Topic: Minnesota is a donor state
started by: jimhanson
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 17 2012,2:21 pm
I wanted to see when Tax Freedom Day happens in Minnesota--the day that you quit working for the government and get to keep what you earn for yourself. Just think--starting next Monday, you'll quit working for the Government, and start working for yourself! 
There's something wrong with people that think that the average person (young, old) should be required to work almost 4 months out of the year just to support the bloated government! 
Minnesota
The Facts on Minnesota's Tax Climate
Here are some basic facts on Minnesota's tax system and how it compares to other states:
Tax Freedom Day Arrives on April 22 in MinnesotaTax Freedom Day is the day when Americans finally have earned enough money to pay off their total tax bill for the year. In 2012, Minnesota taxpayers work until April 22 (ranked 8th nationally) to pay their total tax bill. The Tax Freedom Days of neighboring states are: Wisconsin, April 21 (ranked 10th nationally); Iowa, April 9 (ranked 37th nationally); South Dakota, April 4 (ranked 46th nationally); and North Dakota, April 18 (ranked 14th nationally).
Minnesota's State and Local Tax Burden Above National Average
Minnesota's 2009 state and local tax burden of 10.3% of income is above the national average of 9.8%. Minnesota's tax burden has decreased overall from 11.0% (10th nationally) in 1977 to 10.3% (7th nationally) in 2009. Minnesotans pay $4,651 per capita in state and local taxes.
Minnesota's 2012 Business Tax Climate Ranks 45thMinnesota ranks 45th the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index. The Index compares the states in five areas of taxation that impact business: corporate taxes; individual income taxes; sales taxes; unemployment insurance taxes; and taxes on property, including residential and commercial property. Neighboring states rank as follows: North Dakota (29th), South Dakota (2nd), Iowa (41st) and Wisconsin (43rd).
50-State Comparison of Business Tax Climates(data only)
2012 State Business Tax Climate Index, Ninth Edition (full study)
Minnesota's Individual Income Tax System Minnesota's personal income tax system consists of three separate brackets with a top rate of 7.85% kicking in at an income level of $74,780. Among states levying personal income taxes, Minnesota's top rate ranks 9th highest nationally. Minnesota's 2008 state-level individual income tax collections were $1,493 per person, which ranked 5th highest nationally.
Minnesota's Corporate Income Tax System
Minnesota's corporate tax structure consists of a flat rate of 9.8% on all corporate income. Among states levying corporate income taxes, Minnesota's rate ranks 3rd highest nationally. In 2008, state-level corporate tax collections (excluding local taxes) were $200 per capita, which ranked 11th nationally.
Minnesota Sales and Excise Taxes
Minnesota levies a 6.875% general sales or use tax on consumers, which is above the national median of 5.85%. In 2007 combined state and local general and selective sales tax collections were $1,456 per person, which ranks17th highest nationally. Minnesota's gasoline tax stands at 27.2 cents per gallon, ranking 20th highest nationally. Minnesota's cigarette tax stands at $1.504 per pack of twenty, which ranks 20th highest nationally. The sales tax was adopted in 1967, the gasoline tax in 1925 and the cigarette tax in 1947.
Minnesota Property Taxes:
Minnesota is one of the 37 states that collect property taxes at both the state and local levels. As in most states, local governments collect far more. Minnesota's localities collected $916.57 per capita in property taxes in fiscal year 2006, which is the latest year the Census Bureau published state-by-state property tax collections. At the state level, Minnesota collected $123.62 per capita during FY 2006, making its combined state/local property taxes $1,040.19 per capita, which ranks 27th highest nationally..
Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures: Minnesota is a Donor State
Minnesota taxpayers receive less federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid compared to the average state. Per dollar of Federal tax collected in 2005, Minnesota citizens received approximately $0.72 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 46th highest nationally and represents a decrease from 1995 when Minnesota received $0.78 per dollar of taxes in federal spending (44th highest nationally). Neighboring states and the amount of federal money they received per dollar of federal taxes collected were: North Dakota ($1.68), South Dakota ($1.53), Iowa ($1.10) and Wisconsin ($0.86).
MINNESOTA RECEIVES ONLY 72 CENTS OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR WE SEND TO WASHINGTON--AND LIBBIES THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA?
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 17 2012,2:26 pm
Are you saying that things like school teachers and airports cost money?
Posted by grassman on Apr. 17 2012,3:19 pm
I think it can be said that there is tons of waste in govt. from the city all the way to the top. That is why whistle blowers need to be protected. The party needs to end. There is necessary and then there is slush and party going on.
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 17 2012,3:46 pm
LiberalNope--just what MOST people know--that the government is bloated and out of control--
That the State of Minnesota is overtaxed, compared to most states.
That the taxpayers only get back 72 cents on every dollar they send in to Washington.
That other nearby states have a better ratio.
That we all work far too long to support the government.
That MOST things can be done far cheaper (including education and airports) by private industry than the government.
That "Government Efficiency" is an oxymoron--or only believed in BY morons.
That no matter what a Donk tells you, you can't cover MORE people for LESS money with government health care, and have BETTER care.
That Social Security was unsustainable from the start--but the bankruptcy of Medicare is an even bigger crisis.
That if we don't cut spending, that there isn't enough money in the country (we are fast closing in on 100% of the entire gross domestic product of the country) to pay for government programs.
That "tax the rich" is a fairy tale--the additional revenue would lower the Obama deficit from $1.4 Trillion per year to 1.395.
That the Donks haven't even produced a Federal budget that gets through the Donk-controlled Senate in over 3 years--they don't even try.
That Obozo's White House budget this year was so laughable that he got NO votes for it--even from the Donks.
That when a libbie is losing an argument--he resorts to personal attacks, rather than deal with the issues.
Big Government supporters got us into this bloated government mess--the adults in the room need to intervene to stop their wild spending.
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 18 2012,5:40 am
Are you saying multiple wars and a military industrial complex requires someone to pay for it?
Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Apr. 18 2012,7:17 am
(jimhanson @ Apr. 17 2012,3:46 pm)
QUOTE
That Obozo's White House budget this year was so laughable that he got NO votes for it--even from the Donks.
That when a libbie is losing an argument--he resorts to personal attacks, rather than deal with the issues.
That when a libbie is losing an argument--he resorts to personal attacks, rather than deal with the issues.
You may want to re-read these two sentences. In the first you resort to name calling and the second you chastise someone else for doing something similar. Why is it so hard to remain civil during a discussion and avoid the name calling? I find it hard to take you seriously when you do that.
This is why I am sick of both parties. They are exactly the same but can't see it. They both do the same things but point fingers at each other like children saying "But they do it too!" or "they are worse!"
Our Country won't be great again until we get rid of both parties and start over.
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 18 2012,7:20 am
^...rid of both parties. What he said ^ 
Posted by grassman on Apr. 18 2012,7:21 am
As I mentioned in a post somewhere... that is their inside joke. Let the people fight amongst themselves while we fleece them all. Jimmy falls right into it. 
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 18 2012,2:24 pm
Counterfeit-- QUOTE
In the first you resort to name calling
You don't like it that I make fun of Obama? It's OK with you that the Donks did the same (and worse) to Bush ("Chimpy"--"Shrub"--and worse? Would you be happier if I just called him "the current occupant" of the White House, as would-be comedian Garrison Keillor did? Are comedians now not supposed to ridicule his constant foibles, either?
"Respect the office, but not the man."
QUOTE
and the second you chastise someone else for doing something similar
For calling Liberal a LIBERAL? I realize that amongst CONSERVATIVES--the label LIBERAL has become a vile name--even the liberals run away from the name--now calling themselves "Progressives". 
ALC
QUOTE
Are you saying multiple wars and a military industrial complex requires someone to pay for it?
They do--and like most liberals, you blame the military for the bloated government. That couldn't be further from the truth--if you cut ALL military spending, you still couldn't pay for all of the "entitlement" programs. Like it or not, they'll have to be cut--it remains to see who has the guts to do it. It WILL happen--either when we become like Greece, or when the taxpayers demand it.Don't forget that it was CONGRESS that voted for the military spending, and CONGRESS that approved the military action in Iraq--no matter how libbies try to spin it.
As to the need to do away with the existing two parties--that would be nice--but unlikely. Third (and 4th) parties wouldn't have a chance. Instead, I applaud the further division between the parties--they've become "me-too"--too much alike.
We're coming to a fork in the road--which way will we go? Our socialist-in-chief thinks "we should be more like Europe." Will we be like the Euroweenies, with high taxes, cradle-to-grave government care, and big government controls? Or will we go for minimal government-- get government back out of our lives--repeal failed government programs, and take responsibility for our OWN destiny?
There is no middle ground--the only thing in the middle of the road--IS ROADKILL.
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 18 2012,2:37 pm
^Garrison Keillor is supposed to be funny??? 
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 18 2012,2:44 pm
QUOTE
We're coming to a fork in the road--which way will we go?
Blah, blah, blah. You kooks have been telling people the sky is falling for years now.
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 18 2012,9:28 pm
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, < world news >, and < news about the economy >
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 19 2012,5:51 am
^you're link doesn't work, just like the bozo in the pic. 
Posted by Glad I Left on Apr. 19 2012,7:12 am
I love a guy who can criticize someone's plan but not put out his own 
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 19 2012,7:49 am
^ are you referring to me?
Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Apr. 19 2012,8:46 am
[quote=jimhanson,Apr. 18 2012,2:24 pm][/quote]Counterfeit--
QUOTE
QUOTE
In the first you resort to name calling
You don't like it that I make fun of Obama? It's OK with you that the Donks did the same (and worse) to Bush ("Chimpy"--"Shrub"--and worse? Would you be happier if I just called him "the current occupant" of the White House, as would-be comedian Garrison Keillor did? Are comedians now not supposed to ridicule his constant foibles, either?
"Respect the office, but not the man."
Again. You point fingers and say but they do it. I never said it was okay for the Democrats to do the same or worse. I just expect those who profess to take the moral high road to actually act like mature adults. Are you saying comedians and Republicans are on the same level? I guess we are in agreement there.
QUOTE
QUOTE
and the second you chastise someone else for doing something similar
For calling Liberal a LIBERAL? I realize that amongst CONSERVATIVES--the label LIBERAL has become a vile name--even the liberals run away from the name--now calling themselves "Progressives". Do you know what the word chastise means? My statement had nothing to do with the word Liberal. It had to do with hypocrisy. You complain that the Liberals resort to name calling and then you yourself do the exact same thing in the sentence above that one. That was the point I was trying to make.
QUOTE
As to the need to do away with the existing two parties--that would be nice--but unlikely. Third (and 4th) parties wouldn't have a chance. Instead, I applaud the further division between the parties--they've become "me-too"--too much alike.
Here we agree completely. It would be best but not likely to happen in the near future.
QUOTE
We're coming to a fork in the road--which way will we go? Our socialist-in-chief thinks "we should be more like Europe." Will we be like the Euroweenies, with high taxes, cradle-to-grave government care, and big government controls? Or will we go for minimal government-- get government back out of our lives--repeal failed government programs, and take responsibility for our OWN destiny?
The problem here is that the Republicans are not about minimal government. Not even close. I wish they were. Voting Democrat or Republican is really just voting between lesser evils. Neither is a good choice. A person is forced to decide which Candidate will do the least harm. The coming election doesn't look like it will have any clear choices again.
Posted by Glad I Left on Apr. 19 2012,9:23 am
(Glad I Left @ Apr. 19 2012,7:12 am)
QUOTE
I love a guy who can criticize someone's plan but not put out his own
No. The economic buffoon in charge of our country.
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 19 2012,11:12 am
^cool 
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 20 2012,6:39 am
Republicans, including Mitt Romney, have continually pushed for a Balanced Budget Amendment, an idea former Reagan economist Bruce Bartlett said looked “like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin.” Meanwhile, the American people also gave Republicans failing marks, blaming the GOP for intentionally sabotaging the economy to hurt President Obama politically.
Posted by Common Citizen on Apr. 22 2012,11:54 am
You'd be surprised at how many great ideas were started on the back of a napkin.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Apr. 23 2012,8:58 am
(Counterfeit Fake @ Apr. 19 2012,8:46 am)
QUOTE
[
The problem here is that the Republicans are not about minimal government. Not even close. I wish they were. Voting Democrat or Republican is really just voting between lesser evils. Neither is a good choice. A person is forced to decide which Candidate will do the least harm. The coming election doesn't look like it will have any clear choices again.
The problem here is that the Republicans are not about minimal government. Not even close. I wish they were. Voting Democrat or Republican is really just voting between lesser evils. Neither is a good choice. A person is forced to decide which Candidate will do the least harm. The coming election doesn't look like it will have any clear choices again.
Why do we just keep allowing it? Are the majority of "We the people" that stupid and lazy?
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Apr. 23 2012,9:02 am
(grassman @ Apr. 18 2012,7:21 am)
QUOTE
As I mentioned in a post somewhere... that is their inside joke. Let the people fight amongst themselves while we fleece them all. Jimmy falls right into it.
They definitely like to keep us fighting about stupid crap that is for sure. Keeping us divided helps them immensely.
Posted by Counterfeit Fake on Apr. 23 2012,9:15 am
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Apr. 23 2012,8:58 am)
QUOTE
(Counterfeit Fake @ Apr. 19 2012,8:46 am)
QUOTE
[
The problem here is that the Republicans are not about minimal government. Not even close. I wish they were. Voting Democrat or Republican is really just voting between lesser evils. Neither is a good choice. A person is forced to decide which Candidate will do the least harm. The coming election doesn't look like it will have any clear choices again.
The problem here is that the Republicans are not about minimal government. Not even close. I wish they were. Voting Democrat or Republican is really just voting between lesser evils. Neither is a good choice. A person is forced to decide which Candidate will do the least harm. The coming election doesn't look like it will have any clear choices again.
Why do we just keep allowing it? Are the majority of "We the people" that stupid and lazy?
I think a lot of it is the herd mentality and laziness. People feel the need to be part of a group and will follow whatever the group decides so they don't have to waste time and energy thinking or investigating. I know many people who will only vote for someone of their party regardless of the qualities of that individual. They almost seem proud of it at times. It also seems to come down to a us vs. them thing. Anyone of the opposite party is obviously a bad person and therefore we must rally behind our guy.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Apr. 23 2012,9:22 am
(Counterfeit Fake @ Apr. 23 2012,9:15 am)
QUOTE
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Apr. 23 2012,8:58 am)
QUOTE
(Counterfeit Fake @ Apr. 19 2012,8:46 am)
QUOTE
[
The problem here is that the Republicans are not about minimal government. Not even close. I wish they were. Voting Democrat or Republican is really just voting between lesser evils. Neither is a good choice. A person is forced to decide which Candidate will do the least harm. The coming election doesn't look like it will have any clear choices again.
The problem here is that the Republicans are not about minimal government. Not even close. I wish they were. Voting Democrat or Republican is really just voting between lesser evils. Neither is a good choice. A person is forced to decide which Candidate will do the least harm. The coming election doesn't look like it will have any clear choices again.
Why do we just keep allowing it? Are the majority of "We the people" that stupid and lazy?
I think a lot of it is the herd mentality and laziness. People feel the need to be part of a group and will follow whatever the group decides so they don't have to waste time and energy thinking or investigating. I know many people who will only vote for someone of their party regardless of the qualities of that individual. They almost seem proud of it at times. It also seems to come down to a us vs. them thing. Anyone of the opposite party is obviously a bad person and therefore we must rally behind our guy.
I completely agree with everything you said. I'm sick and tired of all of that BS. People need to pull their heads out of their butts and see the big picture before it's too late. I for one do not want to keep pushing all of our problems onto our children and grandchildren.
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 23 2012,9:25 am
(Common Citizen @ Apr. 22 2012,11:54 am)
QUOTE
You'd be surprised at how many great ideas were started on the back of a napkin.
Opposition to the federal balanced budget amendment is not just a position held by liberals. Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, stated: "It is about the most irresponsible action imaginable. It would virtually ensure that an economic downturn would end up as a deep depression, by erasing any real ability of the government to pursue countercyclical fiscal policies and in fact demanding the opposite, at the worst possible time."
< http://www.chron.com/opinion...677.php >
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 23 2012,10:35 am
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Apr. 23 2012,9:02 am)
QUOTE
They definitely like to keep us fighting about stupid crap that is for sure. Keeping us divided helps them immensely.
We have always had a divided country..
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 23 2012,1:58 pm
^ difference of opinion is inevitable but the divisiveness we've been experiencing the last few years is harmful and only getting worse.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Apr. 23 2012,4:14 pm
(Self-Banished @ Apr. 23 2012,1:58 pm)
QUOTE
^ difference of opinion is inevitable but the divisiveness we've been experiencing the last few years is harmful and only getting worse.
Amen SB.
Posted by Common Citizen on Apr. 23 2012,4:24 pm
(alcitizens @ Apr. 23 2012,9:25 am)
QUOTE
(Common Citizen @ Apr. 22 2012,11:54 am)
QUOTE
You'd be surprised at how many great ideas were started on the back of a napkin.
Opposition to the federal balanced budget amendment is not just a position held by liberals. Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, stated: "It is about the most irresponsible action imaginable. It would virtually ensure that an economic downturn would end up as a deep depression, by erasing any real ability of the government to pursue countercyclical fiscal policies and in fact demanding the opposite, at the worst possible time."
< http://www.chron.com/opinion...677.php >
Are you agreeing with me or not. I can't tell.
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 23 2012,5:33 pm
Right-Wing Survival of the Fittest
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 23 2012,5:34 pm
Left-WingOne for All and All for One
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 23 2012,10:25 pm
^socialism at it's best. ...and worst.
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 23 2012,10:40 pm
Capitalism is considered the opposite of socialism. The poor and disadvantaged fall to the wayside in lieu of unencumbered economic potential, and 'survival-of-the-fittest' is the rule of law. Socialism, on the other hand, values all citizens regardless of their earning potential.< http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_opposite_of_socialism >
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 24 2012,4:40 am
I'll stick with capitalism. Socialism promotes laziness and slavery.
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 24 2012,11:47 am
(Self-Banished @ Apr. 24 2012,4:40 am)
QUOTE
Socialism promotes laziness and slavery.
Posted by MADDOG on Apr. 24 2012,11:59 am
(alcitizens @ Apr. 23 2012,10:40 pm)
QUOTE
Socialism, on the other hand, values all citizens regardless of their earning potential.
I guess I would take that as you being a socialist.
Have a hymie.
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 24 2012,12:23 pm
(alcitizens @ Apr. 24 2012,11:47 am)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Apr. 24 2012,4:40 am)
QUOTE
Socialism promotes laziness and slavery.
So If someone has everything that they need to survive handed tomthem they're not going to turn into a lazy, greedy, welfare pig?
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 24 2012,4:02 pm
(alcitizens @ Apr. 23 2012,10:35 am)
QUOTE
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Apr. 23 2012,9:02 am)
QUOTE
They definitely like to keep us fighting about stupid crap that is for sure. Keeping us divided helps them immensely.
We have always had a divided country..
ALC--if you have it, how about posting the questions that go along with the political leanings chart?
This being a political year, it might be interesting for others to take it.
I posted it several years ago--and found I was more Libertarian than I thought, and less Conservative.
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 24 2012,4:29 pm
(MADDOG @ Apr. 24 2012,11:59 am)
QUOTE
(alcitizens @ Apr. 23 2012,10:40 pm)
QUOTE
Socialism, on the other hand, values all citizens regardless of their earning potential.
I guess I would take that as you being a socialist.
Have a hymie.
The USA is part socialist and part capitalist in a constant tug of war.
Are your parents socialists because they have medicare and receive social security? Yes! Is Jim Hanson a socialist because he receives social security? Yes!
Are they lazy slaves? No!
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 24 2012,6:36 pm
ALC-- QUOTE
The USA is part socialist and part capitalist in a constant tug of war.
I agree with you--but it wasn't always that way. Like so many other problems, it began with the Donks--FDR. LBJ elevated it with his "war on poverty" (poverty won). Carter carried socialist programs to new levels. Clinton first embraced it--then backed away after his thumping in 1994 (remember "The era of big government is OVER"?) Reid/Pelosi/Obama made pikers out of them--incurring more debt than all previous Presidents put together. Look up the meaning of socialism (OK, I'll do it FOR you!)
From Dictionary.com QUOTE
so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Yep--that pretty much sums up Socialism, and where Obummer is "leading" us--from Capitalism to Communism.
Here's another
QUOTE
Cultural Dictionary
socialism definition
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
socialism definition
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
Yep--that would be our boy in the White House!
ALC--
QUOTE
Are your parents socialists because they have medicare and receive social security? Yes! Is Jim Hanson a socialist because he receives social security? Yes!
I don't think you've ever heard me advocate for government control of industry. You think that people are Socialists because they actually TRY TO GET BACK the money that was confiscated from them?
News flash--MOST of us were unwilling participants in this failed Ponzi scheme.
Posted by MADDOG on Apr. 24 2012,9:35 pm
(alcitizens @ Apr. 24 2012,4:29 pm)
QUOTE
Are your parents socialists because they have medicare and receive social security? Yes! Is Jim Hanson a socialist because he receives social security? Yes!
Are they lazy slaves? No!
Are they lazy slaves? No!
My father still pays self employment tax (SS tax) to obtain medicare and SSI...mostly when he retires. He's got military bennies too. He's 76 and still working. Mother was the same way for several years before taking a different job. She'll retire this summer at 75.
Yep, sounds like he should be a democrat. Never made much money because of the profession and location he chose. He should be mad as heck. He works just as hard as the guy who makes four times as much. Why can't he have some of that money?
Democrat is a dirty word to him,
and liberals, he just shakes his head.
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 24 2012,9:52 pm
Obummer? When was the last time anyone heard the word "bummer" used? I'd guess about 1975.
Posted by MADDOG on Apr. 25 2012,12:59 am
(Liberal @ Apr. 24 2012,9:52 pm)
QUOTE
Obummer? When was the last time anyone heard the word "bummer" used? I'd guess about 1975.
Close. I think people started using the term 'bummer' in November 1976.
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 25 2012,5:29 am
Alky quote"Are they lazy slaves? No!"
No. they are not lazy slaves, the recipient is lazy and the provider is forced to be the slave,
Posted by irisheyes on Apr. 25 2012,8:31 am
(jimhanson @ Apr. 24 2012,4:02 pm)
QUOTE
This being a political year, it might be interesting for others to take it.
I posted it several years ago--and found I was more Libertarian than I thought, and less Conservative.
I posted it several years ago--and found I was more Libertarian than I thought, and less Conservative.
I found it, < Political Compass > test.
QUOTE
MINNESOTA RECEIVES ONLY 72 CENTS OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR WE SEND TO WASHINGTON--AND LIBBIES THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA?
So your benchmark of how good of an idea taxes are is whether or not we get it all back? The F-22's and War on Terror aren't going to get paid for with that philosophy.
QUOTE
That the State of Minnesota is overtaxed, compared to most states.
MN in recent years has shifted heavily to regressive taxes. But I think we've been a higher tax state in the past because we have better infrastructure, education, and public safety.
The other low-tax states, the red states, are only low-tax because they rely on economically superior states like Minnesota to pay for their bridges/roads to nowhere, educating their children, and printing maps to help people avoid the Deliverance folks.
QUOTE
That no matter what a Donk tells you, you can't cover MORE people for LESS money with government health care, and have BETTER care.
You can, and we're the only industrialized nation that hasn't figured it out yet. We cover less people, for far more money, and we do it because we rely more on private enterprise to do it efficiently. If healthcare costs roughly double what it does through most of the other industrialized nations, with no better results in quality of life indexes, the main thing we're doing better here is HMO profit margin and executive treatment.
Wendell Potter finally figured it out looking at his gold silverware and plate on the way to a meeting. They keep figuring out innovative ways to spend the money on everything BUT healthcare.
QUOTE
That "tax the rich" is a fairy tale--the additional revenue would lower the Obama deficit from $1.4 Trillion per year to 1.395.
When the tax cuts to the rich were extended I thought CBO was saying it was HUNDREDS of billions. Now people say it's five billion. But even if it was five or ten billion, have you got a better idea of how to pay for the wars or increased spending the republicans keep asking for?
That's the thing, republicans will never understand that you have to PAY for things. You can't just keep talking about how we need to retain military superiority, stay the course in Afghanistan, help the farmers, and keep our promise to veterans, but then when it comes time to appropriate funds for all these promises they just say "taxes are bad" and attack anyone who says otherwise.
QUOTE
As to the need to do away with the existing two parties--that would be nice--but unlikely. Third (and 4th) parties wouldn't have a chance. Instead, I applaud the further division between the parties--they've become "me-too"--too much alike.
Problem is the division is simply in rhetoric. If the republican politicians were actually about limited government and personal freedom, just the same is if democratic politicians were really about ending the military action abroad and civil liberties at home. If the rhetoric matched the voting records in D.C. than the divisiveness would make more sense. But the vast majority of things going on both parties agree on.
QUOTE
I agree with you--but it wasn't always that way. Like so many other problems, it began with the Donks--FDR. LBJ elevated it with his "war on poverty" (poverty won). Carter carried socialist programs to new levels. Clinton first embraced it--then backed away after his thumping in 1994 (remember "The era of big government is OVER"?) Reid/Pelosi/Obama made pikers out of them--incurring more debt than all previous Presidents put together.
So you blame several democratic Presidents, but I've got a feeling if I mentioned a republican President you'd blame Congress.
QUOTE
That MOST things can be done far cheaper (including education and airports) by private industry than the government.
I don't think private industry would do better than our local airports, but if you think so you can certainly share your ideas.
My opinion is certain things private industry does well with minimum safety and environmental regulation: cars, houses, food, buildings, clothing, electronics, etc. Some things are left better to government: interstate highway, defense, police, fire, education, etc.
As for socialism, seems anytime you suggest a billionaire paying the same rate as his secretary or having universal healthcare, everyone starts acting like the hammer and sickle are going up.
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 25 2012,9:58 am
Irish--thanks for the link. Here's my score, below.Like so many quizzes, the "right" answer was not a choice.
The "scatter" among others is unusual--causes me to question the validity of the test. Note that NOBODY ends up on the left, for example. That is partly explained by the text in the quiz.
QUOTE
In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 25 2012,10:10 am
Irish-- QUOTE
So your benchmark of how good of an idea taxes are is whether or not we get it all back? The F-22's and War on Terror aren't going to get paid for with that philosophy.
No, it isn't my benchmark--the comment was that there are winners and loser states when it comes to the "Fairness" (to use a word the Obamunists like to use) of taxation. In Minnesota's case, we pay in more than we get back. Back in the days when Tim Penny (Dem. deficit hawk) represented the area, he made the point that this district had the WORST record of money paid in vs. money back from the Federal government of all 435 Congressional Districts.Under the Donk thinking, that must make us "The Rich"--because we are being taxed so high!
Nice of us Minnesotans to pay for the wretched D.C. schools, the National Endowment for the Arts, and other government boondoggles in the failed big cities--even though most of us live HERE to avoid those big city problems.
QUOTE
But I think we've been a higher tax state in the past because we have better infrastructure, education, and public safety.
As Reagan famously said--"There you go again!" --conflating SPENDING with OUTCOME. North Dakota is one of the LEAST SPENDING states on education--yet has one of the BEST results. New York and Washington D.C. spend the MOST on education--yet have the WORST results. As P.J. O'Rourke said "Educational excellence has less to do with money spent than it does with proximity to the Canadian border.! Look at the best states for education--most of them are in the north--and it is not relevant how much is spent per student.
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 25 2012,10:21 am
Jim-- QUOTE
That no matter what a Donk tells you, you can't cover MORE people for LESS money with government health care, and have BETTER care.
Irish--
QUOTE
You can, and we're the only industrialized nation that hasn't figured it out yet. We cover less people, for far more money, and we do it because we rely more on private enterprise to do it efficiently. If healthcare costs roughly double what it does through most of the other industrialized nations, with no better results in quality of life indexes, the main thing we're doing better here is HMO profit margin and executive treatment.
"Only industrialized nation that hasn't figured it out yet"? CANADA is now allowing private practice again to address the failure of their system--long waits, doctors fleeing to the U.S.--patients (including the former Prime Minister!) coming to the U.S. for health care not available there.
BRITAIN instituted socialized medicine--and has similarly retreated to allow private care.
The SCANDINAVIAN countries subsidize their socialized medicine with super-high taxes on petroleum--AND THEY OWN THE NORTH SEA OIL!
Would you like gas in the $8.50 range? (apparently, Obozo would). It has killed off economic expansion in those countries.Then there is the case of Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and now France--Socialism in general (and socialized medicine in particular) have proven an economic disaster there. Yet your boy thinks that this is the model WE should adopt?
Nobody has yet been able to address how we are going to add 30 million people to the rolls--with the EXISTING staff--and deliver BETTER health care for LESS money.
It hasn't worked YET--but that doesn't keep libbies from TRYING IT AGAIN--just because the liberal Messiah SAYS it will work!
It goes along with your photo--but the error in libbie "thinking" is that Jesus fed all of those people by DIVINE INTERVENTION. YOU may think that Obama is a God--and OBAMA may think he IS God--but that doesn't cut it!
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 25 2012,10:56 am
I got a kick out of what Right-Wingers support in my previous pic.. They support War and Tax Cuts, just like our previous Republican President George W Bush.. How the hell do you pay for multiple wars and cut taxes at the same time?
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 25 2012,11:18 am
Irish-- QUOTE
When the tax cuts to the rich were extended I thought CBO was saying it was HUNDREDS of billions. Now people say it's five billion. But even if it was five or ten billion, have you got a better idea of how to pay for the wars or increased spending the republicans keep asking for?
"There you go again"--the tax cuts were across the board, for EVERYBODY.The thing you have to watch for when someone quotes CBO numbers--the CBO only scores what they are ASKED to score--not reality or totality. REALITY lesson for liberals--if these ill-considered tax increases on "the rich" were enacted, it would only bring in $5 billion in additional revenue. On an annual deficit of $1.5 trillion dollars, that's .003%. Put another way--that's about enough to run the Federal Government for all of about 24 hours!
But that doesn't take into account the debilitating effect it would have on the economy. Here's another dose of REALITY for libbies--you can't balance the budget by cutting the military only--you can't balance the budget by raising taxes--SOMETHING HAS TO BE CUT--DRASTICALLY--AND SOON!
QUOTE
As for socialism, seems anytime you suggest a billionaire paying the same rate as his secretary or having universal healthcare, everyone starts acting like the hammer and sickle are going up.
Well, socialized medicine and confiscatory tax rates are HARDLY the province of conseratism, libertarianism, or capitalism, are they? As far as "billionaires and secretaries"--that old carard might sound good to the Obama faithful, but it isn't true. Buffet pays not only MORE taxes, but at a HIGHER RATE than the secretary. Berkshire/Hathaway--Buffett's company, pays taxes on earnings. Buffett pays taxes on dividends. He is taxed AGAIN when he sells his stock at a profit--Capital Gains. That's THREE taxes on the same profit--much more than a "Secretary" pays--yet your boy doesn't consider that "fair."
Of course, if Mr. Buffett actually DOES think that he should be paying more taxes, all he has to do is either:
A. Simply write the check
OR
B. Quit trying to weasel out of the taxes he owes on Netjets--and has been fighting the IRS on for years!
I would have thought you libbies would have been embarrassed by the fact that Obummer's secretary paid a higher rate than HE did!
It seems that you JUST CAN'T EMBARRASS A LIBBIE, THOUGH!
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 25 2012,11:31 am
(alcitizens @ Apr. 25 2012,10:56 am)
QUOTE
I got a kick out of what Right-Wingers support in my previous pic.. They support War and Tax Cuts, just like our previous Republican President George W Bush..
How the hell do you pay for multiple wars and cut taxes at the same time?
How the hell do you pay for multiple wars and cut taxes at the same time?
Right-wingers don't support WAR. They advocate for a strong defense. Libbies usually sacrifice defense spending in favor of their favorite social programs--a lot more votes to be bought there!
It wasn't just Bush that supported tax cuts for increased revenue--you might recall that Kennedy and Reagan both did--and in EVERY case, when taxes went DOWN, Federal Revenue went UP.
Liberals are blessed (or afflicted with) SELECTIVE MEMORY.
You might go back and look at the resolution for the Iraq war--the majority of Donk members of Congress voted for them as well!
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 25 2012,12:02 pm
You nut jobs always talk increased revenue after tax cuts.. With all this extra revenue we shouldn't have increased the National Debt by 5 trillion dollars and destroyed the economy under George W Bush.. I forgot, its the DONKS fault again..
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 25 2012,1:12 pm
^for where we are now? Yes, it is the donks fault
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 25 2012,3:47 pm
Every Bush has endorsed Romney except George W Bush.. Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 25 2012,3:54 pm
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 25 2012,4:01 pm
(alcitizens @ Apr. 25 2012,12:02 pm)
QUOTE
You nut jobs always talk increased revenue after tax cuts.. With all this extra revenue we shouldn't have increased the National Debt by 5 trillion dollars and destroyed the economy under George W Bush..
I forgot, its the DONKS fault again..
I forgot, its the DONKS fault again..
Yes, as SB said "It IS the Donks fault".
I've always thought it odd (but then, I find MOST things the Donks do odd!)
that the Donks (including your boy in the White House) excoriated Bush for "too much spending"--while the current spender-in-chief created more deficit in only 3 years than bush did in nearly 3 times that long! Even Oblahblah castigated Bush for spending (of course, he was CAMPAIGNING then!)
Bush SHOULD have found the veto pen earlier--but he went ahead with Congressional budgets. Never mind that the "Bush debt" that Donks like to bray about skyrocketed AFTER THE DONKS TOOK CONTROL OF THE HOUSE, IN 2006.
There is no escaping the fact that even with the Bush administration spending following 9/11--the Repubs were PIKERS compared to the current administration when it comes to spending.
Look at the chart--see the big increase after the Donks took over Congressional appropriations--and the EVEN BIGGER increase under the Community Agitator.
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 25 2012,4:16 pm
ALC--would you like me to post all of the Obama gaffes? How about Joe "The Gaffe machine" Biden?
If you want to see a REAL clown--look at the Community Agitator without his TelePrompter--even WITH it, this "great intellect" can't keep his facts straight.
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 25 2012,5:23 pm
(alcitizens @ Apr. 25 2012,3:47 pm)
QUOTE
Every Bush has endorsed Romney except George W Bush..
Weel, from where I see it, Bush jr. has reasonably done what all ex-presidents should do when they leave office, ride off into the sunset and shutup. Clinton didn't do such of a hot job of that, Bush Sr. wasn't too bad either.
I can just imagine what Barry gonna do when he leaves, probably be worse than Sharpton.
Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 25 2012,6:36 pm
Jimmy you don’t claim any blood to your brother goofy Gordy, all I can say is it must have been environmental... according to Jimmy, every Democrat is a communist . . . going all the way back to 1933 when FDR set up New Deal Communism.
That would be the same New Deal communism these tea partiers grew up under . . . the New Deal Communism that made the United States the richest, most powerful nation in history . . . the New Deal Communism that took us to the moon just 36 years after FDR was sworn in.
Let me show you the track record of those New Deal Communist Democrats.
Communist Truman left 2.5 percent unemployment to Eisenhower.
Republican Patriot Eisenhower left recession and 6.5 percent unemployment to Kennedy.
Communist Johnson left 3.5 percent unemployment to Nixon.
Republican Patriot Ford left recession and 7.5 unemployment to Jimmy Carter.
Communist Carter wasn't able to improve much on the recession he inherited . . .
. . . and neither were Republican Patriots Reagan and Bush, who left recession and 7.2 unemployment to Bill Clinton.
Communist Bill Clinton left 4.2 percent unemployment to Dubya . . .
Republican Patriot Dubya left recession and 7.6 percent unemployment to Communist Barack Obama.
No Republican Patriot ever left office with unemployment under 5 % . . . including Reagan. No New Deal Communist ever left office with higher unemployment than they inherited . . . including Jimmy Carter who left the same unemployment he inherited from Ford.
3 out of 4 New Deal Communists left office with unemployment well under five percent.
But wait . . . there's more.
Let me show you the GDP growth figures since the end of World War II from best administration to worst.
Communist Kennedy/Johnson. 4.8 % average annual GDP Growth.
Communist Truman. 3.8%
Communist Clinton. 3.7%
Republican Patriot Reagan 3.4%
Communist Carter 3.3%
Republican Patriot Eisenhower 2.9%
Republican Patriot Nixon/Ford 2.8%
Republican Patriot GW Bush 2.2%
Republican Patriot GHW Bush 2.1%
That's right, four of the five strongest economies since the end of World War II were under Democratic administrations. Reagan's economy was fourth place, and just a hair better than Jimmy Carter's economy.
But wait, there's even more . . .
Republican Patriot Reagan saved us all from the New Deal Stalinism we had all been groaning under . . . that would be the Stalinism that gave us the era of the muscle car, and took us to the moon.
How did America do, economically, before and after the "Reagan Revolution." For example, how many quarters of economic boom did we have . . . quarters where annnualized GDP growth exceeded 6%?
"Boom" Quarters in the 28 years before Reagan's inauguration: 34
"Boom" Quarters in the 28 years after Reagan's inauguration. 14
Yes sirree, good thing we elected that Republican Patriot Reagan to start undoing all of that "communism" we had before 1981.
But wait . . . how have capitalists on Wall Street fared under those New Deal Communists? What did the Dow Jones Industrial Average do over the course of Republican and Democratic Communist Administrations?
Republican Patriot Herbert Hoover -90% That's MINUS 90%. The Dow lost 9/10ths of it's value at the end of the Gilded Age.
Communists FDR/TRuman +525% From 41 to 290.
Republican Patriot Eisenhower +120% From 290 to 630.
Communists Kennedy/Johnson +51% From 630 to 950
Republican Patriots Nixon/Ford +2% From 950 to 970
Communist Carter +3% From 970 to 1000
Republican Patriots Reagan/Bush +244% From 1000 to 2440
Communist Clinton +264% From 2440 to 9880
Republican Patriot GW Bush -25% From 9880 to 7600
Communist Barack Obama +70% From 7600 to 13090 yesterday.
Even that Muslim Communist Kenyan has presided over a Dow Jones rebound, that has come back from the low point it reached the very day he was sworn in. For a communist, he sure has been good for Wall Street.
As for me, I'm a "communist?" Because the New Deal communists bring prosperity, while the Republican Patriots bring unemployment, recession . . . and don't even make as much money for their own wealthy constituents.
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 25 2012,7:29 pm
QUOTE
according to Jimmy, every Democrat is a communist . . . going all the way back to 1933 when FDR set up New Deal Communism.
Were you wearing your Fonz jacket when you jumped that shark? Can you come up with ANY time I've called the Donks Communists--other than linking to the story about Hubert Humphrey throwing the Communists out of the DFL party? No--I call them SOCIALISTS--as did Newsweek.
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 25 2012,8:00 pm
Now that we've established that the far left in general (and the Community Agitator in particular) are socialist redistributionists--let's look at your figures.You talk in terms of "Growth of GDP" but are those in real numbers, or inflated dollars caused by continued reckless spending?
QUOTE
Communist Truman left 2.5 percent unemployment to Eisenhower.
Truman was perhaps the best of the Donk Presidents--he was often wrong, but he didn't back down from foreign threats. Yes, the unemployment was low--JUST AS IT IS IN ANY WARTIME. When Eisenhower took office, he ended the war, and of course GDP growth would slow, and unemployment increase. Would you advocate using wars to bolster the economy? After all, it worked for FDR, Truman, Kennedy/Johnson, and perhaps both Bushs. I thought you libbies were AGAINST wars? Too bad Carter didn't have a war to save HIM!
Expatriate
QUOTE
Communist Carter wasn't able to improve much on the recession he inherited .
Wrong again. The recession was already OVER--and Carter produced "stagflation"--stagnant economy with high inflation. Remember the "misery index"--no economic growth, high inflation, and high unemployment?
QUOTE
On assuming office in 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration. The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states.
Come to think of it--stagnant economy and high unemployment numbers sound a lot like OBAMA. We don't have the high inflation YET, but with UNREGULATED FEDERAL SPENDING, HE'S WORKING ON IT!
Posted by irisheyes on Apr. 25 2012,8:13 pm
(jimhanson @ Apr. 25 2012,7:29 pm)
QUOTE
Can you come up with ANY time I've called the Donks Communists--other than linking to the story about Hubert Humphrey throwing the Communists out of the DFL party?
You mean other than yesterday?
Jim-
QUOTE
Yep--that pretty much sums up Socialism, and where Obummer is "leading" us--from Capitalism to Communism.
You said Obama is leading us to Communism after showing several quotes where Communism was highlighted. So, while you still normally say Socialist, you're clearly doing some serious not-so-subliminal messages trying to pair the two as being one in the same.
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 25 2012,8:32 pm
Jim-- QUOTE
Yep--that pretty much sums up Socialism, and where Obummer is "leading" us--from Capitalism to Communism.
Yes--I did say that. If you want to get into semantics--look at the highlighted text--the key word here is FROM (capitalism) TO (Communism).
If we are going FROM somewhere--it means we have already LEFT it.
If we are going TO somewhere--it means WE HAVE NOT YET ARRIVED.
FROM Dictionary.com
QUOTE
from /frʌm, frɒm; unstressed frəm/ Show Spelled[fruhm, from; unstressed fruhm] Show IPA
preposition
1. (used to specify a starting point in spatial movement): a train running west from Chicago.
2. (used to specify a starting point in an expression of limits): The number of stores will be increased from 25 to 30.
3. (used to express removal or separation, as in space, time, or order): two miles from shore; 30 minutes from now; from one page to the next.
4. (used to express discrimination or distinction): to be excluded from membership; to differ from one's father.
5. (used to indicate source or origin): to come from the Midwest; to take a pencil from one's pocket.
preposition
1. (used to specify a starting point in spatial movement): a train running west from Chicago.
2. (used to specify a starting point in an expression of limits): The number of stores will be increased from 25 to 30.
3. (used to express removal or separation, as in space, time, or order): two miles from shore; 30 minutes from now; from one page to the next.
4. (used to express discrimination or distinction): to be excluded from membership; to differ from one's father.
5. (used to indicate source or origin): to come from the Midwest; to take a pencil from one's pocket.
Now let's work on TO. It means the same as FROM in relation to movement or place--except it indicates movement TOWARD the goal. It can also be used as an adverb
QUOTE
adverb
23. toward a point, person, place, or thing, implied or understood.
24. toward a contact point or closed position: Pull the door to.
25. toward a matter, action, or work: We turned to with a will.
26. into a state of consciousness; out of unconsciousness: after he came to.
23. toward a point, person, place, or thing, implied or understood.
24. toward a contact point or closed position: Pull the door to.
25. toward a matter, action, or work: We turned to with a will.
26. into a state of consciousness; out of unconsciousness: after he came to.
Since these definitions all use the word TOWARD--let's look at it.
QUOTE
to·ward /prep. tɔrd, toʊrd, təˈwɔrd, twɔrd, twoʊrd; adj. tɔrd, toʊrd/ Show Spelled[prep. tawrd, tohrd, tuh-wawrd, twawrd, twohrd; adj. tawrd, tohrd] Show IPA
preposition Also, to·wards .
1. in the direction of: to walk toward the river.
2. with a view to obtaining or having; for: They're saving money toward a new house.
3. in the area or vicinity of; near: Our cabin is toward the top of the hill.
4. turned to; facing: Her back was toward me.
5. shortly before; close to: toward midnight.
preposition Also, to·wards .
1. in the direction of: to walk toward the river.
2. with a view to obtaining or having; for: They're saving money toward a new house.
3. in the area or vicinity of; near: Our cabin is toward the top of the hill.
4. turned to; facing: Her back was toward me.
5. shortly before; close to: toward midnight.
Back to the original statement--"FROM Capitalism TO Communism"--we've decidedly moved AWAY (see definition of FROM) Capitalism TO (toward) Communism (in the vicinity of--but haven't reached it yet.)
Several colleges teach remedial English, if you don't pick it up on this site!
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 25 2012,8:49 pm
Expatriate-- QUOTE
Even that Muslim Communist Kenyan has presided over a Dow Jones rebound, that has come back from the low point it reached the very day he was sworn in. For a communist, he sure has been good for Wall Street.
YOU called him a Kenyan Communist--NOT me! Once again, though, you would be WRONG. You really shouldn't trust the Daily Kos or Humping A Post for your figures.
As for me--I go straight to the DOW. Here's the link null< My Webpage >
According to the DOW--the close was 7949 when your boy took office--on March 9--only 48 days later, it closed at 6547--a LOSS of 1402 points--a loss of almost 18% in that short time period.
Expatriate--
QUOTE
As for me, I'm a "communist?" Because the New Deal communists bring prosperity, while the Republican Patriots bring unemployment, recession . . . and don't even make as much money for their own wealthy constituents.
WHO says that Wall Street brokers and bankers are Repubs? They gave more to Obummer in 2008 than they did to McCain! < My Webpage >
Your argument makes no sense (but that little fact has never stopped a Donk BEFORE!)
Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 26 2012,8:35 am
Wino~QUOTE
Can you come up with ANY time I've called the Donks Communists-
I can’t even count the times you’ve addressed me as comrade expatriate, has dementia taken it’s toll on that one track mind of yours?
QUOTE
YOU called him a Kenyan Communist--NOT me!
I keep forgetting who I’m dealing with, you need to see that little sarcasm icon before you pick up on it...
QUOTE
Your argument makes no sense (but that little fact has never stopped a Donk BEFORE!)
Post # 59 is the truth, you can’t handle the truth...
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 26 2012,9:37 am
(Expatriate @ Apr. 25 2012,6:36 pm)
QUOTE
Jimmy you don’t claim any blood to your brother goofy Gordy, all I can say is it must have been environmental...
according to Jimmy, every Democrat is a communist . . . going all the way back to 1933 when FDR set up New Deal Communism.
That would be the same New Deal communism these tea partiers grew up under . . . the New Deal Communism that made the United States the richest, most powerful nation in history . . . the New Deal Communism that took us to the moon just 36 years after FDR was sworn in.
Let me show you the track record of those New Deal Communist Democrats.
Communist Truman left 2.5 percent unemployment to Eisenhower.
Republican Patriot Eisenhower left recession and 6.5 percent unemployment to Kennedy.
Communist Johnson left 3.5 percent unemployment to Nixon.
Republican Patriot Ford left recession and 7.5 unemployment to Jimmy Carter.
Communist Carter wasn't able to improve much on the recession he inherited . . .
. . . and neither were Republican Patriots Reagan and Bush, who left recession and 7.2 unemployment to Bill Clinton.
Communist Bill Clinton left 4.2 percent unemployment to Dubya . . .
Republican Patriot Dubya left recession and 7.6 percent unemployment to Communist Barack Obama.
No Republican Patriot ever left office with unemployment under 5 % . . . including Reagan. No New Deal Communist ever left office with higher unemployment than they inherited . . . including Jimmy Carter who left the same unemployment he inherited from Ford.
3 out of 4 New Deal Communists left office with unemployment well under five percent.
But wait . . . there's more.
Let me show you the GDP growth figures since the end of World War II from best administration to worst.
Communist Kennedy/Johnson. 4.8 % average annual GDP Growth.
Communist Truman. 3.8%
Communist Clinton. 3.7%
Republican Patriot Reagan 3.4%
Communist Carter 3.3%
Republican Patriot Eisenhower 2.9%
Republican Patriot Nixon/Ford 2.8%
Republican Patriot GW Bush 2.2%
Republican Patriot GHW Bush 2.1%
That's right, four of the five strongest economies since the end of World War II were under Democratic administrations. Reagan's economy was fourth place, and just a hair better than Jimmy Carter's economy.
But wait, there's even more . . .
Republican Patriot Reagan saved us all from the New Deal Stalinism we had all been groaning under . . . that would be the Stalinism that gave us the era of the muscle car, and took us to the moon.
How did America do, economically, before and after the "Reagan Revolution." For example, how many quarters of economic boom did we have . . . quarters where annnualized GDP growth exceeded 6%?
"Boom" Quarters in the 28 years before Reagan's inauguration: 34
"Boom" Quarters in the 28 years after Reagan's inauguration. 14
Yes sirree, good thing we elected that Republican Patriot Reagan to start undoing all of that "communism" we had before 1981.
But wait . . . how have capitalists on Wall Street fared under those New Deal Communists? What did the Dow Jones Industrial Average do over the course of Republican and Democratic Communist Administrations?
Republican Patriot Herbert Hoover -90% That's MINUS 90%. The Dow lost 9/10ths of it's value at the end of the Gilded Age.
Communists FDR/TRuman +525% From 41 to 290.
Republican Patriot Eisenhower +120% From 290 to 630.
Communists Kennedy/Johnson +51% From 630 to 950
Republican Patriots Nixon/Ford +2% From 950 to 970
Communist Carter +3% From 970 to 1000
Republican Patriots Reagan/Bush +244% From 1000 to 2440
Communist Clinton +264% From 2440 to 9880
Republican Patriot GW Bush -25% From 9880 to 7600
Communist Barack Obama +70% From 7600 to 13090 yesterday.
Even that Muslim Communist Kenyan has presided over a Dow Jones rebound, that has come back from the low point it reached the very day he was sworn in. For a communist, he sure has been good for Wall Street.
As for me, I'm a "communist?" Because the New Deal communists bring prosperity, while the Republican Patriots bring unemployment, recession . . . and don't even make as much money for their own wealthy constituents.
according to Jimmy, every Democrat is a communist . . . going all the way back to 1933 when FDR set up New Deal Communism.
That would be the same New Deal communism these tea partiers grew up under . . . the New Deal Communism that made the United States the richest, most powerful nation in history . . . the New Deal Communism that took us to the moon just 36 years after FDR was sworn in.
Let me show you the track record of those New Deal Communist Democrats.
Communist Truman left 2.5 percent unemployment to Eisenhower.
Republican Patriot Eisenhower left recession and 6.5 percent unemployment to Kennedy.
Communist Johnson left 3.5 percent unemployment to Nixon.
Republican Patriot Ford left recession and 7.5 unemployment to Jimmy Carter.
Communist Carter wasn't able to improve much on the recession he inherited . . .
. . . and neither were Republican Patriots Reagan and Bush, who left recession and 7.2 unemployment to Bill Clinton.
Communist Bill Clinton left 4.2 percent unemployment to Dubya . . .
Republican Patriot Dubya left recession and 7.6 percent unemployment to Communist Barack Obama.
No Republican Patriot ever left office with unemployment under 5 % . . . including Reagan. No New Deal Communist ever left office with higher unemployment than they inherited . . . including Jimmy Carter who left the same unemployment he inherited from Ford.
3 out of 4 New Deal Communists left office with unemployment well under five percent.
But wait . . . there's more.
Let me show you the GDP growth figures since the end of World War II from best administration to worst.
Communist Kennedy/Johnson. 4.8 % average annual GDP Growth.
Communist Truman. 3.8%
Communist Clinton. 3.7%
Republican Patriot Reagan 3.4%
Communist Carter 3.3%
Republican Patriot Eisenhower 2.9%
Republican Patriot Nixon/Ford 2.8%
Republican Patriot GW Bush 2.2%
Republican Patriot GHW Bush 2.1%
That's right, four of the five strongest economies since the end of World War II were under Democratic administrations. Reagan's economy was fourth place, and just a hair better than Jimmy Carter's economy.
But wait, there's even more . . .
Republican Patriot Reagan saved us all from the New Deal Stalinism we had all been groaning under . . . that would be the Stalinism that gave us the era of the muscle car, and took us to the moon.
How did America do, economically, before and after the "Reagan Revolution." For example, how many quarters of economic boom did we have . . . quarters where annnualized GDP growth exceeded 6%?
"Boom" Quarters in the 28 years before Reagan's inauguration: 34
"Boom" Quarters in the 28 years after Reagan's inauguration. 14
Yes sirree, good thing we elected that Republican Patriot Reagan to start undoing all of that "communism" we had before 1981.
But wait . . . how have capitalists on Wall Street fared under those New Deal Communists? What did the Dow Jones Industrial Average do over the course of Republican and Democratic Communist Administrations?
Republican Patriot Herbert Hoover -90% That's MINUS 90%. The Dow lost 9/10ths of it's value at the end of the Gilded Age.
Communists FDR/TRuman +525% From 41 to 290.
Republican Patriot Eisenhower +120% From 290 to 630.
Communists Kennedy/Johnson +51% From 630 to 950
Republican Patriots Nixon/Ford +2% From 950 to 970
Communist Carter +3% From 970 to 1000
Republican Patriots Reagan/Bush +244% From 1000 to 2440
Communist Clinton +264% From 2440 to 9880
Republican Patriot GW Bush -25% From 9880 to 7600
Communist Barack Obama +70% From 7600 to 13090 yesterday.
Even that Muslim Communist Kenyan has presided over a Dow Jones rebound, that has come back from the low point it reached the very day he was sworn in. For a communist, he sure has been good for Wall Street.
As for me, I'm a "communist?" Because the New Deal communists bring prosperity, while the Republican Patriots bring unemployment, recession . . . and don't even make as much money for their own wealthy constituents.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Apr. 26 2012,7:27 pm
I took that political calculator test. I tested completely opposite all of the presidential candidates and tested identical with the Dalai Lama.Phwew.
Posted by hairhertz on Apr. 26 2012,9:41 pm
nicely done, ALC
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 27 2012,6:37 pm
Jim QUOTE
Can you come up with ANY time I've called the Donks Communists-
Ex-patriot--
QUOTE
I can’t even count the times you’ve addressed me as comrade expatriate, has dementia taken it’s toll on that one track mind of yours?
I'll take that as you CAN'T come up with a time when I've called the Donks Communists.
If I called you "comrade expatriate"--it is usually with a sarcasm, crazy, or laugh emoticon. Do you REALLY think that I would seriously call you a Communist? In most circles, simply calling someone a LIBBIE is epithet enough!
Jim--
QUOTE
YOU called him a Kenyan Communist--NOT me!
Expatriate comes back with this clever rejoinder--
QUOTE
I keep forgetting who I’m dealing with, you need to see that little sarcasm icon before you pick up on it...
It WAS you, and NOT ME that called him a "Kenyan Communist" was it not? It's TRUE that I did not call him a "Kenyan Communist"--so what's your point? Jim--
QUOTE
Your argument makes no sense (but that little fact has never stopped a Donk BEFORE!)
Expatriate QUOTE
Post # 59 is the truth, you can’t handle the truth...
That might have been a good line for Jack Nicholson in a Grade B movie, but simply SAYING it doesn't make it true!
I showed your arguments to be false, and backed it up. Not only was it YOU that called him the "Kenyan Communist" (that DOES have a nice ring to it!), but contrary to your copied claim, the Dow DID go down after your boy was installed in the White House, Carter did NOT "Inherit a recession", and contrary to your statement about Wall Street favoring Repubs, Obummer DID get more money from Wall Street in 2008 than the Repubs.
Care to rejoin REALITY and tell us why you posted otherwise--or show us your information that refutes it?
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 27 2012,8:26 pm
(Rosalind_Swenson @ Apr. 26 2012,7:27 pm)
QUOTE
I took that political calculator test. I tested completely opposite all of the presidential candidates and tested identical with the Dalai Lama.
Phwew.
Phwew.
You were LEFT of Obambi? According to the profile, I was. I was also more Libertarian than Ron Paul!
Is there anyone further left than the Dahlai Lama?
How did you compare to Nancy Pelosi?
Were the Obama Czars, Bill Ayers, and Hugo Chavez not profiled?
Posted by Glad I Left on Apr. 27 2012,9:03 pm
I remember taking this test right around the 2008 elections.I still tested in pretty much the same spot. Guess that is consistency.
Posted by busybee on Apr. 27 2012,10:48 pm
Jim...after all the years of my being a member of this discussion forum one thing is CLEAR...you ONLY choose to degrade the Democrats/Liberals when you think it's SAFE for you to do it. Don't you ever get sick of bitching, blaming and complaining about the Republican Party being "victimized?"
You have NO CLUE anymore than the other political party you accuse of having no clue either.
Maybe NEITHER the Democratic or Republican Party give a rat's behind about anything other than 'funding" something that will be a beneficial gain to their own PERSONAL profits.
Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 28 2012,8:48 am
WinoQUOTE
I showed your arguments to be false, and backed it up.
Just where did you do that, I’m sure in your hypoxic wine soaked mind you can spin facts at will, in the real world Republican Policy has been an infamous failure, loosening regulations and cutting taxes on the rich while slashing programs that benefit the working and middle-classes, attacking unions undermining labor laws doesn't make for a healthy economy!!
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 28 2012,2:04 pm
Expatriate-- QUOTE
Just where did you do that,
Take the time to READ and UNDERSTAND the post--I provided the backup links. I can't make you READ it--if you did bother to actually look at it, you wouldn't BE a liberal, would you? The facts are not Republican or Democrat--they are just FACTS--facts that question the statements you copied and posted. FACTS don't have political parties.
You seem to have a problem addressing that backup--you revert to personal attacks. If the facts I posted are wrong--how about addressing them?
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 28 2012,2:15 pm
Busybee-- QUOTE
Jim...after all the years of my being a member of this discussion forum one thing is CLEAR...you ONLY choose to degrade the Democrats/Liberals when you think it's SAFE for you to do it
Au Contraire, Ms. Bee! It is ALWAYS safe to disagree with liberals! You contractict yourself--note that I NEVER shirk from disagreeing with liberal foibles and failures!
Notice that when I do disagree--I post the backup for it--as I did for Expatriate above. Would you have conservatives NOT be able to disagree and fight back against actions by liberals when we feel that they are on the wrong track (an opinion that has now become the MAJORITY opinion?
QUOTE
Don't you ever get sick of bitching, blaming and complaining about the Republican Party being "victimized?"
Can you show where I've said that the Republican party is "victimized"? You've conflated "Republican" with "Conservative" and "Libertarian." As I've mentioned many times--the Republicans have become yet another "me-too" party. Perhaps you have referred to them as "Donk Lite"?
QUOTE
Maybe NEITHER the Democratic or Republican Party give a rat's behind about anything other than 'funding" something that will be a beneficial gain to their own PERSONAL profits.
The Republicans get none of my money for that reason. If you had been paying attention, you would remember that I donate to conservative or Libertarian causes--not to the Republicans. Any Democrat that is endorsed by those causes can come up and claim the money.
As to my political leanings--I put it right out there on the Political Compass test--less authoritarian than even Obummer, more Libertarian than even Ron Paul.
If you take the time to actually UNDERSTAND the differences between Conservatives, Liberals, and Libertarians--you wouldn't have made that post.
I suggest you try taking the Political Compass test yourself--and posting it. You may be surprised where you actually fit.
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 28 2012,2:38 pm
QUOTE
Notice that when I do disagree--I post the backup for it--as I did for Expatriate above.
I looked back over the last 3 pages and you posted 12 times without linking to any "backup"?
Maybe you can just give us the links again, so we don't have to read the whole topic?
Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 29 2012,10:14 am
cerebral hypoxia combined with alcohol is a delusional combination, it’s the only link I can find that’s relative...
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 29 2012,3:42 pm
(Liberal @ Apr. 28 2012,2:38 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Notice that when I do disagree--I post the backup for it--as I did for Expatriate above.
I looked back over the last 3 pages and you posted 12 times without linking to any "backup"?
Maybe you can just give us the links again, so we don't have to read the whole topic?
Are ALL liberals as blind as you and Expatriate, or just the Kool-Aid drinkers?
Look at Post 64--the links for the Dow and for the Wall street contributions to Obama are there. The link for disproving Expatriates unsubstantiated claim that Carter inherited an economy in recession (ANOTHER similarity between Carter and Obama--COINCIDENCE?)
is here null[URL=On assuming office in 1977, President Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after four years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration. The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 election campaign. Although Carter had pledged to eliminate federal deficits, the deficit for the fiscal year 1979 totaled $27.7 billion, and that for 1980 was nearly $59 billion. With approximately 8 million people out of work, the unemployment rate had leveled off to a nationwide average of about 7.7% by the time of the election campaign, but it was considerably higher in some industrial states. ]My Webpage[/URL]You could have simply copied and pasted it to find it--but then you would have nothing to complain about. As I mentioned, now that we have the FACTS out there--do you have anything to defend your assertions?
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 29 2012,4:47 pm
Are you saying that we measure recessions by the unemployment numbers?Maybe the problem with your links is you try to use the link button which seems to be a little over your head technologically? You can just post the link and the forum software will turn it into a link and it won't be named "My Webpage" or "Null".
According to wikipedia the 1970's recession was from 73 to 75 and Carter was elected in 1976. Do you really expect people to believe that the economy didn't still suck in 76?
According to wikipedia the economy sucked until mid way through Reagan's first term.
QUOTE
The 1973–75 recession in the United States or 1970s recession was a period of economic stagnation in much of the Western world during the 1970s, putting an end to the general post-World War II economic boom. It differed from many previous recessions as being a stagflation, where high unemployment coincided with high inflation. The period was also described as one of "malaise" (ill-ease; compare "depression").
Among the causes were the 1973 oil crisis and the fall of the Bretton Woods system.[2] The emergence of newly industrialized countries increased competition in the metal industry, triggering a steel crisis, where industrial core areas in North America and Europe were forced to re-structure.[citation needed] The 1973-1974 stock market crash made the recession evident.
The recession in the United States lasted from November 1973 to March 1975,[3] although its effects on the US were felt until mid-term of Ronald Reagan's first term as president, characterized by low economic growth. Although the economy was expanding from 1975 to the first recession of the early 1980s, which began in January 1980, inflation remained extremely high until the early years of the 1980's.
I'd say that makes it pretty clear that Expatriate was right.
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 29 2012,6:22 pm
Liberal-- QUOTE
Maybe the problem with your links is you try to use the link button which seems to be a little over your head technologically? You can just post the link and the forum software will turn it into a link and it won't be named "My Webpage" or "Null".
That USED to work, until I bought a new computer and software. Now, it blocks it and I have to "unblock" it for the first link in any post. I'd be glad to take your advice on how to cure it, though, just so that you and Expatriate don't have to click on the abbreviated link. QUOTE
I'd say that makes it pretty clear that Expatriate was right.
Only in the Bizzaro, backward world of the liberal. Expatriate said that the feckless Carter "Inherited a recession". That clearly wasn't the case--by your OWN LINK, the recession was OVER 19 months BEFORE the hapless Carter was elected.
Carter took a rebounding economy and turned it into a disaster--high unemployment, high inflation, and low economic growth. You should be old enough to know what it was called--STAGFLATION! Voters apparently AGREED, and threw him out.
That doesn't stop your boy from trying the same policies that failed Carter, though!
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 29 2012,9:14 pm
Bush admits the causes of global financial crisisBush: Free Markets require reform.
To reform a free market is to not make it free anymore..
What a dumbass..
Posted by busybee on Apr. 30 2012,12:55 am
Jim...I don't give a rat's behind about whether or not YOU have MORE PROOF (links) against Liberal (liberals) or the Democratic Party, our current elected President of the U.S...ect...
If YOU were capable of listening to what I'm saying and could HEAR ME you would know that I don't blame or praise "politics" or "you" for any success or failures of our Country...
No matter what YOU attempt to make me believe...NOTHING has ever been proven as of today that political party separateness of the people of the United States has or ever could be productive. It's just NOT that simple and never will be.
Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 30 2012,7:50 am
Jimmy’s vision of Carter is just parroting rightwing hate radio, actually Carter took over a country in chaos, Nixon would have went to Federal Prison if Ford hadn’t pardoned him, a number of Nixon’s administration went down in flames for various crimes including Nixon’s Vice President Spiro Agnew who resigned and then pleaded no contest to criminal charges, it was a National disgrace the Country was in chaos...As for Carter Federal Debt as Percent of GDP was headed in the right direction, he was one of the few Presidents in my lifetime that actually had a viable energy policy!
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...ent.jpg >
Posted by hymiebravo on Apr. 30 2012,8:04 am
Yea, always better to try and focus on Carter. It does keep the discussion away from Nixon. lol
Posted by Expatriate on Apr. 30 2012,8:11 am
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 30 2012,11:12 am
(Expatriate @ Apr. 30 2012,7:50 am)
QUOTE
Jimmy’s vision of Carter is just parroting rightwing hate radio, actually Carter took over a country in chaos, Nixon would have went to Federal Prison if Ford hadn’t pardoned him, a number of Nixon’s administration went down in flames for various crimes including Nixon’s Vice President Spiro Agnew who resigned and then pleaded no contest to criminal charges, it was a National disgrace the Country was in chaos...
As for Carter Federal Debt as Percent of GDP was headed in the right direction, he was one of the few Presidents in my lifetime that actually had a viable energy policy!
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...ent.jpg >
As for Carter Federal Debt as Percent of GDP was headed in the right direction, he was one of the few Presidents in my lifetime that actually had a viable energy policy!
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...ent.jpg >
Yes indeed, let's all put a sweater on!!!
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 30 2012,12:44 pm
Expatriate-- QUOTE
actually Carter took over a country in chaos,
Is THAT where your boy learned the "It's not my FAULT!--It must be SOMEBODY ELSES" defense?
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 30 2012,1:11 pm
(Expatriate @ Apr. 30 2012,7:50 am)
QUOTE
Jimmy’s vision of Carter is just parroting rightwing hate radio, actually Carter took over a country in chaos, Nixon would have went to Federal Prison if Ford hadn’t pardoned him, a number of Nixon’s administration went down in flames for various crimes including Nixon’s Vice President Spiro Agnew who resigned and then pleaded no contest to criminal charges, it was a National disgrace the Country was in chaos...
As for Carter Federal Debt as Percent of GDP was headed in the right direction, he was one of the few Presidents in my lifetime that actually had a viable energy policy!
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...ent.jpg >
As for Carter Federal Debt as Percent of GDP was headed in the right direction, he was one of the few Presidents in my lifetime that actually had a viable energy policy!
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...ent.jpg >
Instead of showing who was President, why don't you show WHO CONTROLLED CONGRESS during those times? After all, it is CONGRESS that has the power to tax and spend--not the President.
You'll note that under Democrat congressional terms (when THEY have the power to tax and spend) debt as a percentage of GDP goes up--and in the case since they took Congress in 2006, has SKYROCKETED.
Under your "President can control spending" scenario--then Nixon must have been a GREAT president, because the debt as a percentage of GDPwent down more under him than under Carter the Great!
QUOTE
Jimmy’s vision of Carter is just parroting rightwing hate radio,
Yep--any time a libbie is losing an argument, the other guy must be a "hater." According to the flaming libbies, anyone that disagrees with our naive President MUST be a "racist."
Anybody that proposes to cut back ANY Federal program (except the military, of course) "want's people to live in poverty and drink dirty water."
Right out of the Donk "talking points."
And they wonder why we make fun of them!
Posted by alcitizens on Apr. 30 2012,1:32 pm
Congress can only pass legislation, the signature of the President is needed to sign legislation into law..
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 30 2012,3:21 pm
QUOTE
After all, it is CONGRESS that has the power to tax and spend--not the President.
Someone should tell John Boehner that Congress is responsible for the budget.
QUOTE
Washington- Today, Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) released the following column discussing President Obama’s latest deceptive budget proposal:
“President Obama submitted his latest budget on February 13 -- and like the budgets that came before it, it's a disingenuous one. Instead of the courageous, ‘tough choices’ budgets President Obama promised the American people, he has again put forth another deceptive budget that is bad for job creation, bad for seniors, and will make the economy worse.
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 30 2012,5:32 pm
(Liberal @ Apr. 30 2012,3:21 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
After all, it is CONGRESS that has the power to tax and spend--not the President.
Someone should tell John Boehner that Congress is responsible for the budget.
QUOTE
Washington- Today, Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) released the following column discussing President Obama’s latest deceptive budget proposal:
“President Obama submitted his latest budget on February 13 -- and like the budgets that came before it, it's a disingenuous one. Instead of the courageous, ‘tough choices’ budgets President Obama promised the American people, he has again put forth another deceptive budget that is bad for job creation, bad for seniors, and will make the economy worse.
Boehner is correct. The President PROPOSES a budget--a sense of his spending priorities. Congress ACTS on it--funding or not funding as it sees fit--enacting taxes and policy.
Once Congress PASSES the budget--the only thing the President can do is sign it or veto it--he has no other control over what Congress does. If Congress doesn't give him an appropriation for a program he wants, he can't order it funded. If Congress increases taxes, and he doesn't think that's appropriate, he can't increase them himself--all he can do is veto it.
MOST people that actually think about the shared powers in Washington would rather control Congress than the Presidency, as the Executive Branch has such limited power. Though the President is nominally the head of government--the "power of the purse strings" resides with Congress.
UNLIKE Congress--which hasn't even submitted a budget in 3 years (though mandated to do so), Obama's budget was SO BAD that it failed to garner a single vote of support!
Here's the link nullnull< My Webpage >QUOTE
The House on Wednesday night unanimously rejected an alternative budget proposal based on President Obama's 2013 budget plan, dispatching it in a 0-414 rout.
QUOTE
Obama's budget plans have a poor track record in Congress over the last year. In May 2011, 97 senators voted against a motion to take up his 2012 budget plan — no senator voted in favor of the motion.
So much for your Presidential power contention.
Posted by jimhanson on Apr. 30 2012,5:57 pm
Busybee-- QUOTE
I don't give a rat's behind about whether or not YOU have MORE PROOF (links) against Liberal (liberals) or the Democratic Party, our current elected President of the U.S...ect...
So, Ms. Bee--do you think it is appropriate to remain silent when someone makes outrageous and false claims--claims that can easily be documented as false?
Would you prohibit someone from refuting those false claims?
I notice that YOU counter false claims on your posts--as well you should.
If so, you are even more authoritarian than the "political pack" (consisting of all candidates for the Presidency)--as shown on the group Political Compass chart--other than Ron Paul.
QUOTE
If YOU were capable of listening to what I'm saying and could HEAR ME you would know that I don't blame or praise "politics" or "you" for any success or failures of our Country...
I listen (and read) what you are saying--and that is your opinion. From the rhetoric of everyone ELSE here, they DO blame politics for success or failures--with only a tiny fraction of the country listed as "undecided" already, it seems that almost all people in the country have taken sides--and are unlikely to change. That's OK--this election (like most elections) is less about the PERSON than the DIRECTION that the country will take. In this election, we will either be endorsing the largest socialization in the history of the country--or repudiating it. Those are high stakes--and the election should reflect that.
QUOTE
No matter what YOU attempt to make me believe...NOTHING has ever been proven as of today that political party separateness of the people of the United States has or ever could be productive. It's just NOT that simple and never will be.
See above. As for political party--I agree with you--the difference between the parties is miniscule. This is not about parties, however. Note that my points are phrased between liberals and conservatives (or libertarians)--not the parties. If I mock a Democrat--it is usually for an absurdity in their party platform--and I cite that absudity.
You would have to agree, though, that Democrats tend to be liberals--you don't see many deficit hawks or small-government types in the party. As far as "not that simple"--it really IS simple--see above--we are about to make a huge change in the direction of the country--socially, economically, and politically. The taxation and spending programs will last for decades. It will have a direct effect on our place in the world--militarily, socially, business, manufacturing, employment, and inflation. Everybody should have their say in the process. It IS that simple.
That's why we have this Discussion Forum.
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 30 2012,7:44 pm
QUOTE
So much for your Presidential power contention.
My contention? Don't you mean the GOP's contention?
Either you're wrong or Boehner is wrong. Can you guess who my money is on?
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 30 2012,7:54 pm
QUOTE
So, Ms. Bee--do you think it is appropriate to remain silent when someone makes outrageous and false claims--claims that can easily be documented as false?
If I had a dollar for every time you posted bogus information with a dead link, or a link that just flat out says something different than you claim...
I continually have to tell people to check your links, and when I do you get offended? Apparently you think others should let your outrageous lies pass without anyone pointing out that you're either dishonest or lack any reading comprehension skills.
QUOTE
In this election, we will either be endorsing the largest socialization in the history of the country--or repudiating it. Those are high stakes--and the election should reflect that.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
Posted by Expatriate on May 01 2012,8:17 am
You only have to look at the Minnesota GOP to see how these guys handle financial responsibility, the Republican’s haven’t paid their rent in eight months and face eviction.This seems to typical GOP policy they want to spend but they don’t want to pay...
Posted by jimhanson on May 01 2012,6:23 pm
Jim-- QUOTE
After all, it is CONGRESS that has the power to tax and spend--not the President.
Liberal--
QUOTE
Someone should tell John Boehner that Congress is responsible for the budget.
Liberal doubles down on intractability by posting
QUOTE
My contention? Don't you mean the GOP's contention?
Either you're wrong or Boehner is wrong. Can you guess who my money is on?
Either you're wrong or Boehner is wrong. Can you guess who my money is on?
Look at your own post, Libbie. You wrote
QUOTE
Washington- Today, Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) released the following column discussing President Obama’s latest deceptive budget proposal:
“President Obama submitted his latest budget on February 13 -- and like the budgets that came before it, it's a disingenuous one. Instead of the courageous, ‘tough choices’ budgets President Obama promised the American people, he has again put forth another deceptive budget that is bad for job creation, bad for seniors, and will make the economy worse.
“President Obama submitted his latest budget on February 13 -- and like the budgets that came before it, it's a disingenuous one. Instead of the courageous, ‘tough choices’ budgets President Obama promised the American people, he has again put forth another deceptive budget that is bad for job creation, bad for seniors, and will make the economy worse.
Again, Boehner is RIGHT.
As I mentioned:
The President can set a preliminary budget--the things that he wants to spend money on.
The SENATE is supposed to set a budget--but the Donks have failed to do that in over 3 years.
The HOUSE is the only place that can actually tax and spend.
Obama's "Budget" was SO BAD that it didn't get a single vote--including the Democrats.
Paul Ryan has proposed balanced budgets, they get passed in the House, they even have a majority in the Senate, but can't get the 60 votes to invoke cloture due to obstruction by the Donks. Boehner has done HIS job in the House, but he can't control the Donks in the Senate. I guess that's why we need to take the Senate away from the Big Government tax and spenders.
The REALITY (something foreign to Donks, but try to keep up) is that the President can't unilaterally tax or spend money. Only Congress can do that. The only power the President has when it comes to taxing and spending is a veto.
REAGAN couldn't control Congressional spending, the BUSH'S couldn't control Congressional spending, CLINTON couldn't control congressional spending (remember "The era of Big Government is OVER?"
and your boy in the White House can't do it, either without approval from Congress.I would rather have control of Congress, than the Presidency--yet most people focus on the Presidential "Beauty Contest".
Posted by jimhanson on May 01 2012,6:27 pm
Nothing back from Expatriate on his contentions that "Carter inherited a recession"? Nothing back on the fact that according to his own chart, Nixon must be a better President than even Carter because the debt compared to GDP went DOWN under both? Nothing from the "Usual suspects" on the title of this thread--that Minnesota is a donor state--sending far more money to Washington than it receives.
To borrow a title from OwlGore--it's pretty hard to dispute an "Inconvenient Truth"!
Libbies like to run on the old adage that "We'll screw the OTHER GUY, and pass the savings on to you!"
Posted by Self-Banished on May 02 2012,5:06 am
Jim, let's modify that a little, "We'll screw all of you and pas the savings on to ourselves" 
Posted by Expatriate on May 02 2012,8:02 am
QUOTE
Nothing back from Expatriate on his contentions that "Carter inherited a recession"? Nothing back on the fact that according to his own chart, Nixon must be a better President than even Carter because the debt compared to GDP went DOWN under both?
Spin-doctor Look carefully at the chart, the lower the graph line the better the ratio between Debt to GDP...Only in your wine addled mind would the Nixon years be anything but a fiasco...Just what was the deal with tricky dick and B.B. Rebozo??
Posted by jimhanson on May 02 2012,4:44 pm
Go back and look at the SAME chart, from the SAME source (wikipedia) on who controlled congress when the debt/GDP ratio went south. (Hint--it was the Now go back to your OWN chart. See where the line dips for Carter (DIP--that was NOT a pun--but it IS APPROPRIATE!)
Now look at Nixon--according to YOUR thinking, that this dip under Carter was a GOOD thing--you should be absolutely ENTHRALLED that the Nixon decline was even BETTER!
QUOTE
Just what was the deal with tricky dick and B.B. Rebozo??
See you, and RAISE you--What was the deal with Tony Rezko and your boy? What was the deal between George Soros and your boy?
What was the deal between Reverend Wright and your boy?
What was the deal between Bill Ayers and your boy?
Any partisan of Obozo should be careful about throwing stones!
Posted by busybee on May 02 2012,10:52 pm
jimhanson · Posted on Apr. 30 2012,5:57 pm.QUOTE
So, Ms. Bee--do you think it is appropriate to remain silent when someone makes outrageous and false claims--claims that can easily be documented as false?
Nope...
I just know that no matter what political affiliation someone believes in and trusts...it's not what stops the silencing of those who should have the right to DEFEND themselves against false claims against them that can be easily documented.
QUOTE
Would you prohibit someone from refuting those false claims?
'Only CERTAIN PEOPLE get the privilege and money spent on them by our country that allows them the attention of whether or not "false claims" matter when they are made against them.
QUOTE
If so, you are even more authoritarian than the "political pack" (consisting of all candidates for the Presidency)--as shown on the group Political Compass chart--other than Ron Paul.
Really?
I don't care what Ron Paul or YOU think about about me or any other citizen of the U.S. because neither one of you have PROVEN TO CARE MORE about the truth or reality than you do politics.
QUOTE
]I listen (and read) what you are saying--and that is your opinion. From the rhetoric of everyone ELSE here, they DO blame politics for success or failures--with only a tiny fraction of the country listed as "undecided" already, it seems that almost all people in the country have taken sides--and are unlikely to change. That's OK--this election (like most elections) is less about the PERSON than the DIRECTION that the country will take. In this election, we will either be endorsing the largest socialization in the history of the country--or repudiating it. Those are high stakes--and the election should reflect that.
Oh...of course Jim... according to you EVERYTHING would be OK as long as as I agree with you ..AND...about HOW "politics" never have anything to do with whether or not any child of the U.S. lives, learns or "gets" their needs met no matter if their house hold income is above or below poverty level?
Posted by busybee on May 02 2012,11:04 pm
Liberal · Posted on Apr. 30 2012,7:54 pmQUOTE
If I had a dollar for every time you posted bogus information with a dead link, or a link that just flat out says something different than you claim...
I continually have to tell people to check your links, and when I do you get offended? Apparently you think others should let your outrageous lies pass without anyone pointing out that you're either dishonest or lack any reading comprehension skills.
In this election, we will either be endorsing the largest socialization in the history of the country--or repudiating it. Those are high stakes--and the election should reflect that.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. :crazy
I continually have to tell people to check your links, and when I do you get offended? Apparently you think others should let your outrageous lies pass without anyone pointing out that you're either dishonest or lack any reading comprehension skills.
In this election, we will either be endorsing the largest socialization in the history of the country--or repudiating it. Those are high stakes--and the election should reflect that.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. :crazy
Why do people have to post links on this discussion forum to PROVE their opinion/thoughts or ideas?
Posted by 2034 on May 02 2012,11:10 pm
(busybee @ May 02 2012,10:52 pm)
QUOTE
jimhanson · Posted on Apr. 30 2012,5:57 pm.
Nope...
I just know that no matter what political affiliation someone believes in and trusts...it's not what stops the silencing of those of those who should have the right to DEFEND themselves against false claims against them that can be easily documented as false.
Only CERTAIN PEOPLE get the privilege and money spent on them to have any attention paid to whether or not "false claims" matter if or when they are made against them.
Really?
I don't care what Ron Paul or YOU think about about me or any other citizen of the U.S. because neither one of you have PROVEN TO CARE MORE about the truth or reality than you do politics.
Oh...of course Jim according to you EVERYTHING would be OK as long as as...
As for political party--I agree with you--the difference between the parties is miniscule. This is not about parties, however. Note that my points are phrased between liberals and conservatives (or libertarians)--not the parties. If I mock a Democrat--it is usually for an absurdity in their party platform--and I cite that absudity.
You would have to agree, though, that Democrats tend to be liberals--you don't see many deficit hawks or small-government types in the party. As far as "not that simple"--it really IS simple--see above--we are about to make a huge change in the direction of the country--socially, economically, and politically. The taxation and spending programs will last for decades. It will have a direct effect on our place in the world--militarily, socially, business, manufacturing, employment, and inflation. Everybody should have their say in the process. It IS that simple
That's why we have this Discussion Forum.[/QUOTE]
AND... plz do tell how "politics" never have anything to do with whether or not any child of the U.S. lives, learns or "gets" their needs met no matter if their house hold income is above or below poverty level?
QUOTE
So, Ms. Bee--do you think it is appropriate to remain silent when someone makes outrageous and false claims--claims that can easily be documented as false?
Nope...
I just know that no matter what political affiliation someone believes in and trusts...it's not what stops the silencing of those of those who should have the right to DEFEND themselves against false claims against them that can be easily documented as false.
QUOTE
Would you prohibit someone from refuting those false claims?
'Only CERTAIN PEOPLE get the privilege and money spent on them to have any attention paid to whether or not "false claims" matter if or when they are made against them.
QUOTE
If so, you are even more authoritarian than the "political pack" (consisting of all candidates for the Presidency)--as shown on the group Political Compass chart--other than Ron Paul.
Really?
I don't care what Ron Paul or YOU think about about me or any other citizen of the U.S. because neither one of you have PROVEN TO CARE MORE about the truth or reality than you do politics.
QUOTE
I listen (and read) what you are saying--and that is your opinion. From the rhetoric of everyone ELSE here, they DO blame politics for success or failures--with only a tiny fraction of the country listed as "undecided" already, it seems that almost all people in the country have taken sides--and are unlikely to change. That's OK--this election (like most elections) is less about the PERSON than the DIRECTION that the country will take. In this election, we will either be endorsing the largest socialization in the history of the country--or repudiating it. Those are high stakes--and the election should reflect that.
Oh...of course Jim according to you EVERYTHING would be OK as long as as...
As for political party--I agree with you--the difference between the parties is miniscule. This is not about parties, however. Note that my points are phrased between liberals and conservatives (or libertarians)--not the parties. If I mock a Democrat--it is usually for an absurdity in their party platform--and I cite that absudity.
You would have to agree, though, that Democrats tend to be liberals--you don't see many deficit hawks or small-government types in the party. As far as "not that simple"--it really IS simple--see above--we are about to make a huge change in the direction of the country--socially, economically, and politically. The taxation and spending programs will last for decades. It will have a direct effect on our place in the world--militarily, socially, business, manufacturing, employment, and inflation. Everybody should have their say in the process. It IS that simple
That's why we have this Discussion Forum.[/QUOTE]
AND... plz do tell how "politics" never have anything to do with whether or not any child of the U.S. lives, learns or "gets" their needs met no matter if their house hold income is above or below poverty level?
You go girl!
what you say jimmiehyme
Posted by busybee on May 02 2012,11:29 pm
2034...
Posted by jimhanson on May 03 2012,5:46 pm
Busybee-- QUOTE
I just know that no matter what political affiliation someone believes in and trusts...it's not what stops the silencing of those who should have the right to DEFEND themselves against false claims against them that can be easily documented.
There MUST be a coherent thought in there, someplace!
"political affiliation--belief and trust--silencing the right--those who should have the right to defend themselves against false claims--easily documented."
Care to try that again--perhaps give examples of what you are trying to say?
QUOTE
Only CERTAIN PEOPLE get the privilege and money spent on them by our country that allows them the attention of whether or not "false claims" matter when they are made against them.
Are you saying that it takes a JUDGE ("certain people") to ascertain whether claims are true or false? Are you an advocate for "speech police"? I seem to recall YOU disagreeing with the action of the courts. Do you trust the courts to render accurate verdicts?I made a remark about where the "political pack" Presidential contenders fell on the Political Compass test--almost all (Dems and Repubs) fell not only LEFT of center, but on the "authoritarian" (Big Government) side of the ledger--to which you replied
QUOTE
I don't care what Ron Paul or YOU think about about me or any other citizen of the U.S. because neither one of you have PROVEN TO CARE MORE about the truth or reality than you do politics.
I guess that since I fell on the LIBERTARIAN (anti-authoritarian) side--you don't like it. Personally, I don't care WHAT you believe--it's just an observation on where you fall relative to the political pack--including Obama.I challenge opinions of others. I post opinions--and back them up. From you--all we get are opinions--and you know what they say about opinions.
QUOTE
Oh...of course Jim... according to you EVERYTHING would be OK as long as as I agree with you
Why would it make any difference to me whether you agreed with me or not? You flatter yourself.It used to be my signature line that WE AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE ANYBODY'S OPINIONS HERE.
QUOTE
AND...about HOW "politics" never have anything to do with whether or not any child of the U.S. lives, learns or "gets" their needs met no matter if their house hold income is above or below poverty level?
What does THIS have to do with whether or not Minnesota is a donor state--or anything else?
Posted by Expatriate on May 03 2012,7:52 pm
So Jimmy defends the disgraced Nixon Presidency, what else would you expect from the social director at the Albert lea Fat Boys Club ( A.L. Airport ) next he’ll be telling US what a great Republican President Hoover was...,.. Posted by Liberal on May 03 2012,10:49 pm
QUOTE
Why do people have to post links on this discussion forum to PROVE their opinion/thoughts or ideas?
I've never asked for a link to someone's opinion. I don't even know how you'd link to an opinion, a thought, or an idea.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.”
Posted by busybee on May 03 2012,11:23 pm
jimhanson · Posted on May 03 2012,5:46 pmQUOTE
There MUST be a coherent thought in there, someplace!
Are you admitting there's hope for me yet? Lol
QUOTE
"political affiliation--belief and trust--silencing the right--those who should have the right to defend themselves against false claims--easily documented."
Care to try that again--perhaps give examples of what you are trying to say?
Care to try that again--perhaps give examples of what you are trying to say?
Quite often laws are created and decisions are made about current laws based upon political affiliation...not necessarily facts.
Quite often people vote based upon political affiliation loyalty...not necessarily the facts about the person running for any type of office.
QUOTE
Are you saying that it takes a JUDGE ("certain people") to ascertain whether claims are true or false? Are you an advocate for "speech police"? I seem to recall YOU disagreeing with the action of the courts. Do you trust the courts to render accurate verdicts?
I seem to recall YOU disagreeing with the action of the courts. Do you trust the courts to render accurate verdicts?I rarely agree with anything that the Judicial System in our Country does now a days and YES..I would say that is a perfect example of how this particular system is an advocate for being "speech police."
Unless it's a murder trial...rarely...if ever does a U.S. District Court get verdicts thru a trial. Prosecutor's and Defense Attorney's work out plea bargain arrangements and present those to a Judge, who follows suit.
People like to call this "justice," (and freeing up the Court's Calendar) yet if a law enforcement officer has done an investigation and has evidence and witnesses that someone committed crime A, B & C, and the prosecution sets in motion the appropriate charges, and later dismisses charges A & B, and reduces crime C for a guilty plea bargain arrangement with probation...what the officer, the evidence and any witnesses could have presented to the Courts and Jury never happens nor is "heard" because the trial doesn't happen, even if the accused is actually guilty of Crimes A, B and C.
QUOTE
I guess that since I fell on the LIBERTARIAN (anti-authoritarian) side--you don't like it. Personally, I don't care WHAT you believe--it's just an observation on where you fall relative to the political pack--including Obama.
Why compare me to Obama or accuse me of some specific type of "political thinking" when I'm telling you I like to think independently? I rarely if ever think anyone who runs for any type of political office, whether it be at the local, state, or federal level actually give a dang about U.S. Citizens or know the difference between fact and fiction or a truth or a lie.
QUOTE
I challenge opinions of others. I post opinions--and back them up. From you--all we get are opinions--and you know what they say about opinions.
Yep...you have me there because I pay very little attention to what political parties are "up to" because 99% of the time, I don't believe a word they are being paid to speak and promise...
QUOTE
It used to be my signature line that WE AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE ANYBODY'S OPINIONS HERE.
There can't be any opinions changed as long as people are too stubborn to challenge themselves and would rather blame a political affiliation they don't like for their choice to do so.
QUOTE
What does THIS have to do with whether or not Minnesota is a donor state--or anything else?
Just my personal belief that more money is spend on politics and taxes to support the State's government and it's politicians lifestyles than is spent on children in need.
Posted by busybee on May 03 2012,11:38 pm
Liberal · Posted on May 03 2012,10:49 pmQUOTE
I've never asked for a link to someone's opinion. I don't even know how you'd link to an opinion, a thought, or an idea.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.”
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.”
Unfortunately, not all facts can be posted on here to back up an opinion, either.
Posted by Ajax on May 05 2012,8:53 pm
(Liberal @ May 03 2012,10:49 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Why do people have to post links on this discussion forum to PROVE their opinion/thoughts or ideas?
I've never asked for a link to someone's opinion. I don't even know how you'd link to an opinion, a thought, or an idea.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.”
Well said.
Posted by busybee on May 06 2012,3:24 am
Like I already stated, not all facts can be presented on this discussion forum, no matter the accuracy. I was accused not too long ago and had to defend myself in court against someone who believes I am harassing them via this discussion forum because of something someone else posted about them, even though I didn't post the article and I don't know the discussion forum member personally who did.
This forum member has never appeared to "like" me and has acknowledged knowing and liking the person who accused me of harassing them thru here.
Makes it really difficult to exercise any Freedom of Speech RIGHTS on here for me...