Discussion:
Hey Moronic Democrats!
(too old to reply)
Tracey12
2010-12-06 13:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Dear Dumb Democrat,

A tax increase is not a tax cut.

If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.

Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.

Americans are not stupid. YOU ARE! We realized you are just dying to
increase our taxes, but now you know you can't and you freaking morons
are on TV shaking your heads and about to cry. UP YOURS!
wy
2010-12-06 13:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?

So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
Tracey12
2010-12-06 14:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that.  Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way.  Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment.  Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense.  And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense.  And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid.  They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
Nah. Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.

Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
Alias
2010-12-06 14:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
--
Alias
The PHANTOM
2010-12-06 15:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
YOU'RE A GODDAMNED LIAR !!!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf-bushs-dangerous-spending


Do you fruitbats EVER reasearch a subject before you spew the George
Soros/Huffpost talking points ??!!
Post by Alias
--
Alias
Alias
2010-12-06 16:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
YOU'RE A GODDAMNED LIAR !!!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf-bushs-dangerous-spending
Do you fruitbats EVER reasearch a subject before you spew the George
Soros/Huffpost talking points ??!!
Post by Alias
--
Alias
The moron quotes a right wing newspaper. How quaint. Fact is Bush spent
more money recklessly than any other President in history.
--
Alias
The PHANTOM
2010-12-06 17:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alias
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
     YOU'RE A GODDAMNED LIAR !!!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf...
   Do you fruitbats EVER reasearch a subject before you spew the George
Soros/Huffpost talking points ??!!
Post by Alias
--
Alias
The moron quotes a right wing newspaper. How quaint. Fact is Bush spent
more money recklessly than any other President in history.
--
Alias- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So,just because the FACTS came from a newspaper you disagree with
then the "facts" are WRONG in your opinion??
Alias
2010-12-06 17:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Alias
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
YOU'RE A GODDAMNED LIAR !!!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf...
Do you fruitbats EVER reasearch a subject before you spew the George
Soros/Huffpost talking points ??!!
Post by Alias
--
Alias
The moron quotes a right wing newspaper. How quaint. Fact is Bush spent
more money recklessly than any other President in history.
--
Alias- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So,just because the FACTS came from a newspaper you disagree with
then the "facts" are WRONG in your opinion??
The facts are wrong. My opinion has nothing to do with it, sport.
--
Alias
Tracey12
2010-12-06 17:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alias
Post by Alias
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
      YOU'RE A GODDAMNED LIAR !!!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf...
    Do you fruitbats EVER reasearch a subject before you spew the George
Soros/Huffpost talking points ??!!
Post by Alias
--
Alias
The moron quotes a right wing newspaper. How quaint. Fact is Bush spent
more money recklessly than any other President in history.
--
Alias- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So,just  because the FACTS came from a newspaper you disagree with
then the "facts" are WRONG in your opinion??
The facts are wrong. My opinion has nothing to do with it, sport.
--
Alias
Prove that the facts are wrong.
Alias
2010-12-06 18:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Post by Alias
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Alias
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
YOU'RE A GODDAMNED LIAR !!!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf...
Do you fruitbats EVER reasearch a subject before you spew the George
Soros/Huffpost talking points ??!!
Post by Alias
--
Alias
The moron quotes a right wing newspaper. How quaint. Fact is Bush spent
more money recklessly than any other President in history.
--
Alias- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So,just because the FACTS came from a newspaper you disagree with
then the "facts" are WRONG in your opinion??
The facts are wrong. My opinion has nothing to do with it, sport.
--
Alias
Prove that the facts are wrong.
No need. You wouldn't believe the facts if they smacked you upside the
head so why bother? Fox News said it. You believed it.
--
Alias
Ronnie Raygun And The Rayonets
2010-12-06 20:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Post by Alias
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Alias
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
YOU'RE A GODDAMNED LIAR !!!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf...
Do you fruitbats EVER reasearch a subject before you spew the George
Soros/Huffpost talking points ??!!
Post by Alias
--
Alias
The moron quotes a right wing newspaper. How quaint. Fact is Bush spent
more money recklessly than any other President in history.
--
Alias- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So,just because the FACTS came from a newspaper you disagree with
then the "facts" are WRONG in your opinion??
The facts are wrong. My opinion has nothing to do with it, sport.
--
Alias
Prove that the facts are wrong.
The fucking republicans ran two wars off budget just borrowing money from
China. The democrats took control of congress and actually started
accounting for the money and suddenly it's all their spending. You're a
lunatic.
Mike Smith
2010-12-07 02:57:10 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:00:32 -0600, "Ronnie Raygun And The Rayonets"
Post by Ronnie Raygun And The Rayonets
Post by Tracey12
Post by Alias
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Alias
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
YOU'RE A GODDAMNED LIAR !!!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf...
Do you fruitbats EVER reasearch a subject before you spew the George
Soros/Huffpost talking points ??!!
Post by Alias
--
Alias
The moron quotes a right wing newspaper. How quaint. Fact is Bush spent
more money recklessly than any other President in history.
--
Alias- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So,just because the FACTS came from a newspaper you disagree with
then the "facts" are WRONG in your opinion??
The facts are wrong. My opinion has nothing to do with it, sport.
--
Alias
Prove that the facts are wrong.
The fucking republicans ran two wars off budget just borrowing money from
China. The democrats took control of congress and actually started
accounting for the money and suddenly it's all their spending. You're a
lunatic.
You poor delusional fool. The exact opposite happened. Look it up.

Mike Smith
George Kerby
2010-12-06 17:45:35 UTC
Permalink
On 12/6/10 11:00 AM, in article
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Alias
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
     YOU'RE A GODDAMNED LIAR !!!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf...
   Do you fruitbats EVER reasearch a subject before you spew the George
Soros/Huffpost talking points ??!!
Post by Alias
--
Alias
The moron quotes a right wing newspaper. How quaint. Fact is Bush spent
more money recklessly than any other President in history.
--
Alias- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So,just because the FACTS came from a newspaper you disagree with
then the "facts" are WRONG in your opinion??
"BUT I saw it on the 'Net and Wilipedia! It's GOT TO be twuu!!!"

<stamping feet>
George Kerby
2010-12-06 17:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alias
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
YOU'RE A GODDAMNED LIAR !!!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf-bushs-d
angerous-spending
Do you fruitbats EVER reasearch a subject before you spew the George
Soros/Huffpost talking points ??!!
Post by Alias
--
Alias
The moron quotes a right wing newspaper. How quaint. Fact is Bush spent
more money recklessly than any other President in history.
No. Guess I was wrong: You REALLY are a ignorant bleeting lemming.

Amazing how many idiots find their Mama's 'puter when she's out 'taking care
of business'...
Alias
2010-12-06 18:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Kerby
Post by Alias
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
YOU'RE A GODDAMNED LIAR !!!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf-bushs-d
angerous-spending
Do you fruitbats EVER reasearch a subject before you spew the George
Soros/Huffpost talking points ??!!
Post by Alias
--
Alias
The moron quotes a right wing newspaper. How quaint. Fact is Bush spent
more money recklessly than any other President in history.
No. Guess I was wrong: You REALLY are a ignorant bleeting lemming.
Projecting will get you nowhere.
Post by George Kerby
Amazing how many idiots find their Mama's 'puter when she's out 'taking care
of business'...
My mama never touched a computer in her life. She's been dead for over a
decade. Sooooooooooo, if you plan to get into the guessing business,
don't quit your day job.
--
Alias
George Kerby
2010-12-06 15:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
You are about as educated as trained cigarette-smoking monkey if you REALLY
believe the statement you made above.

Obviously, NO on capable of using a computer could be that illiterate, so I
am assuming that you are just here to get attention.

Carry on, troll...
Mike Smith
2010-12-06 16:42:39 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 09:25:24 -0600, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
You are about as educated as trained cigarette-smoking monkey if you REALLY
believe the statement you made above.
Obviously, NO on capable of using a computer could be that illiterate, so I
am assuming that you are just here to get attention.
Carry on, troll...
Which troll is this? Piugboy or the other one?

Mike Smith
George Kerby
2010-12-06 17:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Smith
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 09:25:24 -0600, George Kerby
Post by George Kerby
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
You are about as educated as trained cigarette-smoking monkey if you REALLY
believe the statement you made above.
Obviously, NO on capable of using a computer could be that illiterate, so I
am assuming that you are just here to get attention.
Carry on, troll...
Which troll is this? Piugboy or the other one?
Mike Smith
The other one, according to the headers.
First Post
2010-12-06 21:51:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:07:30 +0100, Alias
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage. Meanwhile Obama has
outspent all of the previous president, including Bush. He currently
holds the record for the most spent in his first year in office. And
he isn't done by a longshot.
And now he and the democrats are all frantic trying to raise taxes so
he can spend even more.

And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq. All were
democratic wars. Only one of them was won.
And when considering the ultimate toll on lives lost, the democrats
hold the record for the number of US troops killed in their little
wars.

And we notice that you are strangely silent when it comes to Obama
escalating his own little war currently in the middle east.
Can you say hypocrite? It should come easy everytime you look at
yourself in the mirror numbnuts.
Tracey12
2010-12-06 22:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:07:30 +0100, Alias
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage.  Meanwhile Obama has
outspent all of the previous president, including Bush.  He currently
holds the record for the most spent in his first year in office.  And
he isn't done by a longshot.
And now he and the democrats are all frantic trying to raise taxes so
he can spend even more.
And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq.  All were
democratic wars.  Only one of them was won.
And when considering the ultimate toll on lives lost, the democrats
hold the record for the number of US troops killed in their little
wars.
And we notice that you are strangely silent when it comes to Obama
escalating his own little war currently in the middle east.
Can you say hypocrite?  It should come easy everytime you look at
yourself in the mirror numbnuts.
I'm amazed by the quantity of radicals who are willing to totally
ignore all that obama has done and try to blame GW for things obama
is doing exponentially more.
wy
2010-12-06 22:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Post by First Post
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:07:30 +0100, Alias
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage.  Meanwhile Obama has
outspent all of the previous president, including Bush.  He currently
holds the record for the most spent in his first year in office.  And
he isn't done by a longshot.
And now he and the democrats are all frantic trying to raise taxes so
he can spend even more.
And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq.  All were
democratic wars.  Only one of them was won.
And when considering the ultimate toll on lives lost, the democrats
hold the record for the number of US troops killed in their little
wars.
And we notice that you are strangely silent when it comes to Obama
escalating his own little war currently in the middle east.
Can you say hypocrite?  It should come easy everytime you look at
yourself in the mirror numbnuts.
I'm amazed by the quantity of radicals who are willing to totally
ignore all that obama has done
You mean all this?

http://obamaachievements.org/list

 and try to blame GW for things

You mean all this?

http://www.opednews.com/wade_080404_bush_signature_achievements.htm
Post by Tracey12
obama
is doing exponentially more.
You mean all this?

http://obamaachievements.org/list
First Post
2010-12-06 23:10:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:08:01 -0800 (PST), Tracey12
Post by Tracey12
Post by First Post
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:07:30 +0100, Alias
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage.  Meanwhile Obama has
outspent all of the previous president, including Bush.  He currently
holds the record for the most spent in his first year in office.  And
he isn't done by a longshot.
And now he and the democrats are all frantic trying to raise taxes so
he can spend even more.
And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq.  All were
democratic wars.  Only one of them was won.
And when considering the ultimate toll on lives lost, the democrats
hold the record for the number of US troops killed in their little
wars.
And we notice that you are strangely silent when it comes to Obama
escalating his own little war currently in the middle east.
Can you say hypocrite?  It should come easy everytime you look at
yourself in the mirror numbnuts.
I'm amazed by the quantity of radicals who are willing to totally
ignore all that obama has done and try to blame GW for things obama
is doing exponentially more.
I don't think they honestly believe their own crap. I believe they
are just grabbing at anything they can to defend their chosen one.
I do think they believe that if they can just hang on a little longer
that everything will work out for them. Well, make that they WANT to
believe that everything will work out for them if they can hang on a
little longer.
And it all basically stems from their desperation to try to prove that
their ideaology is sound. So far history has shown their ideaology to
be anything but sound. So they're literally starving for any kind of
proof they can come up with.
But the damned capitalists keep getting in their way. :-)
WR
2010-12-07 04:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:08:01 -0800 (PST), Tracey12
Post by Tracey12
Post by First Post
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:07:30 +0100, Alias
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage. Meanwhile Obama has
outspent all of the previous president, including Bush. He currently
holds the record for the most spent in his first year in office. And
he isn't done by a longshot.
And now he and the democrats are all frantic trying to raise taxes so
he can spend even more.
And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq. All were
democratic wars. Only one of them was won.
And when considering the ultimate toll on lives lost, the democrats
hold the record for the number of US troops killed in their little
wars.
And we notice that you are strangely silent when it comes to Obama
escalating his own little war currently in the middle east.
Can you say hypocrite? It should come easy everytime you look at
yourself in the mirror numbnuts.
I'm amazed by the quantity of radicals who are willing to totally
ignore all that obama has done  and try to blame GW for things obama
is doing exponentially more.
I don't think they honestly believe their own crap.  I believe they
are just grabbing at anything they can to defend their chosen one.
I do think they believe that if they can just hang on a little longer
that everything will work out for them.  Well, make that they WANT to
believe that everything will work out for them if they can hang on a
little longer.
And it all basically stems from their desperation to try to prove that
their ideaology is sound.  So far history has shown their ideaology to
be anything but sound.  So they're literally starving for any kind of
proof they can come up with.
But the damned capitalists keep getting in their way. :-)
What ideology is that? The only ideologues I hear are nutcases like
Rand Paul or Glenn Beck.
Mike Smith
2010-12-07 12:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by WR
Post by First Post
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:08:01 -0800 (PST), Tracey12
Post by Tracey12
Post by First Post
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:07:30 +0100, Alias
Post by Alias
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage. Meanwhile Obama has
outspent all of the previous president, including Bush. He currently
holds the record for the most spent in his first year in office. And
he isn't done by a longshot.
And now he and the democrats are all frantic trying to raise taxes so
he can spend even more.
And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq. All were
democratic wars. Only one of them was won.
And when considering the ultimate toll on lives lost, the democrats
hold the record for the number of US troops killed in their little
wars.
And we notice that you are strangely silent when it comes to Obama
escalating his own little war currently in the middle east.
Can you say hypocrite? It should come easy everytime you look at
yourself in the mirror numbnuts.
I'm amazed by the quantity of radicals who are willing to totally
ignore all that obama has done  and try to blame GW for things obama
is doing exponentially more.
I don't think they honestly believe their own crap.  I believe they
are just grabbing at anything they can to defend their chosen one.
I do think they believe that if they can just hang on a little longer
that everything will work out for them.  Well, make that they WANT to
believe that everything will work out for them if they can hang on a
little longer.
And it all basically stems from their desperation to try to prove that
their ideaology is sound.  So far history has shown their ideaology to
be anything but sound.  So they're literally starving for any kind of
proof they can come up with.
But the damned capitalists keep getting in their way. :-)
What ideology is that? The only ideologues I hear are nutcases like
Rand Paul or Glenn Beck.
Your ignorance is not our problem. But we do have fun ridiculing it.

Mike Smith
Y***@Jurgis.net
2010-12-06 23:50:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:51:47 -0600, First Post
Post by First Post
Post by Alias
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Yet you have no cite proving such garbage.
Ti's true. REagan raised the debt about 30% (over what it was when he
came in)

Bush 1 raised it another 12%

Clinton LOWERED the debt during his terms

Bush RAISED the debt 57% (over what it was when he took over)

Obama was forced to raise it (about) 12% (so far)
Post by First Post
And BTW, If taking inflation into account, Vietnam, Korea and WW2 all
cost a shitload more individually than the war in Iraq. All were
democratic wars. Only one of them was won.
Inflation cannot dispel the massive debt bush caused

The 2nd WW was not a "democratic war" it was not an elective---we were
attacked.

The Korean war was a UN war---the US carrying the major fighting

The Vietnam war was an extension of Post WW2 foriegn policy to
"contain" the spread of communism----which has always been a
REPUBLICAN policy.

The Afghanistan occurred as a result of an attack on our soil---making
it not correct to call it a "republican war"---(same principle as WW2)

BUsh launched the Iraq war by lying.
John Black
2010-12-07 02:57:37 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@Jurgis.net
says...
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Clinton LOWERED the debt during his terms
An interesting statement considering the national debt INCREASED (I have cap
letters too) by more than $1 trillion during his terms. Democrats don't
really understand the words "lowered" or "cut" apparently because they also
regularly refer to budget increases as "cuts". Its all part of their plan
to simply never tell the truth...

John Black
WR
2010-12-07 04:40:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Black
says...
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Clinton LOWERED the debt during his terms
An interesting statement considering the national debt INCREASED (I have cap
letters too) by more than $1 trillion during his terms.  Democrats don't
really understand the words "lowered" or "cut" apparently because they also
regularly refer to budget increases as "cuts".  Its all part of their plan
to simply never tell the truth...
John Black
The Clinton years ended with a budget surplus. We were paying down the
debt, which had risen dramatically under Reagan and Bush 1. Clinton
pushed a Republican Congress to reduce defense spending and worked
with them on welfare reform. The effect of the peace dividend and
other policies began to be seen in the last years of his leadership.
Had we continued in the vein, the debt would considerably lower than
when he left the White House. GW Bush quickly ruined all that with
hugh tax cuts for the wealthy and by engaging in useless wars without
raising taxes to pay for them. All of that was very good for his
friends, and for Dick Cheney, though. Bush and Cheney were traitors
who lied the country into a war to benefit themselves and their
friends.
John Black
2010-12-07 05:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by WR
Post by John Black
says...
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Clinton LOWERED the debt during his terms
An interesting statement considering the national debt INCREASED (I have cap
letters too) by more than $1 trillion during his terms.  Democrats don't
really understand the words "lowered" or "cut" apparently because they also
regularly refer to budget increases as "cuts".  Its all part of their plan
to simply never tell the truth...
John Black
The Clinton years ended with a budget surplus. We were paying down the
debt, which had risen dramatically under Reagan and Bush 1. Clinton
pushed a Republican Congress to reduce defense spending and worked
with them on welfare reform. The effect of the peace dividend and
other policies began to be seen in the last years of his leadership.
Had we continued in the vein, the debt would considerably lower than
when he left the White House.
You are clueless. Clinton lucked into a brief surplus due to the dot.com
*bubble* which burst spectactularly in mid 2000. That led to a big
recession which in turn led to the return of deficits which would have
existed no matter who was president, even had it been Clinton. Bush's tax
cuts are what ended the recession and led to many years of economic growth.
Obama and company are finally acknowledging that by extending the tax cuts,
and even lowering other taxes as we speak in an attept to improve the
economy after proving (again) that government "stimulus" and attacks on
business fail to actually stimulate the economy or create jobs.

John Black
wy
2010-12-07 12:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by WR
Post by John Black
says...
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Clinton LOWERED the debt during his terms
An interesting statement considering the national debt INCREASED (I have cap
letters too) by more than $1 trillion during his terms.  Democrats don't
really understand the words "lowered" or "cut" apparently because they also
regularly refer to budget increases as "cuts".  Its all part of their plan
to simply never tell the truth...
John Black
The Clinton years ended with a budget surplus. We were paying down the
debt, which had risen dramatically under Reagan and Bush 1. Clinton
pushed a Republican Congress to reduce defense spending and worked
with them on welfare reform. The effect of the peace dividend and
other policies began to be seen in the last years of his leadership.
Had we continued in the vein, the debt would considerably lower than
when he left the White House.
You are clueless.  Clinton lucked into a brief surplus due to the dot.com
*bubble* which burst spectactularly in mid 2000.  That led to a big
recession which in turn led to the return of deficits which would have
existed no matter who was president, even had it been Clinton.  Bush's tax
cuts are what ended the recession and led to many years of economic growth.  
Obama and company are finally acknowledging that by extending the tax cuts,
and even lowering other taxes as we speak in an attept to improve the
economy after proving (again) that government "stimulus" and attacks on
business fail to actually stimulate the economy or create jobs.
One of the problems of federal tax cuts is that less money sent to the
feds actually deprives states of federal funding, which probably
explains why your state taxes have gone up ridiculously high and a
number of programs have had to disappear. Obama has stated that you
actually did get federal tax cuts in the last two years, but the
reason why you may've not noticed it is because states have subtracted
it from you through their jacking up of their own rates. So what's
given to you on the one hand is taken from you on the other, leaving
you be nothing more than a conduit between two governments and getting
nowhere fast. It's all a political shell game and you're the sucker
in the middle if you think tax cuts are giving you anything.
Mike Smith
2010-12-07 12:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by WR
Post by John Black
says...
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Clinton LOWERED the debt during his terms
An interesting statement considering the national debt INCREASED (I have cap
letters too) by more than $1 trillion during his terms.  Democrats don't
really understand the words "lowered" or "cut" apparently because they also
regularly refer to budget increases as "cuts".  Its all part of their plan
to simply never tell the truth...
John Black
The Clinton years ended with a budget surplus. We were paying down the
debt, which had risen dramatically under Reagan and Bush 1. Clinton
pushed a Republican Congress to reduce defense spending and worked
with them on welfare reform. The effect of the peace dividend and
other policies began to be seen in the last years of his leadership.
Had we continued in the vein, the debt would considerably lower than
when he left the White House. GW Bush quickly ruined all that with
hugh tax cuts for the wealthy and by engaging in useless wars without
raising taxes to pay for them. All of that was very good for his
friends, and for Dick Cheney, though. Bush and Cheney were traitors
who lied the country into a war to benefit themselves and their
friends.
Do you enjoy your little fantasies about what happened in the 1990s?
Each and every one of your above statements are fallacious.

Thanks for posting proof that you are one stupid individual.

Mike Smith
Slackjaw
2010-12-11 13:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Until Obama...
Y***@Jurgis.net
2010-12-11 15:34:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:14:53 +0000 (UTC), "Slackjaw"
Post by Slackjaw
Post by Alias
Post by Tracey12
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Bush has outspent every single President that has ever existed. Or do
you think going to war is cheap?
Until Obama...
Doesn't compute

Reagan ran the debt up by 30+ percent

Bush sr. another 12%

Clinton (and carter) Lowered the debt

Bush increased the debt 57%

Obama (to fix bush's mess) increased it about 12%

Now shove that up your ass.

wy
2010-12-06 14:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that.  Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way.  Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment.  Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense.  And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense.  And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid.  They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
Nah.  Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
You mean the $5 trillion Bush spent during his 8 years in office, 6 of
them under Republican control, wasn't spend, spend, spend? That's a
novel kind of math.
The PHANTOM
2010-12-06 15:06:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that.  Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way.  Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment.  Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense.  And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense.  And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid.  They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
Nah.  Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
You mean the $5 trillion Bush spent during his 8 years in office, 6 of
them under Republican control, wasn't spend, spend, spend?  That's a
novel kind of math.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
HUH??


http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-trillions-dwarf-bushs-dangerous-spending
• R. L. Measures.
2010-12-06 18:14:22 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. =A0Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. =A0Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. =A0Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. =A0And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. =A0And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! =A0You didn't have t=
he
Post by Tracey12
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. =A0They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
Nah. =A0Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. =A0The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
You mean the $5 trillion Bush spent during his 8 years in office, 6 of
them under Republican control, wasn't spend, spend, spend? That's a
novel kind of math.
** Neo-con math is different.
--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Libtardopia Lost
2010-12-06 14:18:07 UTC
Permalink
"Tracey12" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7e33eaff-c6d3-468c-93a7-***@m20g2000prc.googlegroups.com

Nah. Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.

Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
************************************************
Understand that "wy" wants to be the recipient of money taken from the evil
rich people and he feels he has a right to OPM. (other people's money) I
don't understand why he and all leftists refuses to support themselves. Or,
is it that they just want to destroy America?
wy
2010-12-06 14:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Nah.  Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
************************************************
Understand that "wy" wants to be the recipient of money taken from the evil
rich people and he feels he has a right to OPM. (other people's money)  I
don't understand why he and all leftists refuses to support themselves.  Or,
is it that they just want to destroy America?
The joke's on you. I'm not American, nor live in America, so I've got
nothing to gain from it. I only have your best interests at heart,
but it seems you Repugnants don't care much about best interests -
only wealthy interests.
First Post
2010-12-06 22:03:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Nah.  Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush.  The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
************************************************
Understand that "wy" wants to be the recipient of money taken from the evil
rich people and he feels he has a right to OPM. (other people's money)  I
don't understand why he and all leftists refuses to support themselves.  Or,
is it that they just want to destroy America?
The joke's on you. I'm not American, nor live in America, so I've got
nothing to gain from it. I only have your best interests at heart,
but it seems you Repugnants don't care much about best interests -
only wealthy interests.
So you're living off of Canadian tax dollars.
A deadbeat is still a deadbeat regardless of where they live.
And the fact that you simply refuse to recognize that the Bush tax
cuts gave approximately a 5% tax rate reduction on ALL brackets all
the way down to the bottom tier shows that you honestly do have your
head up your own ass and don't have much of a clue as to what you are
talking about.
Libtardopia Lost
2010-12-07 00:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Nah. Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
************************************************
Understand that "wy" wants to be the recipient of money taken from the evil
rich people and he feels he has a right to OPM. (other people's money) I
don't understand why he and all leftists refuses to support themselves.
Or,
is it that they just want to destroy America?
The joke's on you. I'm not American, nor live in America, so I've got
nothing to gain from it. I only have your best interests at heart,
but it seems you Repugnants don't care much about best interests -
only wealthy interests.
***************************************

Well, THAT explains a lot! Anti-American foreigners shall be ignored.
Birdog
2010-12-06 17:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Nah. Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
************************************************
Understand that "wy" wants to be the recipient of money taken from the
evil rich people and he feels he has a right to OPM. (other people's
money) I don't understand why he and all leftists refuses to support
themselves. Or, is it that they just want to destroy America?
Why did Bush/Cheney entitle themselves to the working man's money? Did
either of them ever work for a living? No, they suck blood from working
people.
Pay up time, Parasites.
Libtardopia Lost
2010-12-07 04:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Birdog
Post by Tracey12
Nah. Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
'
Its not that we have too few taxes because of Regan and Bush. The
problem is that democrats want to spend, spend, spend.
Too much government takes too many dollars from Americans.
************************************************
Understand that "wy" wants to be the recipient of money taken from the
evil rich people and he feels he has a right to OPM. (other people's
money) I don't understand why he and all leftists refuses to support
themselves. Or, is it that they just want to destroy America?
Why did Bush/Cheney entitle themselves to the working man's money? Did
either of them ever work for a living? No, they suck blood from working
people.
Pay up time, Parasites.
Libtard lie.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2010-12-06 18:32:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 06:02:35 -0800 (PST), Tracey12
Post by Tracey12
Nah. Making sure that Americans get to keep their own money is always
a good thing.
WHy is it a "good thing" if the top 10% get 80% of the money---and
you're paying for it to keep your 20%??
Libtardopia Lost
2010-12-06 14:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
Why can't you earn your own living? No skills? Drugs? Mental issues? All
of the above?
Birdog
2010-12-06 17:06:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Libtardopia Lost
Post by wy
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
Why can't you earn your own living? No skills? Drugs? Mental issues?
All of the above?
Why can't the wealthy? What did Sec. of the Treasury do to deserve a $28
million bonus, write memos and play squash?
Libtardopia Lost
2010-12-07 00:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Birdog
Post by Libtardopia Lost
Post by wy
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
Why can't you earn your own living? No skills? Drugs? Mental issues?
All of the above?
Why can't the wealthy? What did Sec. of the Treasury do to deserve a $28
million bonus, write memos and play squash?
So, it's a "bonus" to keep some of the money they earn? You think it should
be confiscated and given to you leftists? Why can't you earn your own
living? No skills? Drugs? Mental issues? All of the above?
The PHANTOM
2010-12-06 15:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that.  Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way.  Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment.  Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense.  And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense.  And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid.  They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUTWHADDABOUTREAGAN ??!!!

Does it EVER dawn on a progressive perhaps the BEST way to reduce the
debt is to REDUCE SPENDING ???!!!! Just how much in taxes do you think
a hard working American should pay ??
Alias
2010-12-06 16:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUTWHADDABOUTREAGAN ??!!!
Does it EVER dawn on a progressive perhaps the BEST way to reduce the
debt is to REDUCE SPENDING ???!!!! Just how much in taxes do you think
a hard working American should pay ??
The rich should have all their loopholes closed. The millions of people
the rich folks and their puppets like Bush put out of work need a job so
they can pay taxes. You probably think the trillions of dollars the rich
have gotten due the Bush tax cuts is a good thing and good spending even
if it isn't paid for, right?
--
Alias
Ronnie Raygun And The Rayonets
2010-12-06 20:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUTWHADDABOUTREAGAN ??!!!
Does it EVER dawn on a progressive perhaps the BEST way to reduce the
debt is to REDUCE SPENDING ???!!!! Just how much in taxes do you think
a hard working American should pay ??
Republicans always say they are going to reduce spending but as soon as they
get into office it goes through the roof. Name one republican administration
that EVER shrank the size of government or the deficit.
Tracey12
2010-12-06 21:49:10 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 6, 2:07 pm, "Ronnie Raygun And The Rayonets"
Post by Ronnie Raygun And The Rayonets
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that.  Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way.  Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment.  Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense.  And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense.  And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid.  They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUTWHADDABOUTREAGAN ??!!!
Does it EVER dawn on a progressive perhaps the BEST way to reduce the
debt is to REDUCE SPENDING ???!!!! Just how much in taxes do you think
a hard working American should pay ??
Republicans always say they are going to reduce spending but as soon as they
get into office it goes through the roof. Name one republican administration
that EVER shrank the size of government or the deficit.
Well, I see that you're concerned about the deficit. That's a good
thing. Also, you must be new around here. Otherwise, you would have
read what people have to say about R.I.N.O.s Bush wasn't exactly a
RiNO, but neither was he exactly a Conservative. But, since you're so
concerned, I'm sure that you are ready to admit that Obama has blown
the budget as well.
First Post
2010-12-06 22:07:23 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:02:17 -0800 (PST), The PHANTOM
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that.  Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way.  Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment.  Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense.  And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense.  And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid.  They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUTWHADDABOUTREAGAN ??!!!
Does it EVER dawn on a progressive perhaps the BEST way to reduce the
debt is to REDUCE SPENDING ???!!!! Just how much in taxes do you think
a hard working American should pay ??
wy only looks at it from his own perspective. In his mind everyone
who earns a living should be forced to pay for those that choose not
to. Those afflicted wwith the class envy syndrome convince themselves
that the more the government takes from those that produce, the more
it will give those that do not produce. Since he produces absolutely
nothing other than possibly extreme amounts of flatulence he falls
into the latter category.
wy
2010-12-06 23:52:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:02:17 -0800 (PST), The PHANTOM
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUTWHADDABOUTREAGAN ??!!!
Does it EVER dawn on a progressive perhaps the BEST way to reduce the
debt is to REDUCE SPENDING ???!!!! Just how much in taxes do you think
a hard working American should pay ??
wy only looks at it from his own perspective.  In his mind everyone
who earns a living should be forced to pay for those that choose not
to.  Those afflicted wwith the class envy syndrome convince themselves
that the more the government takes from those that produce, the more
it will give those that do not produce.  Since he produces absolutely
nothing other than possibly extreme amounts of flatulence he falls
into the latter category.
Yeah, and who's going to pay the $14 trillion debt? Where's the money
going to come from? The generosity of Wall St.? The major banks in
the country? Forbes Top 500? The government printing presses?
You're totally in la-la land if you think you're going to climb out of
the hole by not increasing taxes, especially on those who can afford
to pay it.
Alias
2010-12-07 01:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by First Post
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:02:17 -0800 (PST), The PHANTOM
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUTWHADDABOUTREAGAN ??!!!
Does it EVER dawn on a progressive perhaps the BEST way to reduce the
debt is to REDUCE SPENDING ???!!!! Just how much in taxes do you think
a hard working American should pay ??
wy only looks at it from his own perspective. In his mind everyone
who earns a living should be forced to pay for those that choose not
to. Those afflicted wwith the class envy syndrome convince themselves
that the more the government takes from those that produce, the more
it will give those that do not produce. Since he produces absolutely
nothing other than possibly extreme amounts of flatulence he falls
into the latter category.
Yeah, and who's going to pay the $14 trillion debt? Where's the money
going to come from? The generosity of Wall St.? The major banks in
the country? Forbes Top 500? The government printing presses?
You're totally in la-la land if you think you're going to climb out of
the hole by not increasing taxes, especially on those who can afford
to pay it.
I'm beginning to think that the dems and reps are in cahoots and the USA
will end up with a militarized population served by minimum wage
civilians who work at fast food and Wal Mart type outlets. The consumer
base the multinationals need to sell their products and services will be
China and India. Don't worry about learning Chinese. The Chinese are
already filling up English schools in all the English speaking countries
and they built the machine you're using to read this.

It's the same old story; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
thanks to the rich folks' machinations through their control of the
politicians. When the USA had a credible consumer base, the middle class
could survive. It doesn't anymore. 300 million American consumers is a
tad less than 2 billion Chinese and hundreds of millions of Indians.
--
Alias
wy
2010-12-07 01:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alias
Post by First Post
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:02:17 -0800 (PST), The PHANTOM
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUTWHADDABOUTREAGAN ??!!!
Does it EVER dawn on a progressive perhaps the BEST way to reduce the
debt is to REDUCE SPENDING ???!!!! Just how much in taxes do you think
a hard working American should pay ??
wy only looks at it from his own perspective.  In his mind everyone
who earns a living should be forced to pay for those that choose not
to.  Those afflicted wwith the class envy syndrome convince themselves
that the more the government takes from those that produce, the more
it will give those that do not produce.  Since he produces absolutely
nothing other than possibly extreme amounts of flatulence he falls
into the latter category.
Yeah, and who's going to pay the $14 trillion debt?  Where's the money
going to come from?  The generosity of  Wall St.?  The major banks in
the country?  Forbes Top 500?  The government printing presses?
You're totally in la-la land if you think you're going to climb out of
the hole by not increasing taxes, especially on those who can afford
to pay it.
I'm beginning to think that the dems and reps are in cahoots and the USA
will end up with a militarized population served by minimum wage
civilians who work at fast food and Wal Mart type outlets. The consumer
base the multinationals need to sell their products and services will be
China and India. Don't worry about learning Chinese. The Chinese are
already filling up English schools in all the English speaking countries
and they built the machine you're using to read this.
It's the same old story; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
thanks to the rich folks' machinations through their control of the
politicians. When the USA had a credible consumer base, the middle class
could survive. It doesn't anymore. 300 million American consumers is a
tad less than 2 billion Chinese and hundreds of millions of Indians.
What the US needs to do is scrap itself as a republic and adopt a
parliamentary democracy style of government. The republic democracy
style is proving itself to be unworkable and a real danger to the
survival of the country. Things just run smoother and are far more
democratic with a parliamentary government compared to a republic one,
not to mention that it allows what a republic government is dead set
against - 3, 4 or even 5 parties in government. The whole insane
process of electing new House members every 2 years, a president every
4 years and senate members every 6 years is, well, insane. It only
entrenches the politicization of everything at the expense of serving
the people and moving the country forward. In Canada, there's only
one election and it's called by the prime minister whenever he feels
like it - usually when he thinks he's got a pretty good chance of
winning again or if a vote of confidence by the 4 opposition parties
we have now goes against the ruling party. It tends to happen every 3
to 5 years and the entire election campaign period lasts only 35
days. That's right, not 2 years or a year or six months, but 35
measly little days. And we still end up with another government and
don't have to worry about another election for 3 to 5 years again.
That way, with all the politicization of everything out of the way,
things actually get done, and sanely for the most part.
WR
2010-12-07 04:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Alias
Post by First Post
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:02:17 -0800 (PST), The PHANTOM
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUTWHADDABOUTREAGAN ??!!!
Does it EVER dawn on a progressive perhaps the BEST way to reduce the
debt is to REDUCE SPENDING ???!!!! Just how much in taxes do you think
a hard working American should pay ??
wy only looks at it from his own perspective.  In his mind everyone
who earns a living should be forced to pay for those that choose not
to.  Those afflicted wwith the class envy syndrome convince themselves
that the more the government takes from those that produce, the more
it will give those that do not produce.  Since he produces absolutely
nothing other than possibly extreme amounts of flatulence he falls
into the latter category.
Yeah, and who's going to pay the $14 trillion debt?  Where's the money
going to come from?  The generosity of  Wall St.?  The major banks in
the country?  Forbes Top 500?  The government printing presses?
You're totally in la-la land if you think you're going to climb out of
the hole by not increasing taxes, especially on those who can afford
to pay it.
I'm beginning to think that the dems and reps are in cahoots and the USA
will end up with a militarized population served by minimum wage
civilians who work at fast food and Wal Mart type outlets. The consumer
base the multinationals need to sell their products and services will be
China and India. Don't worry about learning Chinese. The Chinese are
already filling up English schools in all the English speaking countries
and they built the machine you're using to read this.
It's the same old story; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
thanks to the rich folks' machinations through their control of the
politicians. When the USA had a credible consumer base, the middle class
could survive. It doesn't anymore. 300 million American consumers is a
tad less than 2 billion Chinese and hundreds of millions of Indians.
What the US needs to do is scrap itself as a republic and adopt a
parliamentary democracy style of government.  The republic democracy
style is proving itself to be unworkable and a real danger to the
survival of the country.  Things just run smoother and are far more
democratic with a parliamentary government compared to a republic one,
not to mention that it allows what a republic government is dead set
against - 3, 4 or even 5 parties in government.  The whole insane
process of electing new House members every 2 years, a president every
4 years and senate members every 6 years is, well, insane.  It only
entrenches the politicization of everything at the expense of serving
the people and moving the country forward.  In Canada, there's only
one election and it's called by the prime minister whenever he feels
like it - usually when he thinks he's got a pretty good chance of
winning again or if a vote of confidence by the 4 opposition parties
we have now goes against the ruling party.  It tends to happen every 3
to 5 years and the entire election campaign period lasts only 35
days.  That's right, not 2 years or a year or six months, but 35
measly little days.  And we still end up with another government and
don't have to worry about another election for 3 to 5 years again.
That way, with all the politicization of everything out of the way,
things actually get done, and sanely for the most part.
You don't need to do all that. The US Constitution needs only one
change -- to make it unconstitutional for a State to have more
Senators than it has representatives. There are 9 states, all in the
West, with populations so small they can only support one
Representative, but they all have two senators. It disproportionally
empowers rural states. The power base would shift back to the most
populous states, which are also the most vigorous and most
progressive, and a lot of the nonsense and posturing that is presently
in vogue would die. The minority party would be forced to compromise,
presidential appointments wouldn't be held captive, and reason would
prevail.

Parliamentary systems are vestiges of caged monarchies. They work for
countries like Canada, which has a small population and a tradition
inherited from the British. They can be dysfunctional as well. Italy,
for one, has gone through periods where governments would last only a
day, and minority parties can sometimes acquire disproportionate power
by shifting allegiances and playing other parties against one another.
I wouldn't want to live in a country where the Tea Party could play
kingmaker.
wy
2010-12-07 12:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by WR
Post by wy
Post by Alias
Post by First Post
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:02:17 -0800 (PST), The PHANTOM
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUTWHADDABOUTREAGAN ??!!!
Does it EVER dawn on a progressive perhaps the BEST way to reduce the
debt is to REDUCE SPENDING ???!!!! Just how much in taxes do you think
a hard working American should pay ??
wy only looks at it from his own perspective.  In his mind everyone
who earns a living should be forced to pay for those that choose not
to.  Those afflicted wwith the class envy syndrome convince themselves
that the more the government takes from those that produce, the more
it will give those that do not produce.  Since he produces absolutely
nothing other than possibly extreme amounts of flatulence he falls
into the latter category.
Yeah, and who's going to pay the $14 trillion debt?  Where's the money
going to come from?  The generosity of  Wall St.?  The major banks in
the country?  Forbes Top 500?  The government printing presses?
You're totally in la-la land if you think you're going to climb out of
the hole by not increasing taxes, especially on those who can afford
to pay it.
I'm beginning to think that the dems and reps are in cahoots and the USA
will end up with a militarized population served by minimum wage
civilians who work at fast food and Wal Mart type outlets. The consumer
base the multinationals need to sell their products and services will be
China and India. Don't worry about learning Chinese. The Chinese are
already filling up English schools in all the English speaking countries
and they built the machine you're using to read this.
It's the same old story; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
thanks to the rich folks' machinations through their control of the
politicians. When the USA had a credible consumer base, the middle class
could survive. It doesn't anymore. 300 million American consumers is a
tad less than 2 billion Chinese and hundreds of millions of Indians.
What the US needs to do is scrap itself as a republic and adopt a
parliamentary democracy style of government.  The republic democracy
style is proving itself to be unworkable and a real danger to the
survival of the country.  Things just run smoother and are far more
democratic with a parliamentary government compared to a republic one,
not to mention that it allows what a republic government is dead set
against - 3, 4 or even 5 parties in government.  The whole insane
process of electing new House members every 2 years, a president every
4 years and senate members every 6 years is, well, insane.  It only
entrenches the politicization of everything at the expense of serving
the people and moving the country forward.  In Canada, there's only
one election and it's called by the prime minister whenever he feels
like it - usually when he thinks he's got a pretty good chance of
winning again or if a vote of confidence by the 4 opposition parties
we have now goes against the ruling party.  It tends to happen every 3
to 5 years and the entire election campaign period lasts only 35
days.  That's right, not 2 years or a year or six months, but 35
measly little days.  And we still end up with another government and
don't have to worry about another election for 3 to 5 years again.
That way, with all the politicization of everything out of the way,
things actually get done, and sanely for the most part.
You don't need to do all that. The US Constitution needs only one
change -- to make it unconstitutional for a State to have more
Senators than it has representatives. There are 9 states, all in the
West, with populations so small they can only support one
Representative, but they all have two senators. It disproportionally
empowers rural states. The power base would shift back to the most
populous states, which are also the most vigorous and most
progressive, and a lot of the nonsense and posturing that is presently
in vogue would die. The minority party would be forced to compromise,
presidential appointments wouldn't be held captive, and reason would
prevail.
It still wouldn't work. Why? Because you'd still be stuck with a
rigid two-party system. What you need is diversity of thought in
order to get past your political inertia and arrive at better balanced
solutions that are more reflective of what people in general want, not
just want half the population wants or, more often, what just the
party in power wants.
Post by WR
Parliamentary systems are vestiges of caged monarchies. They work for
countries like Canada, which has a small population and a tradition
inherited from the British. They can be dysfunctional as well. Italy,
for one, has gone through periods where governments would last only a
day, and minority parties can sometimes acquire disproportionate power
by shifting allegiances and playing other parties against one another.
I wouldn't want to live in a country where the Tea Party could play
kingmaker.
No system is perfect, but on balance the parliamentary system is a
more democratic process than the republic one, if only because it does
allow for multiple parties in government, which in turn is more
representative of the diverse views among people. More is
accomplished and at a quicker pace in a country like Canada than in
the US. At least in Canada progress isn't stymied by having to daily
focus on the next election and how to get things done without
upsetting the next day's poll numbers. Italy's case is different.
It's not a typical parliamentary system. In fact, Italy is a
democratic republic that appears to be a hybrid of both the republic
and parliamentary systems. It's further complicated by having a
population very rooted in being highly emotional and passionate people
who, it seems, can never make up their minds. I'm not sure Italy
could be pointed to as a typical example of a parliamentary system as
that found in Canada and Britain, but the country still has managed to
survive every one of the dozens of turnovers since WW2 with the
current government under Berlusconi being the most successful, I
believe, having been in place for nearly a decade now. Seems all that
tweaking finally got it right for them.
John Black
2010-12-07 16:19:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <95fdd8f6-bd81-4bf3-924a-08ea8e2ebc37
@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...
Post by WR
The US Constitution needs only one
change -- to make it unconstitutional for a State to have more
Senators than it has representatives. There are 9 states, all in the
West, with populations so small they can only support one
Representative, but they all have two senators. It disproportionally
empowers rural states.
Why have a Senate then? The very purpose of the Senate was to have half of
the legislature comprised of a body that gave equal say to all the states
regardless of population. You obviously have no clue why that is good (and
I would argue even necessary).

John Black
George Kerby
2010-12-07 14:25:10 UTC
Permalink
On 12/6/10 7:47 PM, in article
Post by wy
Post by Alias
Post by First Post
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:02:17 -0800 (PST), The PHANTOM
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUTWHADDABOUTREAGAN ??!!!
Does it EVER dawn on a progressive perhaps the BEST way to reduce the
debt is to REDUCE SPENDING ???!!!! Just how much in taxes do you think
a hard working American should pay ??
wy only looks at it from his own perspective.  In his mind everyone
who earns a living should be forced to pay for those that choose not
to.  Those afflicted wwith the class envy syndrome convince themselves
that the more the government takes from those that produce, the more
it will give those that do not produce.  Since he produces absolutely
nothing other than possibly extreme amounts of flatulence he falls
into the latter category.
Yeah, and who's going to pay the $14 trillion debt?  Where's the money
going to come from?  The generosity of  Wall St.?  The major banks in
the country?  Forbes Top 500?  The government printing presses?
You're totally in la-la land if you think you're going to climb out of
the hole by not increasing taxes, especially on those who can afford
to pay it.
I'm beginning to think that the dems and reps are in cahoots and the USA
will end up with a militarized population served by minimum wage
civilians who work at fast food and Wal Mart type outlets. The consumer
base the multinationals need to sell their products and services will be
China and India. Don't worry about learning Chinese. The Chinese are
already filling up English schools in all the English speaking countries
and they built the machine you're using to read this.
It's the same old story; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
thanks to the rich folks' machinations through their control of the
politicians. When the USA had a credible consumer base, the middle class
could survive. It doesn't anymore. 300 million American consumers is a
tad less than 2 billion Chinese and hundreds of millions of Indians.
What the US needs to do is scrap itself as a republic and adopt a
parliamentary democracy style of government. The republic democracy
style is proving itself to be unworkable and a real danger to the
survival of the country. Things just run smoother and are far more
democratic with a parliamentary government compared to a republic one,
not to mention that it allows what a republic government is dead set
against - 3, 4 or even 5 parties in government. The whole insane
process of electing new House members every 2 years, a president every
4 years and senate members every 6 years is, well, insane. It only
entrenches the politicization of everything at the expense of serving
the people and moving the country forward. In Canada, there's only
one election and it's called by the prime minister whenever he feels
like it - usually when he thinks he's got a pretty good chance of
winning again or if a vote of confidence by the 4 opposition parties
we have now goes against the ruling party. It tends to happen every 3
to 5 years and the entire election campaign period lasts only 35
days. That's right, not 2 years or a year or six months, but 35
measly little days. And we still end up with another government and
don't have to worry about another election for 3 to 5 years again.
That way, with all the politicization of everything out of the way,
things actually get done, and sanely for the most part.
You are the very enemy of the United States. Go fuck yourself, Traitor!
wy
2010-12-07 14:38:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Kerby
On 12/6/10 7:47 PM, in article
Post by wy
Post by Alias
Post by First Post
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:02:17 -0800 (PST), The PHANTOM
Post by The PHANTOM
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUT,BUTWHADDABOUTREAGAN ??!!!
Does it EVER dawn on a progressive perhaps the BEST way to reduce the
debt is to REDUCE SPENDING ???!!!! Just how much in taxes do you think
a hard working American should pay ??
wy only looks at it from his own perspective. In his mind everyone
who earns a living should be forced to pay for those that choose not
to. Those afflicted wwith the class envy syndrome convince themselves
that the more the government takes from those that produce, the more
it will give those that do not produce. Since he produces absolutely
nothing other than possibly extreme amounts of flatulence he falls
into the latter category.
Yeah, and who's going to pay the $14 trillion debt? Where's the money
going to come from? The generosity of Wall St.? The major banks in
the country? Forbes Top 500? The government printing presses?
You're totally in la-la land if you think you're going to climb out of
the hole by not increasing taxes, especially on those who can afford
to pay it.
I'm beginning to think that the dems and reps are in cahoots and the USA
will end up with a militarized population served by minimum wage
civilians who work at fast food and Wal Mart type outlets. The consumer
base the multinationals need to sell their products and services will be
China and India. Don't worry about learning Chinese. The Chinese are
already filling up English schools in all the English speaking countries
and they built the machine you're using to read this.
It's the same old story; the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
thanks to the rich folks' machinations through their control of the
politicians. When the USA had a credible consumer base, the middle class
could survive. It doesn't anymore. 300 million American consumers is a
tad less than 2 billion Chinese and hundreds of millions of Indians.
What the US needs to do is scrap itself as a republic and adopt a
parliamentary democracy style of government.  The republic democracy
style is proving itself to be unworkable and a real danger to the
survival of the country.  Things just run smoother and are far more
democratic with a parliamentary government compared to a republic one,
not to mention that it allows what a republic government is dead set
against - 3, 4 or even 5 parties in government.  The whole insane
process of electing new House members every 2 years, a president every
4 years and senate members every 6 years is, well, insane.  It only
entrenches the politicization of everything at the expense of serving
the people and moving the country forward.  In Canada, there's only
one election and it's called by the prime minister whenever he feels
like it - usually when he thinks he's got a pretty good chance of
winning again or if a vote of confidence by the 4 opposition parties
we have now goes against the ruling party.  It tends to happen every 3
to 5 years and the entire election campaign period lasts only 35
days.  That's right, not 2 years or a year or six months, but 35
measly little days.  And we still end up with another government and
don't have to worry about another election for 3 to 5 years again.
That way, with all the politicization of everything out of the way,
things actually get done, and sanely for the most part.
You are the very enemy of the United States. Go fuck yourself, Traitor!
I notice your inability to dispute any of it. Dumbfoundedly
speechless with any snappy comeback in support of your system? Wow,
shows how much you stand behind it.
• R. L. Measures.
2010-12-06 18:12:13 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
** They were fooled and they still don't know it.
--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
First Post
2010-12-06 21:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
Unfunded tax cut?
Are you stupid or what?
Just who funds a tax cut dumbass?
The left wing politicians need to learn how to stop spending every
damned dime they can get a hold of and stop borrowing billions from
other countries for shit that can't be covered by the budget in the
first place.
Post by wy
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Do they put something in the water in Canada to make you idiots so
stupid?
If you don't have a clue as to how economics work then you should keep
your idiotic opinions to yourself unless you want to continue to look
like a complete imbecile.
The government not taking income away from citizens does not cost
anything. The government spending much more than it can take in does
cost. In the last two years Obama has spent several trillion dollars
that wasn't there for him to blow in the first place so the deficit
lies in the laps of him and the democrats that voted to ramrod
bullshit stimulus and healthcare bills through that no one wanted.
Speaking of which, you don't have am problem at all with the trillions
that the idiot in chief gave to all those big wealthy bankers do you
hypocrite? It's perfectly fine in your stupid eyes to just hand over
a few billion to bankers that ended up not needing it in the first
place but an unpardonable sin to simply not take more away from
someone to feed the eternally hungry bureaucratic government so it can
give itself fat pay raises and fund pork projects. And speaking of
pay raises, you also don;t have a problem with the president freezing
the payroll of the bottom tiers of federal employees while still
allowing the top pay scales for the "management" to go untouched.
So your hypocrituical ass doesn't give a shit about the working class.
And after all of that debt Obama has incurred he hasn't saved any
fucking jobs nor created any new ones and it hasn't boosted the
economy one iota as you fools and him claimed it would.
Keep ranting all you want about tax cuts but the current issue is
about a tax increase, not cuts.
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
More idiocy from the economically ignorant canuck. What else can be
expected?
• R. L. Measures.
2010-12-07 11:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
Unfunded tax cut?
Are you stupid or what?
Just who funds a tax cut dumbass?
• nobody -- and therein is the problem.
--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Patrick
2010-12-07 17:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Post
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
Unfunded tax cut?
Are you stupid or what?
Just who funds a tax cut dumbass?
. nobody -- and therein is the problem.
When you stop a tax increase, you are not
cutting taxes....... Sheesh!
Slackjaw
2010-12-11 13:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
You have to thank both Bush and Reagan for that. Both screwed around
with the tax structure so much that now you're going to be screwed
yourselves every which way. Reagan did it by messing around with the
AMT formula in his Tax Reform of 1986, which as a result will bite you
hard now, thanks to his tinkering, and Bush mindlessly thought that
somehow giving unfunded tax breaks to the wealthy would ensure ongoing
economic health and steady low unemployment. Boy, sure fooled you,
didn't he?
So now you've got to pay the piper because a couple of Repugnants
thought the poor rich needed more wealth to keep for themselves at
your expense. And the gall is, they still have the nerve to think
that - at your expense. And you're willing to hike up your bum into
air and let them pile drive you straight up to your brain, right?
Post by Tracey12
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for!  You didn't have
the funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid.
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
What "lobsided" reasoning.
c***@nation.net
2010-12-11 15:32:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:14:08 +0000 (UTC), "Slackjaw"
Post by Slackjaw
Post by wy
Americans are stupid. They voted in Reagan and Bush who only turned
around and screwed you guys up your arses. Enjoy the ride.
What "lobsided" reasoning.
That funneling more and more wealth to fewer and fewer people produces
jobs for people---and that if you keep pushing failed policy that the
result will be different.
Ronnie Raygun And The Rayonets
2010-12-06 19:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey12
Dear Dumb Democrat,
A tax increase is not a tax cut.
If taxes are raised because of expired tax cuts, its still a tax
increase, you freaking morons.
Don't try to pawn the CONTINUATION of tax cuts from the Bush era as
something you now have to find a way to pay for! You didn't have the
funds to use to begin with, you freaking morons.
Americans are not stupid. YOU ARE! We realized you are just dying to
increase our taxes, but now you know you can't and you freaking morons
are on TV shaking your heads and about to cry. UP YOURS!
Your taxes would remain the same on the first 250K. There is not a fucking
chance in hell that you would be in the bracket for a tax increase.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...