This is Bullshit!

[Hawk]

Weird ass shit going on here in my America.

Seems to me that we need to find people jobs that they like and care about.

Seems like NAFTA backfired and all the greedy whores send our jobs overseas to make more cash! Tax them! at 80%, that will change the fucking deficit!

Get rid of death row, an eye for an eye. Make it suck to go to jail.

Gotta say though that FAUX news is scary now, talk about spreading hate. They say things like "Come and see the stupid black woman spread hate in a very small part of her story. We will show you just what we want you to see and you decide?"

WTF are we doing to each other? Why so much hatred from both sides? Seems pretty fucked up to me....

Gotta say that I agree with the UE bene's but we need to eliminate "Cultural Welfare". How do we do that though?

Well said.

Ronald Reagan said to Chris Mathews (who worked for Tip O'Neil), "We are all friends after 6:00". And they were!

Ted Kennedy said, " Civility is NOT a sign of weakness"!

I have never heard so much lack of civility since Rush became the mouth piece of the Republican Party. Reminds me that we are reliving MCcArthyism. Deja Vu all over again (to quote a Yogi Berra)!

[Drums_with_1_arm]

How much longer till them guys are gonna be rockstars so they can quit bitchin bout unemployment??? oh wait, that involves record sales and concert tickets and all that! Thank god for my unemployment and child support for the last 2 years while i was in school or I would have never made it to those 7 concerts and new albums to support my favorite bands! lol

Maybe if they were rock stars they would agree on the extensions for the very thing I spent my unemployment on, Concert tickets and new albums!

by the way I own my own house and car and pay my tax's and insurance yearly. You can't even notice a difference in pay over this issue and if it wasn't this, they would take the same money from you and use it to save the whales or something! Atleast this is being used by the average americans supporting americans. What is a saved whale gonna do for you but cost you more to feed it and its baby's few months down the road!

Just 1 more thing! How many of YOUR fans do you think get unemployment that spend there money on cover charges, alcohol, and a night out so you can get paid for your gigs?

[f.sciarrillo]

That's funny because I just watched the Beck show (no, not the whole thing) and the topic at the top of your link was what I saw on his show, "Context Matters".

I missed it yesterday, was Beck really on the girl's side ?

Yeah he was. I didn't watch it all, but I did see that part and it was interesting how he blasted the White House for her getting fired. He kept saying that she shouldn't have been fired because she was telling of experiences she had, and then found the wrong with them and corrected them.

Cool, he was right...

Yeah, I was talking to Keith Olbermann tonight and I told him that he is a schmuck for doing nothing but attacking Fox in this and not broadcasting the real news in the matter. I don't think he liked me telling him that the only "Real" journalist on MSNBC is Chris Matthews lol ...

[songsmith]

Obama is full of shit every time he lies to you and tells you this is the worst economy since the great depression

It was worse after Carter: >10% unemployment AND 18% interest rates.

I agree, I bet he looks in the mirror and sees Carter looking back at him ..

No, he sees Reagan. Reagan, July 1981: 9.5% unemployed, 44% approval rating. Obama, July 2010: 9.5% unemployment, 44% approval rating.
I'm telling you, it's uncanny. Both bailed out Chrysler. Both favor(ed) amnesty for illegal aliens. Both gave the same stirring speech or two, over and over, until they became president. Both were viewed to be the crusading savior of their party. Both spend (spent) tirelessly, exploding the deficit.
Eerie.--->JMS

[tornandfrayed]

Could Reagan and Obama both be great Americans?

In regards to the News, FAUX is just the one that stands out because they are so blatantly anti everything. The only thing they endorse is anything that is against someone else? Go figure...

Olberman and Maddow are the same way but they are limited to their time slots.... Watch FAUX and listen and tell me what they are doing to help everyone be better, more well informed that isn't against someone else.

I am telling you, "We will show you what we want you to see and you decide!" is not fair and balanced..

[ZappasXWife]

REALLY? I have been unemployed for almost a year and anyone that knows me and some of you do very well, know that I am a hard worker and been trying to find work. I have done some temporary positions but not scored a REAL job. All of us payed our taxes and paid into it that are on Unemployment so really we are just getting our money back that we already EARNED! I know of a couple more RPers that just recently scored jobs after over a year without one. You gonna sit and tell them they don't deserve something for the work they already did and that their families should just be out on the street because you think it took them too long to find work? I wont say there isn't "some" that just want to collect free money but dont put ALL the people that are on Unemployment in that category and think that your not gonna piss off somebody.

+1 on this and many other intelligent posts here. Rob, I've met you before and you seem like a nice enough guy but you're really pissing me off. AND you proved you are not in tune with what's really goin on out there (there are NO JOBS out there) AND you are a hypocrite. You had the nerve to say you milked the unemployment until it ran out, then you say this other crap? Unbelievable...

[lonewolf]

Obama is full of shit every time he lies to you and tells you this is the worst economy since the great depression

It was worse after Carter: >10% unemployment AND 18% interest rates.

I agree, I bet he looks in the mirror and sees Carter looking back at him ..

No, he sees Reagan. Reagan, July 1981: 9.5% unemployed, 44% approval rating. Obama, July 2010: 9.5% unemployment, 44% approval rating.
I'm telling you, it's uncanny. Both bailed out Chrysler. Both favor(ed) amnesty for illegal aliens. Both gave the same stirring speech or two, over and over, until they became president. Both were viewed to be the crusading savior of their party. Both spend (spent) tirelessly, exploding the deficit.
Eerie.--->JMS

One was a rugged individualist and the other a flaming socialist

[lonewolf]

Those who drink deepest from the government well will be the least prepared when the well runs dry.

[Hawk]

Those who drink deepest from the government well will be the least prepared when the well runs dry.

I believe that the richest Americans live by that motto.

"Give us more tax cuts so we can stay incredibly rich and when the economy collapses, it is us, the rich, that will be the BEST prepared. Our greed will save us! Screw everyone else."

Good honest post lonewolf...

[Colton]

There's much more important things to worry about. Like zombies.

[Hawk]

I agree, I bet he looks in the mirror and sees Carter looking back at him ..

No, he sees Reagan. Reagan, July 1981: 9.5% unemployed, 44% approval rating. Obama, July 2010: 9.5% unemployment, 44% approval rating.
I'm telling you, it's uncanny. Both bailed out Chrysler. Both favor(ed) amnesty for illegal aliens. Both gave the same stirring speech or two, over and over, until they became president. Both were viewed to be the crusading savior of their party. Both spend (spent) tirelessly, exploding the deficit.
Eerie.--->JMS

One was a rugged individualist and the other a flaming socialist

One increased the deficit (with UNPAID FOR tax cuts to everyone, followed by tax INCREASES ONLY to the middle class) by 189% - Reagan

The other inherited these deficit causing (unpaid for) tax cuts (which were increased even more by GW)! And he inherited an economy AFTER most industries left (with Bush's blessing) for China, Mexico, Taiwan etc.. And he inherited a couple of UNPAID FOR WARS!

If we had not fell for the voodoo economic theory of the trickle down system ( from the rich to the poor) we would have trillions of dollars LESS of a deficit than we do now! Because the Republicans did not pay for the tax cuts to the rich!

[lonewolf]

Because the Republicans did not pay for the tax cuts to the rich!

You are hilarious...everybody got a tax cut. Using grade school math, if you paid a lot more in taxes before the cut, your cut will be bigger than somebody who paid little or no taxes.

Tax revenues from the "rich" doubled and the percentage of total federal revenues paid from the "rich" went up during the 2000's.

The "tax cuts for the rich" mantra is so old and so outdated that nobody is buying it anymore...flaming progressives need to come up with a new smokescreen to cover their socialist agenda.

But you are right...the republicans didn't cut spending and in fact went on a spending spree...and that...is why they are in the woodshed.

[lonewolf]

Those who drink deepest from the government well will be the least prepared when the well runs dry.

I believe that the richest Americans live by that motto.

How so?

[lonewolf]

There's much more important things to worry about. Like zombies.

I know but that passes...I was all concerned about Helicopter Carriers, but now, I realize that I needed skeletons.

[Banned]

Bill, try not to use the phrase "pay for tax cuts" anymore. A tax cut is letting Americans keep more of their own individual money. To "pay" for it is to assume that all your money is the governments, and they have to do some trick to let you keep a little more of it. That phrase is a total socialist concoction.

There is no such thing a paying for tax cuts in the real world.

I would much rather hear the phrase, cut the size of government. That is all the Republicans asked BP Oil Barry to do, cut spending by 1% to offset the $33.9 billion for the unemployment extension. They then asked to not spend $33.9 billion of the as of yet unspent porkulus spending fund.

Obama bin lyin will not ever consider spending less of our money even as we are drowning in debt.

Next year we will most likely have to borrow money (or just print up new fiat money) to pay for the interest on the debt (which will be over $14 TRILLION by years end.)

No wonder this amateur has the worst ratings for a president in his second year.

[Hawk]

Bill, try not to use the phrase "pay for tax cuts" anymore. A tax cut is letting Americans keep more of their own individual money. To "pay" for it is to assume that all your money is the governments, and they have to do some trick to let you keep a little more of it. That phrase is a total socialist concoction.

There is no such thing a paying for tax cuts in the real world.

I would much rather hear the phrase, cut the size of government. That is all the Republicans asked BP Oil Barry to do, cut spending by 1% to offset the $33.9 billion for the unemployment extension. They then asked to not spend $33.9 billion of the as of yet unspent porkulus spending fund.

Obama bin lyin will not ever consider spending less of our money even as we are drowning in debt.

Next year we will most likely have to borrow money (or just print up new fiat money) to pay for the interest on the debt (which will be over $14 TRILLION by years end.)

No wonder this amateur has the worst ratings for a president in his second year.

The tax cuts during the GW administration to the TOP 2% of Americans added up to well over one Trillion dollars to the deficit. That's NOT paying for the cuts...
It did NOT, as the Republicans said it would, create jobs and reduce the deficit. It caused the exact opposite.

Return to Reagan's taxes to the rich and MORE than enough will be there to cover the extended unemployment.

You are always consistent Joe. Those who have it should keep it and screw those who don't.

[Hawk]

Because the Republicans did not pay for the tax cuts to the rich!

You are hilarious...everybody got a tax cut. Using grade school math, if you paid a lot more in taxes before the cut, your cut will be bigger than somebody who paid little or no taxes.

Tax revenues from the "rich" doubled and the percentage of total federal revenues paid from the "rich" went up during the 2000's.

The "tax cuts for the rich" mantra is so old and so outdated that nobody is buying it anymore...flaming progressives need to come up with a new smokescreen to cover their socialist agenda.

But you are right...the republicans didn't cut spending and in fact went on a spending spree...and that...is why they are in the woodshed.

You're playing games here. If the revenue went up, then you proved my point. The rich are getting richer. I don't have a problem with them getting richer, I have a problem with the cuts Bush gave them.

The rich pay a lower percentage today than they did when Reagan was president. If they paid the same today as they did then, we would have a smaller deficit.

[Hawk]

Bill, try not to use the phrase "pay for tax cuts" anymore. A tax cut is letting MOSTLY RICH Americans keep more of their own individual money. To "pay" for it is to assume that all your money is the governments, and they have to do some trick to let you keep a little more of it. That phrase is a total socialist concoction.

To "pay" for it means to cut spending equal to the cuts. That's how you "pay for tax cuts".

As I stated, Obama inherited these UNPAID for tax cuts. No one before him could pay for them, as seen by the increase in the deficit.

Reagan increased the deficit by 189%. GW increased it by Trillions ! I don't remember either of you complaining ? Why is that ?

Obama inherited an economy that sucks and job loses because most industries left during Bush for foreign lands and $4 a day labor.

Obama inherited an economy with banks about to close and MANY Americans could have lost all of their savings and investments. He spent to save them.

Obama inherited two wars he has to pay for.

No one could have been handed such a mess without continuing deficit spending.

Republicans have NO answers either.

[lonewolf]

You're playing games here. If the revenue went up, then you proved my point. The rich are getting richer. I don't have a problem with them getting richer, I have a problem with the cuts Bush gave them.

The rich pay a lower percentage today than they did when Reagan was president. If they paid the same today as they did then, we would have a smaller deficit.

No, you are playing a game that all progressives play: The Zero Sum Game. This is the assumption that everything works in a vaccuum.

They may pay a lower percentage, but their businesses and investments grew at an accelerated rate that would not have happenend with the higher tax rates. The result? More revenues to the treasury, not less. Had the higher rates been in force, there would have been less income to tax at the higher rate and it probably would have been a wash as far as revenues to the treasury.

The other illusion that progressives like to lay on people is that tax cuts didn't work. The hell they didn't. Unemployment went to under 5% and held for a few years. It took the mortgage/liquidity crises to end that. The tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with these crises. All informed people know that the root cause was big government pushing mortgages on people that could not hope to repay them. Yes, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were the big guns pushing sub-prime loans. The rest of the industry just followed their orders.

{if you dispute this, you'd damn well better show us superior expertise in real estate investment}

[Hawk]

You're playing games here. If the revenue went up, then you proved my point. The rich are getting richer. I don't have a problem with them getting richer, I have a problem with the cuts Bush gave them.

The rich pay a lower percentage today than they did when Reagan was president. If they paid the same today as they did then, we would have a smaller deficit.

No, you are playing a game that all progressives play: The Zero Sum Game. This is the assumption that everything works in a vaccuum.

They may pay a lower percentage, but their businesses and investments grew at an accelerated rate that would not have happenend with the higher tax rates. The result? More revenues to the treasury, not less. Had the higher rates been in force, there would have been less income to tax at the higher rate and it probably would have been a wash as far as revenues to the treasury.

The other illusion that progressives like to lay on people is that tax cuts didn't work. The hell they didn't. Unemployment went to under 5% and held for a few years. It took the mortgage/liquidity crises to end that. The tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with these crises. All informed people know that the root cause was big government pushing mortgages on people that could not hope to repay them. Yes, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were the big guns pushing sub-prime loans. The rest of the industry just followed their orders.

{if you dispute this, you'd damn well better show us superior expertise in real estate investment}

I disputed it accurately in the past. I will get to it when I have time.

Can you think of ANYTHING more stupid than cutting taxes and NOT offsetting spending accordingly ? Well, that's what caused the deficit, mostly under Reagan, Bush and GW.

Doesn't it make more sence to cut spending first, then reduce taxes accordingly ?

Or DON'T cut taxes. Take them back to where they once were and spend accordingly.

BTW if their business grew and their investments grew, while jobs decreased, their businesses and investments must be in industries that are now in China / Mexico. If that's the case, I say triple their taxes!

[lonewolf]

Can you think of ANYTHING more stupid than cutting taxes and NOT offsetting spending accordingly ?

Why...yes I can.

1. Not understanding that cutting tax rates resulted in more revenues to the treasury, not less. Deficits came from huge government growth...like the 24% year to year increase produced by Obama/Pelosi/Reid on several entitlements.

2. Raising taxes or allowing taxes to rise during a slow recovery

You know Bill, all this talk about offsetting spending and paying for tax cuts...it sounds an awful lot like "spending cuts", but you just can't bring yourself to write "spending cuts". I woud swear you are advocating the reduction of the size of government.

[Hawk]

Can you think of ANYTHING more stupid than cutting taxes and NOT offsetting spending accordingly ?

Why...yes I can.

1. Not understanding that cutting taxes resulted in more revenues to the treasury, not less. Deficits came from huge government growth...like the 24% year to year increase produced by Obama/Pelosi/Reid on several entitlements.

2. Raising taxes during a slow recovery

So you're saying that the Trillions of dollars LOST via tax cuts to the rich did not contribute to the deficit ? If we had that Trillion back, we would actually have less ?

Are you saying that if we had that Trillion in our goverment we would actually have a higher deficit.

You're funny.

Since you know that Obama and friends have added exactly 24% yearly increases, can you break that down and tell me how much that is in dollars ? And how much went to each of these entitliments by Obama. Obviously you have these numbers at your finger tips.

BTW if their business grew and their investments grew, while jobs decreased, their businesses and investments must be in industries that are now in China / Mexico. If that's the case, I say triple their taxes!
_________________

Or DON'T cut taxes. Take them back to where they once were and spend accordingly.

[lonewolf]

So you're saying that the Trillions of dollars LOST via tax cuts to the rich did not contribute to the deficit ?

No, I am saying that the treasury never lost a trillion dollars via tax cuts. It turned out to be a wash.

Sorry, I didn't get to add that last piece in time for your post.

[Hawk]

So you're saying that the Trillions of dollars LOST via tax cuts to the rich did not contribute to the deficit ?

No, I am saying that the treasury never lost a trillion dollars via tax cuts. It turned out to be a wash.

Sorry, I didn't get to add that last piece in time for your post.

A wash ? So the rich payed one Trillion more in taxes than they would have paid before the tax cuts ?

Where are these businesses and investments ? China ? Mexico ?

[lonewolf]

Hawk!!! Stop!!!

You and I must have been living in parallel universes during the past 30 years because nothing you are talking about occurred in this universe.