderator: No denying what you said makes you a liar. After being shown in black and white you still deny saying it. That makes you a liar.

        Also, why are you continuing to run with your reading-comprehension-challenged take on what I have written?

        Moderator: Because it is obvious you did not read what you wrote to make a blatant denial of what you said when it was so easy to prove you wrong with your own words.

        Do you think that somehow makes you look better? I’ve never said anything other than Bush promised his tax cuts would do many things, and it did none of them. It’s not my fault you didn’t understand this and, now that you have had it explained to you, prefer to stick with your initial foolishness rather than correct yourself. I really do have to draw you a diagram, don’t I?

        OK, let’s try to make this simple for you: Bush promise that his tax cuts would accomplish A, B, and C. They didn’t accomplish A, they didn’t accomplish B, and they didn’t accomplish C. Therefore they failed–failed, in fact, to do everything (everything meaning “every single thing,” get it?) they said they would do. Got it? Or do you need it somehow dumbed down even more?

        Moderator: So you are lying again. Your own words: “I’m not saying that because Bush’s tax cuts didn’t deliver 100 percent of what they promised, that makes them a total failure.”

        It’s really not my fault you are unable to keep up in these discussions; blaming me for your own shortcomings is a very bad look, tired. Worse than your usual look, even, which is already pretty bad.

        Moderator: No, little jeffy, it is your fault you don’t understand what you write or, in reality, you don’t understand what you copy and paste. You say Bush’s tax cuts were a failure because they did not deliver everything that was promised. Then you deny saying it as I have shown. You have been caught in a lie by your own words. You can try to weasel out of it but you won’t succeed.

        By the way, why do you always respond under the guise of the moderator now? Does it make you feel authoritative in lieu of actually having command of the facts?

        Moderator: Guise? I am the moderator of this thread. If you don’t like it, stop lying, debate and back up your silly ASSertions with facts and you won’t be corrected and shown for what the fool you are. This is too easy.

      • MontyBurns July 18, 2011 / 11:05 pm

        Moderator: Continues to attack, lie and deny and not provide proof to back up his assertions.

      • MontyBurns July 19, 2011 / 11:09 am

        I made a simple challenge: FInd me an example of me saying that the Bush tax cuts were a failure because they did some–but not all–of what they were promised to do.

        Moderator: Now you are trying to change your original argument. You said, “No, tired, the Bush tax cuts were a COMPLETE FAILURE because EVERYTHING Bush said they would do failed to actually happen. Hence, FAILURE”. Emphasis mine. I asserted that they did some of what they promised, but for you that was not good enough. For you, it has always been it had to do it all or it was a failure. You can’t change your argument once you realize you are caught and proven a liar. That is called intellectual dishonesty and you have shown it time and again. Besides, this is not the topic of the thread, but you need to try and take “victories” where you can.

        Can’t do it, can you?

        Moderator: I just did, AGAIN!

        Because you’re finally realizing that this whole problem is due to your inability to grasp the definition of the word “everything.” I said that the Bush tax cuts promised to do several things, and it didn’t deliver on any of those promises. Therefore, it failed at everything. You didn’t understand the word “everything,” lashed out, and are now left humiliated.

        Moderator: You have now contradicted what you said in the first paragraph. Can’t you keep your talking points or your copy and pastes straight??? Your own source the Slate acknowledges that tax revenues and jobs grew because of tax cuts. YOUR OWN SOURCE PROVED YOU WRONG!!! You humiliated no one but yourself and as usual you continue to lash out with the personal attacks.

        Moderator: The rest is the usual childish personal attacks when he has nothing else to prove, do or say. Pathetic. Now little jeffy, comment on topic or go away. You can’t deny your lies and screw-ups any longer.

      • MontyBurns July 19, 2011 / 1:00 pm

        Moderator: Continues to change his argument, lie, deny and attack. No matter how many times you repeat your lie will not make it the truth. You tried to change your argument from EVERYTHING to SOME THINGS when you “restated” your “challenge”. It won’t work.

        Secondly, your “source” admits (if you read it) that some of Bush’s claims came true and also makes claims that are unrelated. According to the Slate, Bush claimed that the tax cut would decrease the size of government, then it goes to say that Medicare part D grew the government, which is true BUT the tax cut had nothing to do with the Prescription Drug Benefit. That argument is misleading, but what do you expect from a liberally biased source. Again, your source admits that revenues grew and jobs were created, but opined that they were “not good enough”. But the Slate will tout the success of the Stimulus package, when there was NEGATIVE job growth after its passage. You know “We must pass this or unemployment will rise above 8%”.

        Again, YOU HAVE PROVED NOTHING. YOUR SOURCE CONTRADICTS YOU. YOU CHANGED YOUR ARGUMENT THEN DENY MAKING IT. Keep parroting and regurgitating those talking points, they will never become true in doing so. Debate the topic of this thread or go away. End of this discussion.

      • MontyBurns July 19, 2011 / 3:20 pm

        Moderator: Keeps changing his argument. When one is proven wrong, he switches gears to something else. Typical liberal tactic – change the subject. Again, he does not prove anything, does not provide any evidence and resorts to personal attacks. You cannot win an argument with pathetic liberal tactics. Comment on the subject or go away.

      • MontyBurns July 20, 2011 / 2:52 pm

        Moderator: More copy and pasted regurgitated nonsense. Avoids direct questions and the topic of the thread… and, of course, personal attacks when all else fails.

      • MontyBurns July 21, 2011 / 5:06 pm

        “You tried to change your argument from EVERYTHING to SOME THINGS ”

        Now that’s a lie. Your ignorance was excused earlier, given your misunderstanding of the word “everything,” but it has been explained to you several times now (to pretty much no effect…I’m rather at a loss as to how to make you grasp the meaning of the word “everything”). I have never wavered in my statements, I have never altered them (and I have repeatedly invited you to show me where I have…nothing doing on your part. Hmmm….). I have said the same thing each and every time–that Bush promised his tax cuts would achieve multiple things, but in fact, they achieved not a single one of those things and therefore failed at everything they were supposed to do. You have simply been unable to comprehend these statements, and now you’re (rightfully) incredibly embarrassed about that. But do you think lying makes it better, tired? Do you think lying gets you off the hook here? Does lying teach you the definition of the word “everything” somehow?

        This is beyond sad for you. I’m used to you saying foolish things and then refusing to admit that they were foolish–that’s political blogging in a nutshell–but you’ve gone well past that and into straight-up weird territory. Because you don’t understand the meaning of a basic piece of vocabulary, you’ve spun out of control, refused to learn, called me a liar due to your own shortcomings, and now are doing everything you can to hide from all of this. I understand how humiliating this whole episode has been for you, but the best thing for you to do at this point is to let it go, try to learn something (such as the definition of the word “everything”), and move on.

  10. tiredoflibbs July 19, 2011 / 7:58 pm

    Little jeffy: “I’m not saying that because Bush’s tax cuts didn’t deliver 100 percent of what they promised, that makes them a total failure.”

    With poor writing like this, no wonder he cannot make a sound argument.

    Once again, YOUR source, the Slate, says that the tax cuts brought higher revenues and more jobs, but of course, “not good enough” in their opinion. YOUR OWN SOURCE PROVED YOUR STATEMENT WRONG!!! Again, the Slate praises the stimulus plan while the stimulus plan had NEGATIVE job growth. This shows how biased they are in their OPINIONS. Your arguments have become illegitimate, thus you find it necessary to lie, attack and deny.

    Again, this is not the topic of the thread, comment on topic or go away.

    • MontyBurns July 19, 2011 / 10:21 pm

      Moderator: More of the same.

    • MontyBurns July 20, 2011 / 10:56 am

      Moderator: Even more of the same……

    • MontyBurns July 20, 2011 / 6:34 pm

      Moderator: Repeating the same things, ad nauseum, will not make them true.

    • MontyBurns July 21, 2011 / 11:18 am

      Moderator: Again, lies, denials, commenting off topic and personal attacks will get you nowhere. Regurgitating the same lies will not make them true.

    • MontyBurns July 21, 2011 / 5:06 pm

      Moderator: After repeating his lies and denials again to convince himself he was right after being proved wrong by everyone and INCLUDING HIS OWN SOURCE, Monty (jeffy) resorts to vulgar insults. Plus he is incapable of learning. He demonstrates that doing the same thing over and over and over won’t give you different results.

      Pathetic.

      • MontyBurns July 21, 2011 / 8:07 pm

        Moderator: Repeats his delusions of cowardice and false bravado.

        No jeffy, just waiting for you to make a coherent argument that is on topic and not the same repeat of lies, denials and attacks.

        We both know it will never happen since you cannot make a coherent argument without failing miserably at using the English language.

      • MontyBurns July 22, 2011 / 2:10 pm

        Moderator: Still waiting to respond to the topic JUST ONCE. But continues with more of the same.

        It would be funny if it was not so pathetic.

Comments are closed.