Discussion:
Redistributing Wealth Upward - utter bullshit
(too old to reply)
George Plimpton
2012-09-26 15:51:21 UTC
Permalink
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-party-that-truly-believes-in-redistribution/2012/09/25/c5877b7a-0740-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html?
Redistributing Wealth Upward
By Harold Meyerson | Washington Post | September 25, 2012
Which is the more redistributionist of our two parties?
Without any doubt, the Democrats. There is no <scoff> "upward
redistribution" of wealth; the very idea is absurd. It presumes,
irrationally, that market forces would have allocated the wealth to
poorer people, but the eeeeeeevil rich people intervened and redirect
the wealth to themselves. That's bullshit. The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.

This is typical left-wing bullshit. It presumes either of two wrong
things: that wealth is static, and the rich increase their share only
by taking wealth away from poorer people; or, that wealth is increased
by some sort of "collective" effort, and the rich are misappropriating
an "unfair" amount of the increase, thereby increasing their total
share. Both ideas are complete bullshit.

The share of wealth owned and controlled by rich people has increased
because they are the ones who have undertaken the efforts that have
increased the wealth. Their share also has increased because they have
successfully thwarted and in some cases *reversed* efforts to
redistribute the wealth they create away from them and toward
unproductive poorer people. If I manage to put a stop to illegal
extortion that has been regularly depriving me of wealth and income I
rightfully acquire, how can it be said - with a straight face - that I
have "upwardly redistributed" the money that used to go to the
extortionist? He never had a valid claim on it in the first place.
George Plimpton
2012-09-26 18:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth.
They do nothing.
Bill Shatzer
2012-09-26 19:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth.
They do nothing.
California, Arizona, I harvest your crops
Well it's North up to Oregon to gather your hops
Dig the beets from your ground, cut the grapes from your vine
To set on your table your light sparkling wine

- Woody Guthrie, Pastures of Plenty -

peace and justice,
George Plimpton
2012-09-26 19:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth.
They do nothing.
[commie doggerel poetrysnipped]
You sure do live in the past a lot.

liberty and property,
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-26 20:24:03 UTC
Permalink
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
George Plimpton
2012-09-26 20:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth.
They do nothing.
[commie doggerel poetrysnipped]
What is communist about the lyrics?
Guthrie was a fucking commie. You know it.
Post by George Plimpton
You sure do live in the past a lot.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Remembering it is fine; you *live* in it, as do almost all leftists.
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-26 20:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth.
They do nothing.
[commie doggerel poetrysnipped]
What is communist about the lyrics?
Guthrie was a fucking commie. You know it.
http://communistpartyok.org/

Woody’s work was regularly featured in the Communist Party’s newspaper
the Daily Worker under a column titled, “Woody Sez.” During the
Depression, Woody performed for Communist Party events throughout
California and, after the onset of the Second World War, was an
unapologetic supporter of the united front against fascism. He felt so
strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”

Woody’s sympathy for working-class movements, unions and the Communist
Party is also apparent in his most famous song, “This Land is Your
Land.” The song was written in 1944 as a direct response to Irving
Berlin’s “God Bless America,” which Woody criticized as being
nationalistic and against the spirit of the anti-fascist united front.
As a testament to Woody’s sympathies for a Marxist critique of
capitalism he included a verse in “This Land is Your Land” that is often
omitted in popular renditions of this classic:

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing;
This land was made for you and me.

While many have attempted to revise and reinterpret Woody’s
controversial legacy since his death, Woody himself was never afraid to
let his true colors shine. In addition to writing for the Communist
Party’s newspaper, he openly fraternized with Communists and attended
Communist Party events. Although there is some debate over whether or
not Woody was ever a “card-carrying member” of the Communist Party,
there is little doubt about his sympathies and support for the work of
the party. As Guthrie himself once said, “The best thing that I did in
1936 was to sign up with the Communist Party.”

This article can also be found at www.peoplesworld.org
Post by George Plimpton
You sure do live in the past a lot.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Remembering it is fine; you *live* in it, as do almost all leftists.
He's a fucking commie too.
George Plimpton
2012-09-26 20:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth.
They do nothing.
[commie doggerel poetrysnipped]
What is communist about the lyrics?
Guthrie was a fucking commie. You know it.
http://communistpartyok.org/
Woody’s work was regularly featured in the Communist Party’s newspaper
the Daily Worker under a column titled, “Woody Sez.” During the
Depression, Woody performed for Communist Party events throughout
California and, after the onset of the Second World War, was an
unapologetic supporter of the united front against fascism. He felt so
strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Woody’s sympathy for working-class movements, unions and the Communist
Party is also apparent in his most famous song, “This Land is Your
Land.” The song was written in 1944 as a direct response to Irving
Berlin’s “God Bless America,” which Woody criticized as being
nationalistic and against the spirit of the anti-fascist united front.
As a testament to Woody’s sympathies for a Marxist critique of
capitalism he included a verse in “This Land is Your Land” that is often
There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing;
This land was made for you and me.
While many have attempted to revise and reinterpret Woody’s
controversial legacy since his death, Woody himself was never afraid to
let his true colors shine. In addition to writing for the Communist
Party’s newspaper, he openly fraternized with Communists and attended
Communist Party events. Although there is some debate over whether or
not Woody was ever a “card-carrying member” of the Communist Party,
there is little doubt about his sympathies and support for the work of
the party. As Guthrie himself once said, “The best thing that I did in
1936 was to sign up with the Communist Party.”
This article can also be found at www.peoplesworld.org
Here's another excellent one about his fellow fucking commie, Pete Seeger:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_urbanities-communist.html
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by George Plimpton
You sure do live in the past a lot.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Remembering it is fine; you *live* in it, as do almost all leftists.
He's a fucking commie too.
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-26 20:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
The increase in wealth
*never* would have gone to poorer people, because they don't do anything
to generate it.
Poorer people do everything to generate wealth.
They do nothing.
[commie doggerel poetrysnipped]
What is communist about the lyrics?
Guthrie was a fucking commie. You know it.
http://communistpartyok.org/
Woody’s work was regularly featured in the Communist Party’s newspaper
the Daily Worker under a column titled, “Woody Sez.” During the
Depression, Woody performed for Communist Party events throughout
California and, after the onset of the Second World War, was an
unapologetic supporter of the united front against fascism. He felt so
strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
Woody’s sympathy for working-class movements, unions and the Communist
Party is also apparent in his most famous song, “This Land is Your
Land.” The song was written in 1944 as a direct response to Irving
Berlin’s “God Bless America,” which Woody criticized as being
nationalistic and against the spirit of the anti-fascist united front.
As a testament to Woody’s sympathies for a Marxist critique of
capitalism he included a verse in “This Land is Your Land” that is often
There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing;
This land was made for you and me.
While many have attempted to revise and reinterpret Woody’s
controversial legacy since his death, Woody himself was never afraid to
let his true colors shine. In addition to writing for the Communist
Party’s newspaper, he openly fraternized with Communists and attended
Communist Party events. Although there is some debate over whether or
not Woody was ever a “card-carrying member” of the Communist Party,
there is little doubt about his sympathies and support for the work of
the party. As Guthrie himself once said, “The best thing that I did in
1936 was to sign up with the Communist Party.”
This article can also be found at www.peoplesworld.org
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_urbanities-communist.html
Ha!

Superb backgrounder.

Bookmarked.

Goodnight Irene...forever dirt nap!
Post by George Plimpton
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by George Plimpton
You sure do live in the past a lot.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Remembering it is fine; you *live* in it, as do almost all leftists.
He's a fucking commie too.
Dano
2012-09-26 22:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Guthrie was a fucking commie. You know it.
======================================

Who gives a flying fuck? I thought this was supposed to be a FREE country?
You don't like that Nazi? Move to freaking Tehran!
Dano
2012-09-26 22:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Guthrie was a fucking commie. You know it.
What is he running for turd?
Fair Play
2012-09-30 21:39:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-30 21:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Fair Play
2012-09-30 22:07:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:54:57 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Context restored.
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong , you merely demonstrate your lack of knowledge and abuse of
Godwin's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

"Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even
as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as
hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually
appropriate.[10]

Similar criticisms of the "law" (or "at least the distorted version
which purports to prohibit all comparisons to German crimes") have
been made by Glenn Greenwald.[11]
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-30 22:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:54:57 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Context
Fuck you, drop dead you insolent libitarded dolt.
cloud dreamer
2012-09-30 22:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:54:57 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Context
Fuck you, drop dead you insolent libitarded dolt.
Yeah, that's an intelligent reply.

..
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-30 23:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by cloud dreamer
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:54:57 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Context
Fuck you, drop dead you insolent libitarded dolt.
Yeah, that's an intelligent reply.
..
You may also fuck the Hell off.
William December Starr
2012-10-01 03:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:54:57 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Context
Fuck you, drop dead you insolent libitarded dolt.
Oh no, not *insolence*!

-- wds
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 03:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by William December Starr
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:54:57 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
who would have sided with Hitler
Context
Fuck you, drop dead you insolent libitarded dolt.
Oh no, not *insolence*!
It sounds like a quaint word today, but it was the sort of offense that
could get a person severely punished in the past, and it *should* get
extremists like "foul ball" severely punished today.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 15:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Oh no, not*insolence*!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156776/swing-state-voters-say-no-better-off-2008.aspx

Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of voters in key 2012 election swing states
say they are not better off than they were four years ago;

The results are similar for all U.S. registered voters, among whom 42%
say they are better off and 55% say they are not.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans, in a 1980
presidential debate, if they were better off than four years ago.
Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the
presidential election.
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-30 23:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Fair Play
2012-10-01 01:12:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.

When "George" posts about Nazi Germany, a response to that post is NOT
an example of Godwin's Law even if you snip out the context.

On the contrary, your own pitiful efforts are a classic example of the
abuse of Godwin's Law.

Comprendez Senor?

Probably not.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 01:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't. You're the one who first mentioned Hitler:

As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?

It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
Sancho Panza
2012-10-01 01:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
You mean like the unbridled issuance of executive orders:

EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…

Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Fair Play
2012-10-01 02:15:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.

It's bad enough that Republican clowns succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery from the disastrous effects of eight years
of their maladministration, fraud and embezzlement of the American
public.

Did you really think Republican clowns were going to be allowed to
go on to destroy the whole country for their own personal political
advantage?


With 10 months left to run in the 111th Congress, Senate Republicans
have turned to the filibuster or threatened its use at a pace that
will more than triple old records.

Republicans setting filibuster record

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35643530/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/analysis-republicans-setting-filibuster-record/

GOP senators are on pace to triple previous uses of procedural
obstruction

WASHINGTON — The filibuster — tool of obstruction in the U.S. Senate
— is alternately blamed and praised for wilting President Barack
Obama's ambitious agenda. Some even say it's made the nation
ungovernable.

Maybe, maybe not. Obama's term still has three years to run.

More certain, however: Opposition Republicans are using the delaying
tactic at a record-setting pace.

"The numbers are astonishing in this Congress," says Jim
Riddlesperger, political science professor at Texas Christian
University in Fort Worth.

The filibuster, using seemingly endless debate to block legislative
action, has become entrenched like a dandelion tap root in the midst
of the shrill partisanship gripping Washington.

The decade in politics In the 110th Congress of 2007-2008, there were
a record 112 cloture votes. In this session of Congress, the 111th —
for all of 2009 and the first two months of 2010 — the number already
exceeds 40.

The most the Democrats have ever use the filibuster was 58 times in
the 106th Congress of 1999-2000.

During most of Obama's first year in office and for a few weeks this
year, 58 Democratic senators and two Independents who normally vote
with them held a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate.

That vanished last month when Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown
captured the seat of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who died last summer.

However, one of Brown's first votes after taking office saw him
joining four other Republicans to help Democrats break a threatened
filibuster by his party's leaders against a job bill.

The measure, $13 billion in tax incentives for businesses to hire
unemployed workers, was quickly passed the next day with 12
Republicans joining Brown and 55 Democrats in favor of it.

Filibusters to make the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress
look inept are one thing. Quite another is a vote against creating
jobs in an economy with nearly 10 percent unemployment and elections
nine months away.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 02:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.

You leftists are totalitarians.
Fair Play
2012-10-01 03:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy and the will of the people against Republican
obstructionism.
Post by George Plimpton
You leftists are totalitarians.
The Republicans are preventing creation of approx. 2 million jobs (as
cited by the CBO) by delaying the Transportation bill, blocking bills
the American Jobs Act, Veterans Jobs Bill, INSourcing Jobs Act,
Construction, Infrastructure, Teachers/First Responders, threatening
to use the same obstructionist hostage taking tactics AGAIN to send
the U.S. over the cliff, and then the GOP gets on TV and radio ads and
tell bold-face LIES, and try to CON you into thinking Obama is at
fault, when IN FACT, the Republicans are at fault with their
despicable obstructionism and policies . . . .

Americans should be outraged and vote ALL Republicans out of office -
don’t reward them for their obstructionism, demise of the middle
class, jobs, etc, and BETRAYAL of Americans.

The GOP has adopted a scorched earth strategy - either they get their
agenda without compromise or they SINK this entire country. The GOP
sees the U.S. citizens economic RUIN as their way to be re-elected
with a Republican president in 2012 - they want our country to FAIL,
and this should make Americans determined to NEVER vote them back into
office . . .

Vote Democrat for President, Congress (House/Senate), Governor, etc. .
Re-elect Obama 2012!
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 03:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy
No, executive orders are inherently anti-democratic.
Post by Fair Play
and the will of the people
No, executive orders have nothing to do with the will of the people -
they are the dictatorial will of the executive, exceeding his authority.

You're a fascist totalitarian.
Fair Play
2012-10-01 04:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy
No, executive orders are inherently anti-democratic.
Post by Fair Play
and the will of the people
No, executive orders have nothing to do with the will of the people -
they are the dictatorial will of the executive, exceeding his authority.
GWB was a bad boy then right "George'?

I guess you complained loudly as he used them?

You didn't?

That's odd.
Post by George Plimpton
You're a fascist totalitarian.
Fascist or Communist?

Make your mind up with your meaningless outdated
50"s smears and slurs.

Your crazy slanders and smears are becoming even more
confused and self-contradictory.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 04:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED…
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy
No, executive orders are inherently anti-democratic.
Post by Fair Play
and the will of the people
No, executive orders have nothing to do with the will of the people -
they are the dictatorial will of the executive, exceeding his authority.
GWB
We're not talking about him. We're talking about Obama, who has issued
more than 15 times as many anti-democratic executive orders in 3.5 years
as Bush did in eight.

That's what we're talking about. We're talking about leftists' cheap
and automatic propensity to support totalitarianism.
Too_Many_Tools
2012-10-02 03:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
          As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
          yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit.  It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
    EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy
No, executive orders are inherently anti-democratic.
Post by Fair Play
and the will of the people
No, executive orders have nothing to do with the will of the people -
they are the dictatorial will of the executive, exceeding his authority.
GWB
We're not talking about him.  We're talking about Obama, who has issued
more than 15 times as many anti-democratic executive orders in 3.5 years
as Bush did in eight.
That's what we're talking about.  We're talking about leftists' cheap
and automatic propensity to support totalitarianism.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So what you are saying is that you want to kill Obama.

Figures.

Another conservative bag of shit that wants to kill the President.

TMT
no hope or change
2012-10-02 04:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy
No, executive orders are inherently anti-democratic.
Post by Fair Play
and the will of the people
No, executive orders have nothing to do with the will of the people -
they are the dictatorial will of the executive, exceeding his authority.
GWB
We're not talking about him. We're talking about Obama, who has issued
more than 15 times as many anti-democratic executive orders in 3.5 years
as Bush did in eight.
That's what we're talking about. We're talking about leftists' cheap
and automatic propensity to support totalitarianism.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So what you are saying is that you want to kill Obama.
He never said that, liar.

You, otoh, should kill yourself, soon.
George Plimpton
2012-10-02 04:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by George Plimpton
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:55:58 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by Fair Play
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit. It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!
Of course.
It's bad enough that Republicans succeeded in sabotaging and
slowing down the recovery
They did no such thing.
Post by Fair Play
Did you really think Republican
We're talking about Obama's dictatorial end run around democracy via
close to 1000 executive orders.
IOW support of democracy
No, executive orders are inherently anti-democratic.
Post by Fair Play
and the will of the people
No, executive orders have nothing to do with the will of the people -
they are the dictatorial will of the executive, exceeding his authority.
GWB
We're not talking about him. We're talking about Obama, who has issued
more than 15 times as many anti-democratic executive orders in 3.5 years
as Bush did in eight.
That's what we're talking about. We're talking about leftists' cheap
and automatic propensity to support totalitarianism.
So what you are saying is that you want to kill Obama.
You're really a fuckwit - a snarky juvenile fuckwit.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 15:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Make your mind up with your meaningless outdated
50"s smears and slurs.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156776/swing-state-voters-say-no-better-off-2008.aspx

Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of voters in key 2012 election swing states
say they are not better off than they were four years ago;

The results are similar for all U.S. registered voters, among whom 42%
say they are better off and 55% say they are not.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans, in a 1980
presidential debate, if they were better off than four years ago.
Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the
presidential election.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 16:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Your crazy slanders and smears are becoming even more
confused and self-contradictory.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156776/swing-state-voters-say-no-better-off-2008.aspx

Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of voters in key 2012 election swing states
say they are not better off than they were four years ago;

The results are similar for all U.S. registered voters, among whom 42%
say they are better off and 55% say they are not.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans, in a 1980
presidential debate, if they were better off than four years ago.
Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the
presidential election.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 15:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Of course.
It's bad enough that
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156776/swing-state-voters-say-no-better-off-2008.aspx

Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of voters in key 2012 election swing states
say they are not better off than they were four years ago;

The results are similar for all U.S. registered voters, among whom 42%
say they are better off and 55% say they are not.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans, in a 1980
presidential debate, if they were better off than four years ago.
Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the
presidential election.
Too_Many_Tools
2012-10-02 03:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
       As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
       yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference, not to mention complete bullshit.  It is
the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
  EXECUTIVE ORDERS ISSUED
Teddy Roosevelt 3
Others to FDR NONE
FDR 11 in 16 years
Truman 5 in 7 years
Ike 2 in 8 years
Kennedy 4 in 3 years
LBJ 4 in 5 years
Nixon 1 in 6 years
Ford 3 in 2 years
Carter 3 in 4 years
Reagan 5 in 8 years
Bush 3 in 4 years
Clinton 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush 62 in 8 years
Obama 923 in 3 1/2 years!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So you provide the proof of how the Repubicans are obstructing the
operation of the Congress...and the answer to that is for the American
public needs to vote the bastards out.

I agree.

TMT
no hope or change
2012-10-02 04:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Repubicans are obstructing the
operation of the Congress.
Democrats ignore it.
no hope or change
2012-10-02 14:41:04 UTC
Permalink
the American public needs to vote the bastards out.
http://online.wsj.com

REVIEW & OUTLOOKUpdated September 27, 2012, 7:37 p.m. ET.

As Good As It Gets?

Growth of 1.7% isn't what Team Obama promised four years ago.

Mr. Obama told Americans in 2009 that if he did not turn around the
economy in three years his Presidency would be "a one-term proposition."
Joe Biden said three years ago that the $830 billion economic stimulus
was working beyond his "wildest dreams" and he famously promised several
months after the Obama stimulus was enacted that Americans would enjoy a
"summer of recovery." That was more than three years ago.

In early 2009 soon-to-be White House economists Ms. Romer and Mr.
Bernstein promised Congress that the stimulus would hold the
unemployment rate below 7% and that by now it would be 5.6%. Instead the
rate is 8.1%. The latest Census Bureau report says there are nearly
seven million fewer full-time, year-round workers today than in 2007.
The labor participation rate is the lowest since 1981.

So it has gone with nearly every prediction the President has made about
where the economy would be today. Mr. Obama promised that the deficit
would be cut in half in four years, but the fiscal 2012 deficit
(estimated to be above $1 trillion) will be twice the 2008 deficit ($458
billion).

Mr. Obama said that his health-care plan would "cut the cost of a
typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year," but premiums for
employer-sponsored family coverage have gone up $2,370 since 2009,
according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

He said that the linchpin for a growing economy would be renewable
energy investment, and he promised to "create five million new jobs in
solar, wind, geothermal" energy. Mr. Obama did invest some $9 billion in
green energy, but his job estimate was off by at least a factor of 10
and today many solar and wind industry firms are fighting bankruptcy.
The growth in domestic U.S. energy production that he now takes credit
for has come almost entirely from the fossil fuels his Administration
has done so much to obstruct.

There's nothing unusual about candidates making grandiose promises that
don't come true. And it's a White House tradition to blame one's
predecessor when things don't get better. (Usually these Presidents end
up one-termers.)

The bad faith wasn't then. It's now. Mr. Obama really believed that
government spending would unleash a robust recovery in employment and
housing—an "economy built to last." Now that this hasn't happened and
with the Congressional Budget Office predicting a possible recession for
2013, Team Obama claims these woeful results were the best that could
have been expected.

The problem with this line is that every President who has inherited a
recession in modern times has done better. (See nearby table.) Under Mr.
Obama, measured on the basis of jobs, GDP growth and incomes, this has
been by far the meekest recovery from the past 10 recessions.
Gunner
2012-10-17 17:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Threats to Assassinate Romney Explode After Debate

Obama supporters voice desire to kill Romney over fears food stamps
will be taken away

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 17, 2012

Despite numerous media outlets attempting to downplay the issue,
Twitter exploded last night following the debate with new threats from
Obama supporters to assassinate Mitt Romney if he defeats Obama in the
presidential race.

As we reported yesterday, in addition to threats by Obama supporters
to riot if Romney wins, innumerable Twitter users are also making
direct death threats against Romney.

The primary reason given for Obama supporters wanting to see Romney
dead is the fear that he will take away food stamps.

If the tables were turned and conservatives were making death threats
against Obama in these numbers, it would be a national news story.
Indeed, the mere act of hanging empty chairs from trees as a reference
to Clint Eastwood’s RNC speech was hyped by the media as a deadly sign
that conservatives were out to lynch black people if Obama won.

However, the major networks have remained completely silent on the
disturbing trend of Obama supporters threatening to resort to violence
if their candidate fails to secure a second term.

Twitchy has compiled a laundry list of assassination threats by Obama
supporters made during and after the debate, and more continued to
flood in this morning, including the following;

The death threats are being made by both black and white people,
emphasizing that merely drawing attention to the issue has nothing to
do with “race-baiting,” as the Obama front group Think Progress
claimed yesterday.

It is important to stress that these Twitter accounts are genuine,
they are not fakes. Many of them have thousands of previous tweets.

The following Tweets are just some of the ones compiled by Twitchy
during and after the debate;

- “If Romney win this election, he might as well wear a shirt that
says “Assassinate Me Bitch”.

- “Yall ready to assasinate romney?”

- “Somebody needs to asassinate This mofo Romney.”

- “Romney make me wanna hop through the tv & just assasinate his ass.”

- “I aint gone lie… Food stamps the shit! I mite assasinate romney my
damn self if he get elected!”

- “If romney get elected i hope a nigga assasinate his bitchass.

- “No birth control???? Lol rlly Romney the american population is
going to overflow and then we’ll have to resort to murder and you’ll
be #1.”

- “At this point in time I am completely prepared to MURDER ROMNEY
MYSELF!”

- “If Romney win, IM GOING TO JAIL FOR MURDER cuz imma whack his bitch
ass ASAP.”

- “If Mitt Romney wins, which I doubt, someone should assassinate him
before he ruins the lives of our generation & our children.”

- “IF ROMNEY GETS ELECTED AND TAKES AWAY MY FOOD STAMPS IMA SEND
SOMEONE TO MURDER HIS ASS.”

It is important to emphasize that these are just a selection of scores
and scores of threats to assassinate Romney that have exploded on
Twitter over the last 12 hours. We didn’t even have time to check
Facebook or any other social networks.

As Infowars has stressed, we are non-partisan and have encouraged
people to vote for neither candidate. However, the hypocrisy of
leftists in trying to either downplay or deny this issue altogether is
jaw-dropping given how they routinely try to portray conservatives as
violent and extremist by pointing to angry comments made online.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered
by an occasional assassination." --Voltaire
Tom Farnsworth
2012-10-17 17:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Threats to Assassinate Romney Explode After Debate
Now here's a pot (gunner) calling a kettle pigmentally challenged.
private sector's doing 'fine'
2012-10-17 17:41:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Farnsworth
Post by Gunner
Threats to Assassinate Romney Explode After Debate
Now here's a pot
Now here's reality.

Cope with it, dumb fuck.

Obama supporters voice desire to kill Romney over fears food stamps
will be taken away

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 17, 2012

Despite numerous media outlets attempting to downplay the issue,
Twitter exploded last night following the debate with new threats from
Obama supporters to assassinate Mitt Romney if he defeats Obama in the
presidential race.

As we reported yesterday, in addition to threats by Obama supporters
to riot if Romney wins, innumerable Twitter users are also making
direct death threats against Romney.

The primary reason given for Obama supporters wanting to see Romney
dead is the fear that he will take away food stamps.

If the tables were turned and conservatives were making death threats
against Obama in these numbers, it would be a national news story.
Indeed, the mere act of hanging empty chairs from trees as a reference
to Clint Eastwood’s RNC speech was hyped by the media as a deadly sign
that conservatives were out to lynch black people if Obama won.

However, the major networks have remained completely silent on the
disturbing trend of Obama supporters threatening to resort to violence
if their candidate fails to secure a second term.

Twitchy has compiled a laundry list of assassination threats by Obama
supporters made during and after the debate, and more continued to
flood in this morning, including the following;

The death threats are being made by both black and white people,
emphasizing that merely drawing attention to the issue has nothing to
do with “race-baiting,” as the Obama front group Think Progress
claimed yesterday.

It is important to stress that these Twitter accounts are genuine,
they are not fakes. Many of them have thousands of previous tweets.

The following Tweets are just some of the ones compiled by Twitchy
during and after the debate;

- “If Romney win this election, he might as well wear a shirt that
says “Assassinate Me Bitch”.

- “Yall ready to assasinate romney?”

- “Somebody needs to asassinate This mofo Romney.”

- “Romney make me wanna hop through the tv & just assasinate his ass.”

- “I aint gone lie… Food stamps the shit! I mite assasinate romney my
damn self if he get elected!”

- “If romney get elected i hope a nigga assasinate his bitchass.

- “No birth control???? Lol rlly Romney the american population is
going to overflow and then we’ll have to resort to murder and you’ll
be #1.”

- “At this point in time I am completely prepared to MURDER ROMNEY
MYSELF!”

- “If Romney win, IM GOING TO JAIL FOR MURDER cuz imma whack his bitch
ass ASAP.”

- “If Mitt Romney wins, which I doubt, someone should assassinate him
before he ruins the lives of our generation & our children.”

- “IF ROMNEY GETS ELECTED AND TAKES AWAY MY FOOD STAMPS IMA SEND
SOMEONE TO MURDER HIS ASS.”

It is important to emphasize that these are just a selection of scores
and scores of threats to assassinate Romney that have exploded on
Twitter over the last 12 hours. We didn’t even have time to check
Facebook or any other social networks.

As Infowars has stressed, we are non-partisan and have encouraged
people to vote for neither candidate. However, the hypocrisy of
leftists in trying to either downplay or deny this issue altogether is
jaw-dropping given how they routinely try to portray conservatives as
violent and extremist by pointing to angry comments made online.

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered
by an occasional assassination." --Voltaire
North of the 49th
2012-10-17 17:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Wealth is always redistributed upwards:

Labour works and produces wealth.
A fraction of that produced wealth is paid back to feed and house
labour.
The surplus value is retained and ammassed by the owners and their
investors.

Money moves upwards; that is capitalism.
Money moves upwards to Romney; that is Republicanism.
George Plimpton
2012-10-17 19:11:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Farnsworth
Post by Gunner
Threats to Assassinate Romney Explode After Debate
Now here's a pot (gunner) calling a kettle pigmentally challenged.
Yeah, gummer - please spell it correctly - has a lot of gall to be
whining about that.
Gunner
2012-10-22 08:28:03 UTC
Permalink
North Carolina Vote fraud or Guninness world record?


There are obviously verifiable vote fraud problems in North Carolina.

In 2010 those problems surfaced meaningfully as indicated in the below
voter fraud post from an earlier Charlotte Conservative Examiner
article:

Perhaps in an effort to promote North Carolina as one of the
healthiest States in the Nation, this latest voter twist comes to us
from Susan Myrick of the Civitas Institute in North Carolina--not to
be confused with Rep. Sue Myrick of NC who is unrelated. In a radio
interview with local WBT Anchor Tara Servatious, Susan reports that
she has been keeping track of the number of votes in North Carolina of
individuals over the age of 110 years and apparently we have quite a
few, over 410 of the 110 year olds--to be exact-- actually voted via
absentee ballot on October the 28th. Yes indeed, now it would appear
that good ole NC has the market cornered on the Centenarian vote.

At latest count, Susan has garnered a total Absentee Ballot vote
of over 2,660 people over the age of 110. Someone contact the Guiness
Book and warm up the Ford, the Fountain of Youth exists and its right
here in lovely NC. It's no wonder people are moving here in
droves--maybe the use of tobacco isn't such a bad thing after all?
But, on a more serious note, with all of the irregularities going on
all over the place, we can now begin to wonder about a few things.

Apparently those ultra-healthy seniors over 110 have aged and are now
astoundingly over 112 years old, and are still able to make it to the
polls ahead of time.

According to a post originally from the Silence Dogood political blog
report, there were at least 758 individuals over the age of 112 who
had either risen from their respective graves, or otherwise, to vote
once again for the Democrats in charge, who might apparently have also
guaranteed them an ever-lasting vote for life and beyond.

In visiting the political tracking site, we later found the same story
in evidence, except the number of centenarian voters had increased
measurably to 832 voters over the age of 112. Of these voters, over
70% were slated as Democrats, with a diminutive 25% counted as
Republicans. The rest were unaffiliated.

When peering a little more deeply at the numbers we find that an
astounding 2,374 people between the ages of 94 and 100 have already
voted in the NC election to date. While an even more astounding 832
votes came from those individuals aged 112. However, according to the
Guinness book of world records, the oldest living person in the world,
at present, lives in Japan and is 114 years old. It would seem obvious
that, according to the NC vote registry, this old fellow might be
nudged aside in the near future, especially considering the crop of
spry 112 year-olds seemingly alive and well in the old North State.

In fact, two of the 112 year aged voters were mail-in ballots from
overseas; ostensibly vacationing to escape the now bitterly polarized
political contest, and who can blame them?

But it gets worse when we note from another concerned voter, who
indicated the following explanation, which goes but one full measure
further to explain what's happening in NC during this voting season of
, perhaps, persistent political zombies:

I overheard a nice lady about 70 telling her friend the following:
"Yes, I voted today."

"Going back tomorrow too."

"They took us to a place that don't ask names and don't write
nothing down. They give $20 each time."

She then handed her friend a card I couldn't see and told her
friend to call the number.

This same tipster later sent a message indicating that he had, indeed,
contacted the local election center, who immediately patted him upon
the head graciously for being a good citizen with a promise to check
on it again much later, in due course.

Obviously there is a problem, one in which voter ID might clearly
provide a solution. A thing that only the Democratic party swears
against at any cost, and for reasons becoming quite obvious.
"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered
by an occasional assassination." --Voltaire
M.I.Wakefield
2012-10-22 13:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
At latest count, Susan has garnered a total Absentee Ballot vote
of over 2,660 people over the age of 110.
And yet virtually all of the "voter fraud" measures only deal with in-person
voting ... whatever can it mean?
Paul K. Dickman
2012-10-22 13:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by Gunner
At latest count, Susan has garnered a total Absentee Ballot vote
of over 2,660 people over the age of 110.
And yet virtually all of the "voter fraud" measures only deal with
in-person voting ... whatever can it mean?
It means gunner is rehashing two year old blog posts.
If he had read farther he would have seen this in the comments.
When a county does not have a birth date for a voter, they use a default
date for that voters birth date and most counties use 1/1/1900. If these
voters show up to vote, the pollworkers inquire as to their correct birth
date and that information is added. Over the past few years, we have reduced
the number of default birth date voters. And after this election the number
of default birth date voters will be reduced even further.

There were millions of voters transferred from the county paper VR records
to the Statewide VR database around 2000. Some of the county's older VR data
did not have the voter's birth date and it was not required at the time that
voter registered. Since that time, we have be able to reduce the number of
such voters down to a little over two thousand.

Sincerely,

Don Wright
General Counsel
NC State Board of Elections



Paul K. Dickman
Moder@tor
2012-10-22 16:58:49 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:37:13 -0500, "Paul K. Dickman"
Post by Paul K. Dickman
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by Gunner
At latest count, Susan has garnered a total Absentee Ballot vote
of over 2,660 people over the age of 110.
And yet virtually all of the "voter fraud" measures only deal with
in-person voting ... whatever can it mean?
It means gunner is rehashing two year old blog posts.
If he had read farther he would have seen this in the comments.
When a county does not have a birth date for a voter, they use a default
date for that voters birth date and most counties use 1/1/1900. If these
voters show up to vote, the pollworkers inquire as to their correct birth
date and that information is added. Over the past few years, we have reduced
the number of default birth date voters. And after this election the number
of default birth date voters will be reduced even further.
There were millions of voters transferred from the county paper VR records
to the Statewide VR database around 2000. Some of the county's older VR data
did not have the voter's birth date and it was not required at the time that
voter registered. Since that time, we have be able to reduce the number of
such voters down to a little over two thousand.
Sincerely,
Don Wright
General Counsel
NC State Board of Elections
Paul K. Dickman
Gunner belongs to that group of Righturds who don't let facts stand in
the way of a tin hat theory.
Mark Hill
2012-10-22 17:09:19 UTC
Permalink
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/20/real_romney_cbs_discusses_deeds_romney_does_without_the_cameras.html

Real Romney: CBS Discusses Deeds Romney Does Without The Cameras
Gunner
2012-10-22 19:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by M.I.Wakefield
Post by Gunner
At latest count, Susan has garnered a total Absentee Ballot vote
of over 2,660 people over the age of 110.
And yet virtually all of the "voter fraud" measures only deal with in-person
voting ... whatever can it mean?
Good question. Now given that its 75%-90% or more Democrat
fraud.....good question indeed.

Gunner

"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered
by an occasional assassination." --Voltaire

Mark Osdale
2012-10-22 13:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
North Carolina Vote fraud or Guninness world record?
There are obviously verifiable vote fraud problems in North Carolina.
In 2010 those problems surfaced meaningfully as indicated in the below
voter fraud post from an earlier Charlotte Conservative Examiner
Perhaps in an effort to promote North Carolina as one of the
healthiest States in the Nation, this latest voter twist comes to us
from Susan Myrick of the Civitas Institute in North Carolina--not to
be confused with Rep. Sue Myrick of NC who is unrelated. In a radio
interview with local WBT Anchor Tara Servatious, Susan reports that
she has been keeping track of the number of votes in North Carolina of
individuals over the age of 110 years and apparently we have quite a
few, over 410 of the 110 year olds--to be exact-- actually voted via
absentee ballot on October the 28th. Yes indeed, now it would appear
that good ole NC has the market cornered on the Centenarian vote.
At latest count, Susan has garnered a total Absentee Ballot vote
of over 2,660 people over the age of 110.
No, she hasn't. Even if "she" had access to any voter registration data
at all, she wouldn't get the ages of registered voters.

This unattributed (figures) story is bullshit. It never happened.
Bill Shatzer
2012-10-22 19:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
North Carolina Vote fraud or Guninness world record?
There are obviously verifiable vote fraud problems in North Carolina.
This "story" is over two years old and has been thoroughly debunked.

See Paul Dickman's post for further elucidation.

peace and justice,
Fair Play
2012-10-01 01:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany


From: somebody else made that happen <***@did.it>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?

It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.

Once again here we are in context.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Post by George Plimpton
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Post by George Plimpton
not to mention complete bullshit. It is the left in America who are barely a baby step away from totalitarianism.
You are deluded, there is no "Left" in ascendancy in the US.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 02:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
Fair Play
2012-10-01 03:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious you didn't but thanks for confirming it.
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are your deluded smears and crazed ad
hominess?

Way to go "George"
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 03:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.
Fair Play
2012-10-01 04:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.
Gosh!

Who would have thought that well nourished infants, babies and
expecting moms would destroy America?

Go tell your psychiatrist your meds aren't working any more "George".
It's time.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 04:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.
Gosh!
Who would have thought that well nourished infants, babies and
expecting moms would destroy America?
Redistribution is what is killing America.
Fair Play
2012-10-01 05:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.
Gosh!
Who would have thought that well nourished infants, babies and
expecting moms would destroy America?
Redistribution is what is killing America.
I guess we can agree on that.

Corporate welfare and siphoning off the wealth created by American
workers and pumping it into secret Swiss, Panamanian and Cayman Island
bank accounts certainly doesn't help.


Speaking of not paying taxes & entitlement, how about the 26 Fortune
500 corporations that haven’t paid tax in 4 years?

http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/09/speaking-of-not-paying-taxes-entitlement-how-about-the-26-corporations-that-havent-paid-tax-in-4-years.html

September 18, 2012 in GOPocrisy, Lies, Mitt Romney

Say, Mitt, when will these guys take personal responsibility & care
about THEIR lives?

With Mitt Romney bloviating about how half the country are tax cheats
that feel “entitled” to things like food and healthcare and housing, I
got to thinking about who else in the USA doesn’t pay taxes. Then I
remembered a report by the Citizens for Tax Justice (pdf) that came
out earlier this year. It was a report that showed 26 Fortune 500
companies — PROFITABLE Fortune 500 companies, I should add — that paid
no taxes or actually got a rebate every year since 2008.

There they are on the right. Look at that list. General Electric.
Mattel. Corning. Con-way. Boeing. A plethora of energy companies.
Every one of them profitable and every one of them paying less than 0%
taxes in the years 2008-2011.

So, tell us, Mitt, how about it? When will these parasites on society
start caring about their lives and taking some damn personal
responsibility? I mean, they use a LOT of resources paid for by real
tax payers: Transportation and road systems. Police and fire
protection. Water and sewer systems. Tax breaks and so much more.

Surely you know some of the people that run these companies. You brag
endlessly about that. Chat ‘em up, will ya, Mitt? Ask them when they
are going to stop being dependent and acting so entitled about
everything.

And another thing: what about all those companies that got government
bailouts? Like Bain Capital, for example.

And what about all those monstrous banks that the taxpayers bailed
out? When are THEY going to start caring about THEIR lives and taking
personal responsibility? I have to believe you know the CEOs of these
companies, Mitt. Would you ring them up and ask them this question on
behalf of the US taxpayers who saved their asses when their whole
world was crumbling around them because they gambled with other
people’s money and created a catastrophic global recession?
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 13:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.
Gosh!
Who would have thought that well nourished infants, babies and
expecting moms would destroy America?
Redistribution is what is killing America.
I guess we can agree on that.
No, because what you call "redistribution" is nothing of the kind.
Post by Fair Play
Corporate welfare and siphoning off the wealth created by American
workers and pumping it into secret Swiss, Panamanian and Cayman Island
bank accounts
Not happening.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 15:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
So, tell us, Mitt, how about it? When will these parasites on society
start caring about their lives

Too_Many_Tools
2012-10-02 03:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
         As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
         yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America.  You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual.  You really should be
killed.
Gosh!
Who would have thought that well nourished infants, babies and
expecting moms would destroy America?
Redistribution is what is killing America.
I guess we can agree on that.
Corporate welfare and siphoning off the wealth created by American
workers and pumping it into secret Swiss, Panamanian and Cayman Island
bank accounts certainly doesn't help.
Speaking of not paying taxes & entitlement, how about the 26 Fortune
500 corporations that haven�t paid tax in 4 years?
http://www.eclectablog.com/2012/09/speaking-of-not-paying-taxes-entit...
 September 18, 2012 in GOPocrisy, Lies, Mitt Romney
Say, Mitt, when will these guys take personal responsibility & care
about THEIR lives?
With Mitt Romney bloviating about how half the country are tax cheats
that feel �entitled� to things like food and healthcare and housing, I
got to thinking about who else in the USA doesn�t pay taxes. Then I
remembered a report by the Citizens for Tax Justice (pdf) that came
out earlier this year. It was a report that showed 26 Fortune 500
companies � PROFITABLE Fortune 500 companies, I should add � that paid
no taxes or actually got a rebate every year since 2008.
There they are on the right. Look at that list. General Electric.
Mattel. Corning. Con-way. Boeing. A plethora of energy companies.
Every one of them profitable and every one of them paying less than 0%
taxes in the years 2008-2011.
So, tell us, Mitt, how about it? When will these parasites on society
start caring about their lives and taking some damn personal
responsibility? I mean, they use a LOT of resources paid for by real
tax payers: Transportation and road systems. Police and fire
protection. Water and sewer systems. Tax breaks and so much more.
Surely you know some of the people that run these companies. You brag
endlessly about that. Chat �em up, will ya, Mitt? Ask them when they
are going to stop being dependent and acting so entitled about
everything.
And another thing: what about all those companies that got government
bailouts? Like Bain Capital, for example.
And what about all those monstrous banks that the taxpayers bailed
out? When are THEY going to start caring about THEIR lives and taking
personal responsibility? I have to believe you know the CEOs of these
companies, Mitt. Would you ring them up and ask them this question on
behalf of the US taxpayers who saved their asses when their whole
world was crumbling around them because they gambled with other
people�s money and created a catastrophic global recession?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Very well said

TMT
no hope or change
2012-10-02 04:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Very well said
ESAD, libitard traitor.
no hope or change
2012-10-02 14:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Very well said
http://online.wsj.com

REVIEW & OUTLOOKUpdated September 27, 2012, 7:37 p.m. ET.

As Good As It Gets?

Growth of 1.7% isn't what Team Obama promised four years ago.

Mr. Obama told Americans in 2009 that if he did not turn around the
economy in three years his Presidency would be "a one-term proposition."
Joe Biden said three years ago that the $830 billion economic stimulus
was working beyond his "wildest dreams" and he famously promised several
months after the Obama stimulus was enacted that Americans would enjoy a
"summer of recovery." That was more than three years ago.

In early 2009 soon-to-be White House economists Ms. Romer and Mr.
Bernstein promised Congress that the stimulus would hold the
unemployment rate below 7% and that by now it would be 5.6%. Instead the
rate is 8.1%. The latest Census Bureau report says there are nearly
seven million fewer full-time, year-round workers today than in 2007.
The labor participation rate is the lowest since 1981.

So it has gone with nearly every prediction the President has made about
where the economy would be today. Mr. Obama promised that the deficit
would be cut in half in four years, but the fiscal 2012 deficit
(estimated to be above $1 trillion) will be twice the 2008 deficit ($458
billion).

Mr. Obama said that his health-care plan would "cut the cost of a
typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year," but premiums for
employer-sponsored family coverage have gone up $2,370 since 2009,
according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

He said that the linchpin for a growing economy would be renewable
energy investment, and he promised to "create five million new jobs in
solar, wind, geothermal" energy. Mr. Obama did invest some $9 billion in
green energy, but his job estimate was off by at least a factor of 10
and today many solar and wind industry firms are fighting bankruptcy.
The growth in domestic U.S. energy production that he now takes credit
for has come almost entirely from the fossil fuels his Administration
has done so much to obstruct.

There's nothing unusual about candidates making grandiose promises that
don't come true. And it's a White House tradition to blame one's
predecessor when things don't get better. (Usually these Presidents end
up one-termers.)

The bad faith wasn't then. It's now. Mr. Obama really believed that
government spending would unleash a robust recovery in employment and
housing—an "economy built to last." Now that this hasn't happened and
with the Congressional Budget Office predicting a possible recession for
2013, Team Obama claims these woeful results were the best that could
have been expected.

The problem with this line is that every President who has inherited a
recession in modern times has done better. (See nearby table.) Under Mr.
Obama, measured on the basis of jobs, GDP growth and incomes, this has
been by far the meekest recovery from the past 10 recessions.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 15:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Go tell your psychiatrist your meds aren't working
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156776/swing-state-voters-say-no-better-off-2008.aspx

Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of voters in key 2012 election swing states
say they are not better off than they were four years ago;

The results are similar for all U.S. registered voters, among whom 42%
say they are better off and 55% say they are not.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans, in a 1980
presidential debate, if they were better off than four years ago.
Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the
presidential election.
Too_Many_Tools
2012-10-02 03:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
        As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
        yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America.  You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual.  You really should be
killed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yet another death threat from a conservative bag of shit.

TMT
no hope or change
2012-10-02 04:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yet another death threat from a conservative bag of shit.
TMT
Conditional tense, but anyone who has read you knows he's right.
Fair Play
2012-10-02 04:33:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 20:54:26 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
        As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
        yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America.  You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual.  You really should be
killed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yet another death threat from a conservative bag of shit.
The cat's out of the bag.

It seems they would be quite happy to murder 47% of the American
population.

Hardly likely to impress the stable middle of the road independent
voters they need IMHO.
no hope or change
2012-10-02 14:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
they would be quite happy to murder 47% of the American
population.
Dems want the whole nation on food stamps.



http://washingtonexaminer.com/crs-report-number-of-able-bodied-adults-on-food-stamps-doubled-after-obama-suspended-work-requirement/article/2508430

CRS report: number of able-bodied adults on food stamps doubled after
Obama suspended work requirement

Obama administration officials have insisted that their decision to
grant states waivers to redefine work requirements for welfare
recipients would not “gut” the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. But a
new report from the Congressional Research Service obtained by the
Washington Examiner suggests that the administration’s suspension of a
separate welfare work requirement has already helped explode the number
of able-bodied Americans on food stamps.

In addition to the broader work requirement that has become a
contentious issue in the presidential race, the 1996 welfare reform law
included a separate rule encouraging able-bodied adults without
dependents to work by limiting the amount of time they could receive
food stamps. President Obama suspended that rule when he signed his
economic stimulus legislation into law, and the number of these adults
on food stamps doubled, from 1.9 million in 2008 to 3.9 million in 2010

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/16/obama_ag_secretary_vilsack_food_stamps_are_a_stimulus.html

Obama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack: "Well, obviously, it's
putting people to work. Which is why we're going to have some
interesting things in the course of the forum this morning. Later this
morning, we're going have a press conference with Secretary Mavis and
Secretary Chu to announce something that's never happened in this
country -- something that we think is exciting in terms of job growth. I
should point out, when you talk about the SNAP program or the foot stamp
program, you have to recognize that it's also an economic stimulus.
Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of
economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the
grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process
it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It's the most direct stimulus you
can get in the economy during these tough times."


As America becomes the United States of Safeway...nice...
Fair Play
2012-10-03 04:18:48 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:42:34 -0600, no hope or change
Post by no hope or change
Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of
economic activity.
George Plimpton
2012-10-03 14:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:42:34 -0600, no hope or change
Post by no hope or change
Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of
economic activity.
Bullshit.
Fair Play
2012-10-04 04:31:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:42:34 -0600, no hope or change
Post by no hope or change
Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of
economic activity.
Bullshit.
Your buddy "hope and change" posting bullshit?
Who would have thunk it?
no hope or change
2012-10-04 04:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Your buddy "hope and change"
No, tonight = Obama debate loss, anyway....

Thing about the Batman films is, the Joker always LOSES!!!!

LOLOLOL!!!!!

Obama = Nixon.

SCOWLER!!!

Un-prepared to talk SPECIFICS...

LIAR caught time and again.

Oh so bad he was tonight, Obie wan-de-prep-more...

LOLOLOL!!!!
George Plimpton
2012-10-04 04:40:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:42:34 -0600, no hope or change
Post by no hope or change
Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of
economic activity.
Bullshit.
Your buddy "hope and change"
Welfare spending does not stimulate the economy - it shrinks it.
no hope or change
2012-10-04 04:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:42:34 -0600, no hope or change
Post by no hope or change
Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of
economic activity.
Bullshit.
Your buddy "hope and change"
Welfare spending does not stimulate the economy - it shrinks it.
Know how?

Oh how I -love it_ when they take the stinkbait!




http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/16/ag-secretary/

if every dollar of food stamps puts $1.84 into the economy, instead of
the $860 billion stimulus, why didn’t the administration just send every
single American $2,800 worth of food stamps and thereby generate $1.58
trillion in economic activity?

How much is this administration stimulating the economy? According to
the Department of Agriculture, 45,753,078 people were on food stamps as
of May of this year. Of those, 31,983,716 were inherited from previous
administration, which means there are roughly 13,769,362 more people on
food stamps than when Bush was president, which according to Secretary
Vilsack means the economy is being helped that much more.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obamas-ag-sec-you-know-what-creates-jobs-food-stamps/


So here’s the question. If food stamps create jobs, like Vilsack says
here, and we’re putting record numbers of Americans on food stamps, then
why aren’t we seeing record job creation? If every dollar spent on food
stamps creates $1.84 in production, as Vilsack argues, and the number of
food stamp recipients keeps rising, then why haven’t the GDP numbers
reflected that fabulous growth?

So what about that multiplier Vilsack claims? The one that says every
dollar spent on food stamps leads to $1.84 in production? Yeah,
Morrissey has something to say about that, too:


The multiplier effect is completely bogus. For one thing, much of the
money gets absorbed by the government bureaucracies that manage these
programs. Second, as I alluded earlier, the evidence we see all around
us shows us that we can’t get economic growth through government welfare
programs. If what Vilsack said was true, we’d be better off seizing all
income and handing out food stamps.
no hope or change
2012-10-03 16:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:42:34 -0600, no hope or change
Post by no hope or change
Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of
economic activity.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/16/ag-secretary/

if every dollar of food stamps puts $1.84 into the economy, instead of
the $860 billion stimulus, why didn’t the administration just send every
single American $2,800 worth of food stamps and thereby generate $1.58
trillion in economic activity?

How much is this administration stimulating the economy? According to
the Department of Agriculture, 45,753,078 people were on food stamps as
of May of this year. Of those, 31,983,716 were inherited from previous
administration, which means there are roughly 13,769,362 more people on
food stamps than when Bush was president, which according to Secretary
Vilsack means the economy is being helped that much more.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obamas-ag-sec-you-know-what-creates-jobs-food-stamps/


So here’s the question. If food stamps create jobs, like Vilsack says
here, and we’re putting record numbers of Americans on food stamps, then
why aren’t we seeing record job creation? If every dollar spent on food
stamps creates $1.84 in production, as Vilsack argues, and the number of
food stamp recipients keeps rising, then why haven’t the GDP numbers
reflected that fabulous growth?

So what about that multiplier Vilsack claims? The one that says every
dollar spent on food stamps leads to $1.84 in production? Yeah,
Morrissey has something to say about that, too:


The multiplier effect is completely bogus. For one thing, much of the
money gets absorbed by the government bureaucracies that manage these
programs. Second, as I alluded earlier, the evidence we see all around
us shows us that we can’t get economic growth through government welfare
programs. If what Vilsack said was true, we’d be better off seizing all
income and handing out food stamps.
Sancho Panza
2012-10-03 19:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by no hope or change
Post by Fair Play
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:42:34 -0600, no hope or change
Post by no hope or change
Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of
economic activity.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/16/ag-secretary/
if every dollar of food stamps puts $1.84 into the economy, instead of
the $860 billion stimulus, why didn’t the administration just send every
single American $2,800 worth of food stamps and thereby generate $1.58
trillion in economic activity?
How much is this administration stimulating the economy? According to
the Department of Agriculture, 45,753,078 people were on food stamps as
of May of this year. Of those, 31,983,716 were inherited from previous
administration, which means there are roughly 13,769,362 more people on
food stamps than when Bush was president, which according to Secretary
Vilsack means the economy is being helped that much more.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obamas-ag-sec-you-know-what-creates-jobs-food-stamps/
So here’s the question. If food stamps create jobs, like Vilsack says
here, and we’re putting record numbers of Americans on food stamps, then
why aren’t we seeing record job creation? If every dollar spent on food
stamps creates $1.84 in production, as Vilsack argues, and the number of
food stamp recipients keeps rising, then why haven’t the GDP numbers
reflected that fabulous growth?
So what about that multiplier Vilsack claims? The one that says every
dollar spent on food stamps leads to $1.84 in production? Yeah,
The multiplier effect is completely bogus. For one thing, much of the
money gets absorbed by the government bureaucracies that manage these
programs. Second, as I alluded earlier, the evidence we see all around
us shows us that we can’t get economic growth through government welfare
programs. If what Vilsack said was true, we’d be better off seizing all
income and handing out food stamps.
There you go again, using simple facts clearly presented to the
completely dumbfounded leftists. Whatsamatter wid yous
?
no hope or change
2012-10-03 19:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by no hope or change
Post by Fair Play
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:42:34 -0600, no hope or change
Post by no hope or change
Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of
economic activity.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/16/ag-secretary/
if every dollar of food stamps puts $1.84 into the economy, instead of
the $860 billion stimulus, why didn’t the administration just send every
single American $2,800 worth of food stamps and thereby generate $1.58
trillion in economic activity?
How much is this administration stimulating the economy? According to
the Department of Agriculture, 45,753,078 people were on food stamps as
of May of this year. Of those, 31,983,716 were inherited from previous
administration, which means there are roughly 13,769,362 more people on
food stamps than when Bush was president, which according to Secretary
Vilsack means the economy is being helped that much more.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obamas-ag-sec-you-know-what-creates-jobs-food-stamps/
So here’s the question. If food stamps create jobs, like Vilsack says
here, and we’re putting record numbers of Americans on food stamps, then
why aren’t we seeing record job creation? If every dollar spent on food
stamps creates $1.84 in production, as Vilsack argues, and the number of
food stamp recipients keeps rising, then why haven’t the GDP numbers
reflected that fabulous growth?
So what about that multiplier Vilsack claims? The one that says every
dollar spent on food stamps leads to $1.84 in production? Yeah,
The multiplier effect is completely bogus. For one thing, much of the
money gets absorbed by the government bureaucracies that manage these
programs. Second, as I alluded earlier, the evidence we see all around
us shows us that we can’t get economic growth through government welfare
programs. If what Vilsack said was true, we’d be better off seizing all
income and handing out food stamps.
There you go again, using simple facts clearly presented to the
completely dumbfounded leftists. Whatsamatter wid yous
?
I AM A VERY UNCARING PERSON I SUPPOSE ;-)
George Plimpton
2012-10-02 04:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:06:26 -0600, somebody else made that happen
Post by somebody else made that happen
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
Post by somebody else made that happen
Godwins law - another libitard nukes himself.
Wrong ,
Nope, correct, you ignorant libitarded pignut.
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
When "George" posts about Nazi Germany,
I didn't.
You are correct, you didn't. It was your yap dog k00k themselves who
introduced the topic of Nazi Germany
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600
The topic was the commie Woody Guthrie,
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
It was a gratuitous reference,
It was no such thing. Do you know what "gratuitous" means?
Of course it was gratuitous.
It was obvious
Yes, it sure was.
Post by Fair Play
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
It doesn't mean a direct questioning of allegations.
Once again
Once again, you're a fucking Marxist shitbag who ought to be punished
for your brazen advocacy of the destruction of America.
So all you are left with are
You're a Marxist shitbag who truly ought to be punished for your
advocacy of the destruction of America. You hate liberty, you despise
the very notion of the rights of the individual. You really should be
killed.
Yet another death threat
No.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 15:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
Let's try to take it slowly so that even you can comprehend.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156776/swing-state-voters-say-no-better-off-2008.aspx

Swing-State Voters Say They Are No Better Off Than in 2008

PRINCETON, NJ -- A majority of voters in key 2012 election swing states
say they are not better off than they were four years ago;

The results are similar for all U.S. registered voters, among whom 42%
say they are better off and 55% say they are not.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans, in a 1980
presidential debate, if they were better off than four years ago.
Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in the
presidential election.
Stormin Mormon
2012-10-01 17:38:39 UTC
Permalink
I think Romney was a poor choice for the Reps to
send forth, but he can't be much worse than the
finanical cliff we are now experiencing.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"no hope or change" <o'***@dead.economy>
wrote in message news:k4ccom$kdo$***@dont-email.me...

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan famously asked
Americans, in a 1980 presidential debate, if they were
better off than four years ago.

Shortly thereafter, he decisively defeated incumbent
Jimmy Carter in the presidential election.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 17:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormin Mormon
I think Romney was a poor choice for the Reps to
send forth, but he can't be much worse than the
finanical cliff we are now experiencing.
I think Romney would make a fine president, but he's a wretchedly bad
campaigner, and like it or not, running a good campaign is part of the
job. It doesn't help that the Republican message is at an inherent
disadvantage when dealing with masses who want an nice life without
having to work for it. The Democrat message - "you can have it all on
someone else's effort" - has plenty of appeal to the many tens of
millions of lazy slugs in America.
no hope or change
2012-10-01 18:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Stormin Mormon
I think Romney was a poor choice for the Reps to
send forth, but he can't be much worse than the
finanical cliff we are now experiencing.
I think Romney would make a fine president, but he's a wretchedly bad
campaigner, and like it or not, running a good campaign is part of the
job.
You are so right, and he's staying the course with his campaign adviser,
which is not smart.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81280.html
Post by George Plimpton
It doesn't help that the Republican message is at an inherent
disadvantage when dealing with masses who want an nice life without
having to work for it. The Democrat message - "you can have it all on
someone else's effort" - has plenty of appeal to the many tens of
millions of lazy slugs in America.
http://youtu.be/zJA6hn0Pnwo
no hope or change
2012-10-01 18:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormin Mormon
I think Romney was a poor choice for the Reps to
send forth, but he can't be much worse than the
finanical cliff we are now experiencing.
He knows business and governance, that puts him two giant steps ahead of
Obama.
Stormin Mormon
2012-10-02 01:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Darn shame the Reps nominated a Massachussets liberal.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"no hope or change" <o'***@dead.economy> wrote in message news:k4coif$lnu$***@dont-email.me...

He knows business and governance, that puts him two giant steps ahead of
Obama.
SaPeIsMa
2012-10-02 02:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormin Mormon
Darn shame the Reps nominated a Massachussets liberal.
Still better than a Chicago community organizer
Stormin Mormon
2012-10-02 13:05:14 UTC
Permalink
I'll roger that! I'd rather have a Mormon than a Muslim.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
Post by Stormin Mormon
Darn shame the Reps nominated a Massachussets liberal.
Still better than a Chicago community organizer
Dano
2012-10-02 14:54:28 UTC
Permalink
"Stormin Moron" wrote in message news:UFBas.37844$***@fed15.iad...

I'll roger that! I'd rather have a moron than a Muslim.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus

Still better than a Chicago community organizer

====================================

Pull your head out. Your bowels will thank you.

WWJD?
no hope or change
2012-10-02 14:59:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dano
I'll roger that! I'd rather have a moron than a Muslim.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
Still better than a Chicago community organizer
====================================
Pull your head out. Your bowels will thank you.
WWJD?
http://online.wsj.com

REVIEW & OUTLOOKUpdated September 27, 2012, 7:37 p.m. ET.

As Good As It Gets?

Growth of 1.7% isn't what Team Obama promised four years ago.

Mr. Obama told Americans in 2009 that if he did not turn around the
economy in three years his Presidency would be "a one-term proposition."
Joe Biden said three years ago that the $830 billion economic stimulus
was working beyond his "wildest dreams" and he famously promised several
months after the Obama stimulus was enacted that Americans would enjoy a
"summer of recovery." That was more than three years ago.

In early 2009 soon-to-be White House economists Ms. Romer and Mr.
Bernstein promised Congress that the stimulus would hold the
unemployment rate below 7% and that by now it would be 5.6%. Instead the
rate is 8.1%. The latest Census Bureau report says there are nearly
seven million fewer full-time, year-round workers today than in 2007.
The labor participation rate is the lowest since 1981.

So it has gone with nearly every prediction the President has made about
where the economy would be today. Mr. Obama promised that the deficit
would be cut in half in four years, but the fiscal 2012 deficit
(estimated to be above $1 trillion) will be twice the 2008 deficit ($458
billion).

Mr. Obama said that his health-care plan would "cut the cost of a
typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year," but premiums for
employer-sponsored family coverage have gone up $2,370 since 2009,
according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

He said that the linchpin for a growing economy would be renewable
energy investment, and he promised to "create five million new jobs in
solar, wind, geothermal" energy. Mr. Obama did invest some $9 billion in
green energy, but his job estimate was off by at least a factor of 10
and today many solar and wind industry firms are fighting bankruptcy.
The growth in domestic U.S. energy production that he now takes credit
for has come almost entirely from the fossil fuels his Administration
has done so much to obstruct.

There's nothing unusual about candidates making grandiose promises that
don't come true. And it's a White House tradition to blame one's
predecessor when things don't get better. (Usually these Presidents end
up one-termers.)

The bad faith wasn't then. It's now. Mr. Obama really believed that
government spending would unleash a robust recovery in employment and
housing—an "economy built to last." Now that this hasn't happened and
with the Congressional Budget Office predicting a possible recession for
2013, Team Obama claims these woeful results were the best that could
have been expected.

The problem with this line is that every President who has inherited a
recession in modern times has done better. (See nearby table.) Under Mr.
Obama, measured on the basis of jobs, GDP growth and incomes, this has
been by far the meekest recovery from the past 10 recessions.
Sancho Panza
2012-10-03 13:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by no hope or change
Post by Dano
I'll roger that! I'd rather have a moron than a Muslim.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
Still better than a Chicago community organizer
====================================
Pull your head out. Your bowels will thank you.
WWJD?
http://online.wsj.com
REVIEW & OUTLOOKUpdated September 27, 2012, 7:37 p.m. ET.
As Good As It Gets?
Growth of 1.7% isn't what Team Obama promised four years ago.
Mr. Obama told Americans in 2009 that if he did not turn around the
economy in three years his Presidency would be "a one-term proposition."
Joe Biden said three years ago that the $830 billion economic stimulus
was working beyond his "wildest dreams" and he famously promised several
months after the Obama stimulus was enacted that Americans would enjoy a
"summer of recovery." That was more than three years ago.
In early 2009 soon-to-be White House economists Ms. Romer and Mr.
Bernstein promised Congress that the stimulus would hold the
unemployment rate below 7% and that by now it would be 5.6%. Instead the
rate is 8.1%. The latest Census Bureau report says there are nearly
seven million fewer full-time, year-round workers today than in 2007.
The labor participation rate is the lowest since 1981.
So it has gone with nearly every prediction the President has made about
where the economy would be today. Mr. Obama promised that the deficit
would be cut in half in four years, but the fiscal 2012 deficit
(estimated to be above $1 trillion) will be twice the 2008 deficit ($458
billion).
Mr. Obama said that his health-care plan would "cut the cost of a
typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year," but premiums for
employer-sponsored family coverage have gone up $2,370 since 2009,
according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
He said that the linchpin for a growing economy would be renewable
energy investment, and he promised to "create five million new jobs in
solar, wind, geothermal" energy. Mr. Obama did invest some $9 billion in
green energy, but his job estimate was off by at least a factor of 10
and today many solar and wind industry firms are fighting bankruptcy.
The growth in domestic U.S. energy production that he now takes credit
for has come almost entirely from the fossil fuels his Administration
has done so much to obstruct.
There's nothing unusual about candidates making grandiose promises that
don't come true. And it's a White House tradition to blame one's
predecessor when things don't get better. (Usually these Presidents end
up one-termers.)
The bad faith wasn't then. It's now. Mr. Obama really believed that
government spending would unleash a robust recovery in employment and
housing—an "economy built to last." Now that this hasn't happened and
with the Congressional Budget Office predicting a possible recession for
2013, Team Obama claims these woeful results were the best that could
have been expected.
The problem with this line is that every President who has inherited a
recession in modern times has done better. (See nearby table.) Under Mr.
Obama, measured on the basis of jobs, GDP growth and incomes, this has
been by far the meekest recovery from the past 10 recessions.
The crickets will bust their balls (if they have any) on this one.
Gunner
2012-10-03 19:05:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:57:49 -0400, Sancho Panza
Post by Sancho Panza
Post by no hope or change
Post by Dano
I'll roger that! I'd rather have a moron than a Muslim.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
Still better than a Chicago community organizer
====================================
Pull your head out. Your bowels will thank you.
WWJD?
http://online.wsj.com
REVIEW & OUTLOOKUpdated September 27, 2012, 7:37 p.m. ET.
As Good As It Gets?
Growth of 1.7% isn't what Team Obama promised four years ago.
Mr. Obama told Americans in 2009 that if he did not turn around the
economy in three years his Presidency would be "a one-term proposition."
Joe Biden said three years ago that the $830 billion economic stimulus
was working beyond his "wildest dreams" and he famously promised several
months after the Obama stimulus was enacted that Americans would enjoy a
"summer of recovery." That was more than three years ago.
In early 2009 soon-to-be White House economists Ms. Romer and Mr.
Bernstein promised Congress that the stimulus would hold the
unemployment rate below 7% and that by now it would be 5.6%. Instead the
rate is 8.1%. The latest Census Bureau report says there are nearly
seven million fewer full-time, year-round workers today than in 2007.
The labor participation rate is the lowest since 1981.
So it has gone with nearly every prediction the President has made about
where the economy would be today. Mr. Obama promised that the deficit
would be cut in half in four years, but the fiscal 2012 deficit
(estimated to be above $1 trillion) will be twice the 2008 deficit ($458
billion).
Mr. Obama said that his health-care plan would "cut the cost of a
typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year," but premiums for
employer-sponsored family coverage have gone up $2,370 since 2009,
according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
He said that the linchpin for a growing economy would be renewable
energy investment, and he promised to "create five million new jobs in
solar, wind, geothermal" energy. Mr. Obama did invest some $9 billion in
green energy, but his job estimate was off by at least a factor of 10
and today many solar and wind industry firms are fighting bankruptcy.
The growth in domestic U.S. energy production that he now takes credit
for has come almost entirely from the fossil fuels his Administration
has done so much to obstruct.
There's nothing unusual about candidates making grandiose promises that
don't come true. And it's a White House tradition to blame one's
predecessor when things don't get better. (Usually these Presidents end
up one-termers.)
The bad faith wasn't then. It's now. Mr. Obama really believed that
government spending would unleash a robust recovery in employment and
housing—an "economy built to last." Now that this hasn't happened and
with the Congressional Budget Office predicting a possible recession for
2013, Team Obama claims these woeful results were the best that could
have been expected.
The problem with this line is that every President who has inherited a
recession in modern times has done better. (See nearby table.) Under Mr.
Obama, measured on the basis of jobs, GDP growth and incomes, this has
been by far the meekest recovery from the past 10 recessions.
The crickets will bust their balls (if they have any) on this one.
Democrats really dont do well with recessions

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists
calculate
By Meg Sullivan August 10, 2004
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression
dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously
thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole
and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies
signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long
years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great
mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always
worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,"
said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found
that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with
ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy,
Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor
measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was
responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by
extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said
Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a
recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses
in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust
prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above
where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was
poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by
these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average
wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the
Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they
were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and
wages would have been during every year of the Depression had
Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those
figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference
Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's
policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than
they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But
unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been,
given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where
they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and
services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and
the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it
otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to
everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian
said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices
fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the
New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting
forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act
(NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they
agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that
significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust
prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a
wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By
1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent
of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the
collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60
percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that
the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they
believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has
been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when
naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr.,
the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished
Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The
prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of
macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s,
how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely
scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act
unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact
because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding,"
Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages
and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition
policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars
found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which
the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once
protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for
four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice
fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an
average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found.
Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior
official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected
industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and
mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher
than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices
remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have
been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National
Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled,
so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in
1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected
industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should
have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate.
Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2
percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still
remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of
6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically
stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and
organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced
generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not
be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government
intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said.
"Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very
rapid had the government not intervened."


Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli
William December Starr
2012-10-02 03:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormin Mormon
Darn shame the Reps nominated a Massachussets liberal.
Massachusetts is just a place where he spent a few years of his career.

-- wds
no hope or change
2012-10-02 03:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by William December Starr
Post by Stormin Mormon
Darn shame the Reps nominated a Massachussets liberal.
Massachusetts is just a place where he spent a few years of his career.
-- wds
So you admit, he's been good for Utah and Mass.
no hope or change
2012-10-02 03:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stormin Mormon
Darn shame the Reps nominated a Massachussets liberal.
You mean a guy who worked WITH the status quo there?

Yeah, far better to polarize like Obama has...
Post by Stormin Mormon
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
He knows business and governance, that puts him two giant steps ahead of
Obama.
George Plimpton
2012-10-01 02:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies,
There has been no redistribution of wealth upward. That's simply
bullshit. The increase in the share of wealth held by the rich did not
come at the expense of poor and middle income people. They never had a
claim on the increase. It never would have gone to them in the first
place - they didn't create it.
Sancho Panza
2012-10-01 12:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Plimpton
Post by Fair Play
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies,
There has been no redistribution of wealth upward. That's simply
bullshit. The increase in the share of wealth held by the rich did not
come at the expense of poor and middle income people. They never had a
claim on the increase. It never would have gone to them in the first
place - they didn't create it.
Obama has screwed the middle class, lowering the household income by
more than $4,000:

"Obama Fails to Stem Middle-Class Slide He Blamed on Bush
By Mike Dorning - Apr 30, 2012

Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W.
Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years
into Obama’s own presidency, those declines have only deepened.

The rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s has generated
relatively few of the moderately skilled jobs that once supported the
middle class, tightening the financial squeeze on many Americans, even
those who are employed.

“It started long before Obama, but he hasn’t done anything,” said John
Forsyth, 58, a railroad-car inspector and political independent from
Lebanon, Ohio. “He kept pushing this change, change, change, and he
hasn’t done anything.”

Underlying the erosion of the middle class, defined by some economists
as the middle 60 percent of income earners, are trends that stretch back
decades, including competition from lower-wage workers overseas and
technological advances that allow factories and offices to produce more
with less labor.

As a candidate in 2008, Obama blamed the reversals largely on the
policies of Bush and other Republicans. He cited census figures showing
that median income for working-age households -- those headed by someone
younger than 65 -- had dropped more than $2,000 after inflation during
the first seven years of Bush’s time in office.

Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama
took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of
the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by
Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.
1% Get 93%

A president who attacked Bush’s policies for favoring the rich has
overseen a recovery in which the wealthiest 1 percent captured 93
percent of per-capita real income gains in 2010, according to an
analysis of tax data by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the
University of California at Berkeley.

On average, families in the top 1 percent saw their inflation-adjusted
incomes rise by $105,637 that year from 2009, according to Saez.

While there is no settled definition of middle class, the middle 60
percent of households nationwide in 2010 earned between $20,000 and
$100,000, according to the U.S. Census."
--http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-05-01/obama-fails-to-stem-middle-class-slide-he-blamed-on-bush.html#print
Stormin Mormon
2012-10-01 12:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Did anyone middle or lower class get better, under the years of Obama? Most
likely, a few groups such as welfare bums, and single parents got better.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Sancho Panza" <***@xhotmail.com> wrote in message news:506988b5$0$9798$***@cv.net...

Obama has screwed the middle class, lowering the household income by
more than $4,000:

"Obama Fails to Stem Middle-Class Slide He Blamed on Bush
By Mike Dorning - Apr 30, 2012

Barack Obama campaigned four years ago assailing President George W.
Bush for wage losses suffered by the middle class. More than three years
into Obama’s own presidency, those declines have only deepened.

The rebound from the worst recession since the 1930s has generated
relatively few of the moderately skilled jobs that once supported the
middle class, tightening the financial squeeze on many Americans, even
those who are employed.

“It started long before Obama, but he hasn’t done anything,” said John
Forsyth, 58, a railroad-car inspector and political independent from
Lebanon, Ohio. “He kept pushing this change, change, change, and he
hasn’t done anything.”

Underlying the erosion of the middle class, defined by some economists
as the middle 60 percent of income earners, are trends that stretch back
decades, including competition from lower-wage workers overseas and
technological advances that allow factories and offices to produce more
with less labor.

As a candidate in 2008, Obama blamed the reversals largely on the
policies of Bush and other Republicans. He cited census figures showing
that median income for working-age households -- those headed by someone
younger than 65 -- had dropped more than $2,000 after inflation during
the first seven years of Bush’s time in office.

Yet real median household income in March was down $4,300 since Obama
took office in January 2009 and down $2,900 since the June 2009 start of
the economic recovery, according to an analysis of census data by
Sentier Research, an economic- consulting firm in Annapolis, Maryland.
1% Get 93%

A president who attacked Bush’s policies for favoring the rich has
overseen a recovery in which the wealthiest 1 percent captured 93
percent of per-capita real income gains in 2010, according to an
analysis of tax data by Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at the
University of California at Berkeley.

On average, families in the top 1 percent saw their inflation-adjusted
incomes rise by $105,637 that year from 2009, according to Saez.

While there is no settled definition of middle class, the middle 60
percent of households nationwide in 2010 earned between $20,000 and
$100,000, according to the U.S. Census."
--http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-05-01/obama-fails-to-stem-middle-class-slide-he-blamed-on-bush.html#print
Sancho Panza
2012-10-01 12:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
When it comes to state-sponsored fascism, Obama is promising us four
more years of the following kind of crap:

http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/10/01/these-18-keynesian-banksters-looted-the-u-s-public-treasury/
H/T Travis....click on URL above to see these crooks' pictures.
These 18 Keynesian Banksters Looted The U.S. Public Treasury!
Posted on October 1, 2012 by Volubrjotr
Bernanke Secretly Gives away Sixteen Trillion Dollars

“The first ever GAO (Government Accountability Office) audit of the US
Federal Reserve was recently carried out due to the Ron Paul/Alan
Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill passed in 2010. Jim DeMint, a
Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, while
leading the charge for an audit in the Senate, watered down the original
language of house bill (HR1207) so that a complete audit would not be
carried out. Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan, and others, opposed the audit.

What the audit revealed was incredible: between December 2007 and June
2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s
banks, corporations, and governments by giving them
US$16,000,000,000,000.00 – that’s 16 TRILLION dollars.”

It gets worse, much worse, in fact it’s downright incestuous. Let’s do a
follow up and see who, besides foreign banks and corporations from
Scotland to South Korea, received a large chunk of that money.

* Banks like JP Morgan benefited from the foreign bailouts – they are
some of the largest creditors of the bailed out countries. Instead of
having to write off their foreign losses the US Federal Reserve bailouts
enabled them to be paid in full.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigates potential
conflicts of interest. The GAO did investigate the $16 trillion giveaway
and laid out the findings but did not name names. Those names have now
been released – here’s three of the more shocking cases…

“In Dimon’s (JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon)case, JPMorgan received some
$391 billion of the $4 trillion in emergency Fed funds at the same time
his bank was used by the Fed as a clearinghouse for emergency lending
programs. In March of 2008, the Fed provided JPMorgan with $29 billion
in financing to acquire Bear Stearns. Dimon also got the Fed to provide
JPMorgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and
capital requirements. And he convinced the Fed to take risky
mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP
Morgan Chase acquired the troubled investment bank.

Another high-profile conflict involved Stephen Friedman, the former
chairman of the New York Fed‘s board of directors. Late in 2008, the New
York Fed approved an application from Goldman Sachs to become a bank
holding company giving it access to cheap loans from the Federal
Reserve. During that period, Friedman sat on the Goldman Sachs board. He
also owned Goldman stock, something that was prohibited by Federal
Reserve conflict of interest regulations. Although it was not publicly
disclosed at the time, Friedman received a waiver from the Fed’s
conflict of interest rules in late 2008. Unbeknownst to the Fed,
Friedman continued to purchase shares in Goldman from November 2008
through January of 2009, according to the GAO.

In another case, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt was a New York Fed
board member at the same time GE helped create a Commercial Paper
Funding Facility during the financial crisis. The Fed later provided $16
billion in financing to GE under this emergency lending program.” Fed
Board Member Conflicts Detailed by GAO, http://www.sanders.senate.gov/

Below is the full list of 18 Fed board members who gave their own banks
four trillion dollars:

Jamie Dimon, the Chairman and CEO of JP Morgan Chase, has served on
the Board of Directors at the Federal Reserve Bank of New Yorksince
2007. During the financial crisis, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with
$391 billion in total financial assistance. JP Morgan Chase was also
used by the Fed as a clearinghouse for the Fed’s emergency lending
programs.In March of 2008, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with $29
billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns. During the financial
crisis, the Fed provided JP Morgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from
risk-based leverage and capital requirements. The Fed also agreed to
take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet
before JP Morgan Chase acquired this troubled investment bank.
“I just think this constant refrain, ‘bankers, bankers, bankers’ —
it’s just a really unproductive and unfair way of treating people.
People should just stop doing that.”Jamie Dimon

Obama & G.E.’s Immelt also owner of MSM

Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, served on the New York
Fed’s Board of Directors from 2006-2011. General Electric received $16
billion in low-interest financing from the Federal Reserve’s Commercial
Paper Funding Facility during this time period.

Stephen Friedman

Stephen Friedman. In 2008, the New York Fed approved an application
from Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company giving it access to
cheap Fed loans. During the same period, Friedman, who was chairman of
the New York Fed at the time, sat on the Goldman Sachs board of
directors and owned Goldman stock, something the Fed’s rules prohibited.
He received a waiver in late 2008 that was not made public (the Fed
provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private
contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial
institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans). After
Friedman received the waiver, he continued to purchase stock in Goldman
from November 2008 through January of 2009 unbeknownst to the Fed,
according to the GAO.During the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs received
$814 billion in total financial assistance from the Fed.

Sanford Weill

Sanford Weill, the former CEO of Citigroup, served on the Fed’s
Board of Directors in New York in 2006. During the financial crisis,
Citigroup received over $2.5 trillion in total financial assistance from
the Fed.

Richard Fuld

Richard Fuld, Jr, the former CEO of Lehman Brothers, served on the
Fed’s Board of Directors in New York from 2006 to 2008. During the
financial crisis, the Fed provided $183 billion in total financial
assistance to Lehman before it collapsed.

James M. Wells

James M. Wells, the Chairman and CEO of SunTrust Banks, has served
on the Board of Directors at the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta since
2008. During the financial crisis, SunTrust received $7.5 billion in
total financial assistance from the Fed.

Richard Carrion

Richard Carrion, the head of Popular Inc. in Puerto Rico, has
served on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
since 2008. Popular received $1.2 billion in total financing from the
Fed’s Term Auction Facility during the financial crisis.

James Smith

James Smith, the Chairman and CEO of Webster Bank, served on the
Federal Reserve’s Board of Directors in Boston from 2008-2010. Webster
Bank received $550 million in total financing from the Federal Reserve’s
Term Auction Facility during the financial crisis.

Ted Cecala

Ted Cecala, the former Chairman and CEO of Wilmington Trust, served
on the Fed’s Board of Directors in Philadelphia from 2008-2010.
Wilmington Trust received $3.2 billion in total financial assistance
from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis.

Robert Jones

Robert Jones, the President and CEO of Old National Bancorp, has
served on the Fed’s Board of Directors in St. Louis since 2008. Old
National Bancorp received a total of $550 million in low-interest loans
from the Federal Reserve’s Term Auction Facility during the financial
crisis.

James Rohr

James Rohr, the Chairman and CEO of PNC Financial Services Group,
served on the Fed’s Board of Directors in Cleveland from 2008-2010. PNC
received $6.5 billion in low-interest loans from the Federal Reserve
during the financial crisis.

George Fisk

George Fisk, the CEO of LegacyTexas Group, was a director at the
Dallas Federal Reserve in 2009. During the financial crisis, his firm
received a $5 million low-interest loan from the Federal Reserve’s Term
Auction Facility.

Dennis Kuester

Dennis Kuester, the former CEO of Marshall & Ilsley, served as a
board director on the Chicago Federal Reserve from 2007-2008. During the
financial crisis, his bank received over $21 billion in low-interest
loans from the Fed.

George Jones

George Jones, Jr., the CEO of Texas Capital Bank, has served as a
board director at the Dallas Federal Reserve since 2009. During the
financial crisis, his bank received $2.3 billion in total financing from
the Fed’s Term Auction Facility.

Douglas Morrison

Douglas Morrison, was the Chief Financial Officer at CitiBank in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota, while he served as a board director at the
Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank in 2006. During the financial crisis,
CitiBank in Sioux Falls, South Dakota received over $21 billion in total
financing from the Federal Reserve.

L. Phillip Humann

L. Phillip Humann, the former CEO of SunTrust Banks, served on the
Board of Directors at the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta from
2006-2008. During the financial crisis, SunTrust received $7.5 billion
in total financial assistance from the Fed.

Henry Meyer III

Henry Meyer, III, the former CEO of KeyCorp, served on the Board of
Directors at the Federal Reserve Bank in Cleveland from 2006-2007.
During the financial crisis, KeyBank(owned by KeyCorp) received over $40
billion in total financing from the Federal Reserve.

Ronald Logue

Ronald Logue, the former CEO of State Street Corporation, served as
a board member of the Boston Federal Reserve Bank from 2006-2007. During
the financial crisis, State Street Corporation received a total of $42
billion in financing from the Federal Reserve.

“The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their emergency
lending programs to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan
Stanley, and Wells Fargo.

The same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at
near-zero interest rates. Altogether some two-thirds of the contracts
that the Fed awarded to manage its emergency lending programs were
no-bid contracts.

Morgan Stanley was given the largest no-bid contract worth $108.4
million to help manage the Fed bailout of AIG.” Mises.ca

“The Banksters are caught in a “Short Position” With Silver in the
$34.00/Ounce Range. As of September 21st, 2012, they sold “derivative
paper” into The COMEX aka; Auction House For Precious Metals to keep
Silver in the $34/ounce range. The derivative paper silver “derived” it
value from un-mined silver still in the ground, which of course is a crime.

This was all done to scare the market place into selling “REAL TANGIBLE
SILVER” so they could buy it from you and I to replace their previous
“derivative paper silver” that they sold to the COMEX to drive the price
of silver down from $50 last year etc etc etc etc.

The PUMP/DUMP game works like this:

1) They PUMP the price of silver up by closing mines and/or hoarding
silver until it is in very short supply.

2) Price goes up.

3) For example, when silver hits $50/Ounce, they illegally sell “paper
silver” to The Comex promising to replace the “paper silver” in [lets
say 6 months or when they can drive the price of silver down to
$10/ounce] with the “real marketed silver like silver coins, bars etc”

4) By selling “paper silver” back to The Comex at $50/Ounce the market
starts to see a “surplus” of silver and the price/ounce starts to go
down. This causes doubt in the minds of other investors and they start
to sell their real silver back to The Comex. This begins a snowball
effect and the price begins to fall more and more. When it gets about as
low as they can get it – they start buying silver and replace their
‘paper silver’ with the same amount of ounces they bought at lets say
$10/ounce. So they made $50.00/ounce when they sold to the market place
with ‘fake silver’ and then they replaced the ‘fake paper silver’ with
$10.00/ounce real silver and thus made $40.00/ounce profit. Not too bad
for cronies-eh? You see, WE do not get to deal with a real ‘demand &
supply’ fair market ~ it is THEY who hoard & abscond the Capitalist System.

5) But now people have rally awakened to this scheme and are holding
onto their real silver because there is very little ‘real silver’ above
ground and most silver mine have closed because the cost to bring the
metal into the market place is now ‘cost prohibitive’.

6) The banksters will either have to replace the ‘paper silver’ with
‘real silver’ or buy back the ‘paper derivative silver notes’ with their
own money.

7) The breaking point aka; short price has now been defined as well as
possible at approximately $34/ounce.

8) When industry starts screaming for the ‘real silver’ for their
products etc., the price will sky rocket. Further, real silver is a
powerful hedge against the value of the falling dollar. Dollar continues
to fall but silver will climb.” ~ Volubrjotr

Conclusion

The financial sector parasites, the banksters and their political
puppets, that have historically fed on our society have never been so
brazen. The looting of the public treasury is very much in the open – if
anyone cares to look – and done with impunity.

This is all happening because our elected politicians do not work for
the people, our elected leaders have stuck their snouts deep in the
trough of power and self indulgence, representative democracy has been
co-opted by big-moneyed interests and political parties represent their
establishment not the people’s interests.

“The lending suites that were set up for months and years, beyond the
initial crisis point, were focused on how to keep banks profitable, not
just how to keep them alive. The banks were able to access emergency
lending facilities, or change themselves into bank holding companies
overnight, to borrow at next to nothing, and if they chose, lend back to
the government at a tidy profit. You didn’t have to think at all to make
money. And you didn’t have to worry about that toxic balance sheet,
because the government was going to help you grow your way out of it.
They will also facilitate mergers to help decimate your competition. The
money that the banks borrowed for nothing could have just as easily gone
to underwater homeowners. There’s nothing special about the banks except
that they know the Fed policymakers personally.” David Dayen,
firedoglake.com

Fed loans at near-zero interest rates, incestuous bailouts, secret
waivers, no-bid contracts, and a failed representative democracy should
be on all our radar screens. Are they on yours?

*Post courtesy of Richard (Rick) Mills at Ahead of the Herd, where he
covers the junior resource sector."
§pâmßuster
2012-10-06 01:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fair Play
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:33:50 -0600, somebody else made that happen
He felt so strongly about the need to unite against Nazi Germany and the
ultra-right forces of fascism that he wrote and recorded a classic
workers’ anthem titled “All You Fascists Bound to Lose.”
As opposed to the current crop of Republican loonies, such as
yourself, who would have sided with Hitler in a heartbeat?
somebody else made that happen
2012-09-26 20:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
To set on your table your light sparkling wine
I'm always reminded of YOUR very *special personal sentiments* regarding
the attacks of 911, Bill:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bill Shatzer wrote:

And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I think we can ALL do well to reflect on what kind of sick sociopath
would come up with those words in honor of 911...
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...