PDA

View Full Version : The backlash: Reform turns personal



troung
25 Mar 10,, 00:32
The backlash: Reform turns personal
Jake Sherman, Marin Cogan Jake Sherman, Marin Cogan Wed Mar 24, 5:51 am ET

Reps. Louise Slaughter and Bart Stupak have received death threats.

A tea party participant published what he thought was Rep. Thomas Perriello’s home address and urged disgruntled voters to “drop by” for a “good face-to-face chat.”

Vandals broke windows at Slaughter’s office in New York and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’s office in Arizona.

And angry voters are planning to protest this weekend at the home of Steve Driehaus — who’s already seen a photograph of his children used in a newspaper ad published by reform opponents.

The vitriolic health care debate has become personal — too personal, say House Democrats who voted for the bill and now find not just themselves but their families in the cross hairs of opponents.

Slaughter, a Democrat who chairs the House Rules Committee, said a caller to her office last week vowed to send snipers to “kill the children of the members who voted yes.” Her office reported the call to police, who were dispatched to provide protection for Slaughter’s grandchildren. She has also been in touch with the FBI and U.S. Postal Service inspectors, who intercepted a letter en route to her home in upstate New York.

Stupak, the Michigan Democrat whose last-minute compromise on abortion guaranteed passage of the bill Sunday, said callers have left messages for him saying, “You’re dead; we know where you live; we’ll get you.”

“My wife still can’t answer the phone,” Stupak told POLITICO on Tuesday. The messages are “full of obscenities if she leaves it plugged in. In my office, we can’t get a phone out. It’s just bombarded.”

Stupak, a former police officer, said he’s not fazed by the threats or by the prospect of protests at his district office this weekend. “I’ve looked down barrels of guns,” he said. “I’ve talked my way out of it.”

But Democrats said their political opponents go too far when they bring members’ families into the fray.

Driehaus, a Democrat from Ohio, was outraged last week when a group called the Committee to Rethink Reform used a photo of him and his two young daughters in a newspaper ad urging him to vote against any health care reform bill that included federal funding for abortion. Both the group and the newspaper — the Cincinnati Enquirer — apologized for including Driehaus’s daughters in the ad.

“I’m very protective of my family, like most of us,” Driehaus said Tuesday. “There is no reason for my wife and kids to be brought into any of this. If people want to talk to me, if people want to approach me about an issue, I’m more than happy to talk about the issue, regardless of what side they’re on. But I do believe when you bring in a member’s family, that you’ve gone way too far.”

Driehaus faults Republicans for providing encouragement to the most extreme opponents of reform. Last week, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) warned that anti-abortion Democrats would suffer politically if they voted for the health care bill; he singled out Driehaus, saying he “may be a dead man” and “can’t go home to the west side of Cincinnati” because “the Catholics will run him out of town.”

“Mr. Boehner made comments about me and my predicament when I go home which I felt were wildly out of bounds for his position and very irresponsible, quite frankly. He’s from next door. That’s not helpful. That’s irresponsible,” Driehaus said.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said, “The leader does not condone violence, and his remark was obviously not meant to be taken literally. He is urging Americans to take the anger they’re feeling and focus it on building a new majority that will listen to the people.”

No one condones death threats against members or their families, but not everyone is apologetic about taking complaints about health care reform straight to the homes of members.

Mike Troxel, an organizer for the Lynchburg Tea Party, posted what he believed to be Perriello’s home address on his blog this week, sarcastically urging other tea partiers to stop by and “say hi and express their thanks regarding his vote for health care.”

The address turned out to be the home of Perriello’s brother — who has four children — but Troxel told POLITICO he didn’t intend to remove it from his blog. “If they would like to provide me with the address of Tom, then I’d be more than happy to take it down,” he said. “I have no reason to believe it’s not his house.”

A fellow tea party blogger said he thought it was fine for Troxel to post Perriello’s home address. “They have our home addresses,” said Kurt Feigel, who complained that protesters had little choice but to go to Perriello’s home because Perriello’s office doesn’t “respond to e-mail; they don’t respond to letters; they don’t respond to us showing up at his office. So what am I going to do?”

Perriello said his family doesn’t want him to be afraid. But when asked if he was scared anyway, the Virginia Democrat replied: “Whatever.”

“I’ve lived in Sierra Leone for two years, where the life expectancy is 34 years old. If the worst thing that happens is that special-interest groups spend millions of dollars against me and my most ardent opponents organize against me, it’s hardly a ‘cry me a river’ moment — as long as people act civil and within the law.”

Others are less sanguine.

C.J. Karamargin, a spokesman for Giffords, said staffers in the Democrat’s district office were “a little bit shaken” Monday when they arrived at work to find the glass front door shattered and covered in plywood.

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) said he had to change his personal cell phone number after a Republican gave it out to health care opponents.

And Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Blue Dog Democrat from California, said he’s gotten physical threats over health care reform.

“There are some folks that identified themselves as being members of the tea party [who] called, [and] my staff has gotten to know their names over time, and they have been very loud and very ugly,” Cardoza said.

With the House vote behind them, Democrats hope to show voters that health care reform won’t wreak the devastation opponents predict — and that tempers will cool as a result.

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said he’s already getting 95 percent fewer calls since Sunday’s vote.
“The real problem is the people who are calling and talking about a revolution and overthrowing government,” he said. “They can be angry. We’re all for that. But when they talk about taking over the government, the leadership has to do its part to stop that.”

Andy Barr contributed to this report.

Read More Stories from POLITICO
Hoyer: Members are at risk
Decoding new health care politics
FBI investigates Virginia incident
Ehrlich in for a rematch
House Dems pivot from health care
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

troung
25 Mar 10,, 00:33
Congressional Dems request security backup as FBI investigates possible harassment from Tea Party activists
1 hr 3 mins ago

The bill may be history, but the ugly partisan fighting over health care reform isn’t over yet. Far from it.

Authorities in Virginia today are investigating a severed gas line at the home of U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello's brother, Bo, near Charlottesville. The incident comes the day after Tea Party activists posted Bo Perriello’s address on a website in the mistaken belief that it was Tom’s. The accompanying text told readers to “drop by” and “express their thanks” to the 5th district representative’s work on the health care legislation. Perriello voted with the majority to pass the new health care laws on Sunday night—and Tea Party activists are diehard foes of the measure, so it’s safe to assume that the bit about expressing thanks was facetious.

The part about “dropping by” clearly was not tongue-in- cheek—though as the FBI investigates the possible act of sabotage in Bo Perriello’s home, Tea Party members may well wish they had composed it more facetiously, or omitted the suggestion altogether. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced in a press conference on the Capitol steps today that more than ten Democratic lawmakers have requested additional security. The move comes, Hoyer explained, in response to the Perriello incident, and also as a result of the ugly confrontations that took place outside the U.S. Capitol as House members prepared to debate final passage of the bill last weekend. Hoyer didn’t say whether members of the GOP leadership were planning to join forces with their Democratic counterparts to address rising safety concerns in a direct and public manner. "We have spoken" across the aisle, Hoyer said in response to a reporter’s query. "We are continuing to discuss appropriate action." Watch a video of Hoyer’s conference here:

Hoyer also alluded to imagery in conservative literature that uses the crosshairs from a rifle scope to highlight vulnerable Democratic incumbents who voted for health care reform. Though Hoyer didn’t mention her by name, he was probably referring to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who put out one such appeal on behalf of her political action committee, SarahPAC, yesterday.

To publicize her appeal, Palin took to her Twitter page with the following message: "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!' Pls see my Facebook page." The message there singled out 20 vulnerable pro-reform Democrats, and exhorted readers, "Don’t Get Demoralized! Get Organized! Take Back the 20!"

"We're going to fire them and send them back to the private sector which has been shrinking thanks to their destructive government-growing policies," she wrote. "Maybe when they join the millions of unemployed, they’ll understand why Americans wanted them to focus on job creation and an invigorated private sector."

Below the text of the post was the following image; while it doesn’t place the crosshairs over members’ faces, it does superimpose them over the districts targeted by SarahPAC.



Yahoo! News' attempts to reach the Palin camp for a response to Hoyer were unsuccessful.

--Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs reporter for Yahoo! News

Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook!

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Bluesman
25 Mar 10,, 00:51
Whatcha wanna bet some of these thangs are put-ups by their own guys? Seen it before; it's what they do. Saul Alinsky is alive and well in the shrivelled black hearts of the liberals, and there is nothing they will not do. During the '08 election, they would smash up their own campaign HQs, then call the so-called press out to show all the damage the Rethuglicans had done to the pore ole victimized leftie-symps.

Same old dirty tricks; same slimy people pulling this crap.

troung
25 Mar 10,, 01:10
Whatcha wanna bet some of these thangs are put-ups by their own guys? Seen it before; it's what they do. Saul Alinsky is alive and well in the shrivelled black hearts of the liberals, and there is nothing they will not do. During the '08 election, they would smash up their own campaign HQs, then call the so-called press out to show all the damage the Rethuglicans had done to the pore ole victimized leftie-symps.

Some could be, anything is possible and would score points. But then again enough is alleged to have been done by card carrying members of the TP so as to prevent the entire thing from being a false flag. I think the heath care bill is a big enough issue facing us that people should really reign in the goof balls/useful idiots so as to prevent the issue being radicals posting addresses of peoples family and putting up videos with their kids and keep the focus where it belongs.

gunnut
25 Mar 10,, 01:39
I just remember people made a big deal out of some kid(s) posting on Myspace how he (they) wished Bush would die.

There are kooks on both sides. Only the media pays more attention to the ones threatening their guys.

highsea
25 Mar 10,, 01:57
They're just trying to marginalize the tea party movement. They redefine the acts of the individual as acts of the movement.

Standard propaganda protocol. They're scared.

ChrisF202
25 Mar 10,, 02:43
I actually wouldent be suprised if it were a far left activist/group behind these acts. As Bluesman said, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is very popular among the lefties these days. In fact I believe it made Amazon's best seller list not that long ago.

Edit: remember the Colorado DNC office that was trashed during the 2008 election season? Conservative rightwingnut right? WRONG, it was a far leftie activist looking to place the blame on Republicans/Conservatives.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14045675#ixzz0aQtuzfOz

Bigfella
25 Mar 10,, 08:31
I actually wouldent be suprised if it were a far left activist/group behind these acts. As Bluesman said, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is very popular among the lefties these days. In fact I believe it made Amazon's best seller list not that long ago.

Edit: remember the Colorado DNC office that was trashed during the 2008 election season? Conservative rightwingnut right? WRONG, it was a far leftie activist looking to place the blame on Republicans/Conservatives.
Political activist pleads guilty in window-smashing - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14045675#ixzz0aQtuzfOz)


So is this going to be the standard response now whenever somoene claiming to oppose the Dems does or says something crazy? Claim its all some left wing black op? How convenient.

I guess that means all the 'Bush = Hitler' nutjobs were just right wingers trying to make the left look bad - the Nixon White House wrote that playbook, so it must be true.

dalem
25 Mar 10,, 10:42
Now I remember why I swore off posting in this forum a while ago. Thanks for the reminder, Bigfella.

-dale

Triple C
25 Mar 10,, 11:01
I can only speak for myself, but if I were led to believe that someone just passed a law that is evil incarnate and will kill my loved ones, I'd probably want to smash things up and raise merry hell. Some of the people who are unhappy with the bill made threats and now those threats are being made good. I don't think there is a big mystery here.

As for the liberals, I don't think "afraid" is what I would use to describe them at the moment. They are, if anything, jubilant. They think they have just won a great political victory. I read 2 left liberal press daily and the sentiment is November be damned, let's celebrate.

Bigfella
25 Mar 10,, 12:45
Now I remember why I swore off posting in this forum a while ago. Thanks for the reminder, Bigfella.

-dale

Yeah, my post was the crazy one. Outstanding standards. Now I remember why I don't miss you. Thanks for the reminder.

Bigfella
25 Mar 10,, 12:47
I can only speak for myself, but if I were led to believe that someone just passed a law that is evil incarnate and will kill my loved ones, I'd probably want to smash things up and raise merry hell. Some of the people who are unhappy with the bill made threats and now those threats are being made good. I don't think there is a big mystery here.



SO you are suggesting that the people saying & doing these crazy things actually oppose the bill? Now thats just crazy talk. It is so much more likely that it is all a left wing put up job. :rolleyes:

ShawnG
25 Mar 10,, 12:58
Stupak, a former police officer, said he’s not fazed by the threats or by the prospect of protests at his district office this weekend. “I’ve looked down barrels of guns,” he said. “I’ve talked my way out of it.”


Spoken like a true Politician. Ha-Ha :))

You're damn right people are pissed off. This is what happens when the representatives of the people don't accurately vote how the people want.

Now, the notion that this is left wing propaganda to destroy the republican reputation is a bit of a stretch.

Asking a Staunch Republican (or Staunch Democrat) to consider that a member of their own party did something wrong is akin to convincing a religious nut that God doesn't exist. Doesn't matter what the logic or evidence portrays... You believe what you believe.

Rumrunner
25 Mar 10,, 14:08
Same old dirty tricks; same slimy people pulling this crap.

Wouldnt surprise me in the least. It also wouldnt suprise me if tomorrow a roving pack of "Rethuglicans" were picked up, shattered glass in their hair and a malicious looking pen in their hand. Obviously intent on overthrowing the government by costing more in heating bills and window replacement, and defrauding the post office by not putting enough postage on their threat letters. :))

People need to grow the f up. Petty vandalism is just that, petty.

Blue
25 Mar 10,, 16:14
I just remember people made a big deal out of some kid(s) posting on Myspace how he (they) wished Bush would die.

There are kooks on both sides. Only the media pays more attention to the ones threatening their guys.

Don't forget the movie that was made depicting Bush getting asassinated. That was called art by the left. Make one of those about Obama and see what happens.

gunnut
25 Mar 10,, 19:43
Don't forget the movie that was made depicting Bush getting asassinated. That was called art by the left. Make one of those about Obama and see what happens.

That would be racist.

gunnut
25 Mar 10,, 19:45
Updated March 25, 2010
Cantor Says Campaign Office Was Shot At, Accuses Dems of Exploiting Threats

FOXNews.com

Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor said Thursday that his Richmond campaign office has been shot at and that he's received "threatening e-mails" -- but at the same time the House minority whip accused top Democrats of trying to exploit the threats they've been receiving for "political gain."

Cantor said "a bullet was shot through the window" of his campaign office. The incident happened Monday, Fox News has learned, the latest in a rash of apparent threats and acts of intimidation against members of Congress. Most of the threats so far have been reported by Democrats, but Cantor -- the No. 2 Republican in the House -- is one of about 10 lawmakers who has asked for increased security protection, Fox News has learned.

In brief and pointed remarks, Cantor said he would not be releasing any information about the other threats he's received, as some lawmakers have done, out of concern that it would "encourage more to be sent."

And he admonished his colleagues -- specifically Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine -- for "dangerously fanning the flames by suggesting these incidents be used as a political weapon."

"Any suggestion that a leader in this body would incite threats or acts against other members is akin to saying that I would endanger myself, my wife or my children," Cantor said. "It is reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain."

Van Hollen told MSNBC on Wednesday that Republican leaders were "pouring more and more gasoline on the flames." Kaine, in an interview with the Huffington Post, said Republican leaders are "trying to stoke anger" with lies.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., in an interview with MSNBC Wednesday night, said people are getting "signals" from lawmakers on how to behave and that lawmakers need to "disown" the activity before it gets out of control. He suggested his colleagues were culpable.

"If we participate in it, either from the balcony or on the floor of the House, you are aiding and abetting this kind of terrorism, really," Clyburn said.

And Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill., told Fox News on Thursday that he thought House Republican Leader John Boehner should step aside for not being more vocal in denouncing the threats.

"He has a responsibility to step up and put an end to this," Hare said. "I think this is despicable."

Cantor said Thursday that such threats should not be a "partisan issue."

Cantor, as minority whip, is the highest elected Jewish politician in the country, and he said some of the threats he's gotten in the past have been because of his religion. But all the recent threats against lawmakers appear to be connected to the health care debate.

The Department of Homeland Security is involved in the Cantor case because he is a member of the House leadership. U.S. Capitol Police already provide Cantor with a security detail around the clock because of his leadership position, but he has asked for more security.

Fox News has also obtained a threatening message left Friday on the voicemail of Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, which comes on top of a slew of other threats.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced Wednesday that more than 10 lawmakers have been harassed in some way.

A senior Senate Democratic leadership aide told Fox News that threats also have been made against Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., called that odd, given that Frumin just sided against the Democrats on a GOP challenge over the package of fixes being considered in the Senate, in effect sending it back to the House for an extra vote.

"The irony here is that he has people threatening him, but here's a guy who's held against us," Conrad said.

Rep. Betsy Markey, D-Colo., has also reportedly requested police patrols around her unoccupied home for fear it might be vandalized, after her office received a threatening message.

A coffin was found on the lawn of Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo., though it apparently was intended to represent those who might die due to policies in the health care bill.

Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer, in a memo to lawmakers and their staffs Wednesday, exhorted members to "remain vigilant."

The memo came after at least four Democratic offices were vandalized, including Rep. Louise Slaughter's local office in upstate New York, which was was hit by a brick that shattered a window.

The office of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich. -- who initially opposed the Senate's health bill over concerns about abortion funding but switched to support the plan following assurance from the White House -- has received several threatening messages, recordings of which have been obtained by Fox News.

In one recording, a man swears at Stupak repeatedly while wishing for him to die.

"Congressman Stupak, you baby-killing motherf---er. ... I hope you bleed out your a--, got cancer and die, you motherf---er," he says.

Somebody also cut a propane line attached to a grill at the Virginia home of Rep. Tom Perriello's brother, whose address was mistakenly posted online as being that of the congressman.

Fox News' Chad Pergram and Trish Turner contributed to this report.


FOXNews.com - Cantor Says Campaign Office Was Shot At, Accuses Dems of Exploiting Threats (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/rep-cantors-richmond-campaign-office-shot-overnight/)

astralis
25 Mar 10,, 19:48
chris,


In fact I believe it made Amazon's best seller list not that long ago.


actually, IIRC the irony was that this was driven by the Tea Partiers-- the book's methods (if not Alinsky's cause) seem to be popular.

astralis
25 Mar 10,, 19:57
triple C,


As for the liberals, I don't think "afraid" is what I would use to describe them at the moment. They are, if anything, jubilant. They think they have just won a great political victory. I read 2 left liberal press daily and the sentiment is November be damned, let's celebrate.


the funny thing is that most center-left liberals are out there celebrating; the real hardcore lefties, though, think the bill was a massive corporatist sellout to the insurance industry and is worthless without single-payer (they don't even like "public option", -because- it is just an option). some have even advocated teaming up with the Tea Partyers/republicans to stop it, obviously for diametrically opposed reasons.

Dreadnought
25 Mar 10,, 20:24
November be damned, let's celebrate.


Better get it in now because come November IMO you will be seeing musical chairs to see whos left after the elections. One things for sure, this coming election is going to take its toll on the Dems. With any luck, Pelosi and Reid are going to go first and foremost.;)

crooks
25 Mar 10,, 20:31
When you allow extremists to hijack debate this is what happens - the lunatic nonsense of the groups who brought you the concept of 'death panels' will bring you this sort of craziness, and it's not even that people take it seriously but it weakens democracy.

The Wacko, crazy right wing paranoia, the ugliest part of the conservative movement which seems to manifest itself whenever the left is in power, and which is even evident on this thread: to you guys it's all just a big ass leftist conspiracy, needs to be seen for what it is and discarded by everyone who values genuine discourse.

In future the moderates should all work to tone the debate down to the point where one side doesn't feeling losing a vote is the end of the world, stoked by it's political leaders in a chamber that's much poorer when fear or timidity is the prevailing emotion.

gunnut
25 Mar 10,, 20:34
When you allow extremists to hijack debate this is what happens - the lunatic nonsense of the groups who brought you the concept of 'death panels' will bring you this sort of craziness, and it's not even that people take it seriously but it weakens democracy.

The Wacko, crazy right wing paranoia, the ugliest part of the conservative movement which seems to manifest itself whenever the left is in power, and which is even evident on this thread: to you guys it's all just a big ass leftist conspiracy, needs to be seen for what it is and discarded by everyone who values genuine discourse.

In future the moderates should all work to tone the debate down to the point where one side doesn't feeling losing a vote is the end of the world, stoked by it's political leaders in a chamber that's much poorer when fear or timidity is the prevailing emotion.

Did you conveniently forget about the liberal commie crazy left wing radicals running around when Bush was in office?

Bluesman
25 Mar 10,, 20:50
Did you conveniently forget about the liberal commie crazy left wing radicals running around when Bush was in office?

He didn't for get it; he never acknowledged its existence.

And thus we have the lesson of the leftie: if it doesn't square with their worldview, it may be ignored. It's the only way they can write off logic, reason, historical example, evidence, and the scientific method.

It's the How and the Why of being an idealist. Because they want the world to work in a way that it manifestly cannot, some mechanism must be found to continue to believe in the unbelievable but beautiful fantasy.

crooks
25 Mar 10,, 20:52
Did you conveniently forget about the liberal commie crazy left wing radicals running around when Bush was in office?

They were doing just that - running around, posting on trendy blogs, smoking pot, but tame and ignored, far from the mainstream political discourse.

Every report on healthcare on our news shows the crowds, the yellow flags, the silly slogans of these lunatics, the left kept it's under relative control, you guys seem to ENJOY seeing your freaks run free.

This is creepy, GOP-tolerated if not endorsed, pseudo-corporate, astroturf-organised, HATE, towards your fellow countrymen, by a movement with not an iota of fact or nouse but a bucket of ass-backwards opinions trying to obfuscate what could have been an honest debate.

For the record, I think it's a deeply flawed piece of legislation (mandatory purchase without a public option? yuck) and what the right needed more than ever was someone who could champion intellectual conservatism, and dissect it in the way only a pessimistic, shrewd conservative could.

You didn't get that, you got 178 morons (212, to be fair) throwing abuse or cheering on those who do - it weakens everyone longterm, and makes the far-left look like a bunch of girl scouts.

gunnut
25 Mar 10,, 20:58
They were doing just that - running around, posting on trendy blogs, smoking pot, but tame and ignored, far from the mainstream political discourse.

Posting threatening messages is a serious deal. How many times have people asked "did someone connect the dots?" after a shooting incident?



Every report on healthcare on our news shows the crowds, the yellow flags, the silly slogans of these lunatics, the left kept it's under relative control, you guys seem to ENJOY seeing your freaks run free.

But I thought they were just running around, posting on trendy blogs, tame and ignored...



This is creepy, GOP-tolerated if not endorsed, pseudo-corporate, astroturf-organised, HATE, towards your fellow countrymen, by a movement with not an iota of fact or nouse but a bucket of ass-backwards opinions trying to obfuscate what could have been an honest debate.

Where did you get HATE from? Are they any where close to this:

The zombietime Hall of Shame (http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/)



For the record, I think it's a deeply flawed piece of legislation (mandatory purchase without a public option? yuck) and what the right needed more than ever was someone who could champion intellectual conservatism, and dissect it in the way only a pessimistic, shrewd conservative could.

They did. You didn't look hard enough. The world's media is dominated by the left. You were being fed by a one-sided propaganda campaign.



You didn't get that, you got 178 morons (212, to be fair) throwing abuse or cheering on those who do - it weakens everyone longterm, and makes the far-left look like a bunch of girl scouts.

So if they don't agree with you, they are morons?

Well, we had 220 traitors who trashed our constitution.

Bigfella
25 Mar 10,, 21:10
Did you conveniently forget about the liberal commie crazy left wing radicals running around when Bush was in office?

I didn't. I argued against them in person & in public at the time - including people in my own social group. I didn't pretend it was all a right wing put up job to make the left look bad & I didn't excuse it by saying 'the right did the same'. How you doin'? (that can go for a few others here too).

gunnut
25 Mar 10,, 21:38
I didn't. I argued against them in person & in public at the time - including people in my own social group. I didn't pretend it was all a right wing put up job to make the left look bad & I didn't excuse it by saying 'the right did the same'. How you doin'? (that can go for a few others here too).

Did I say these acts of violence and vandalism were perpetrated by the members of their own party in order to trump up some votes?

Personally I think these guys are morons, on both sides. Vandalism solves nothing. Violence merely makes a martyr of their target. We have a process in place which allows us to resolve these differences in peace. We should follow it. Much like we should follow the process in passing the bill on a floor vote rather than a "deem and pass" technicality.

Stan187
25 Mar 10,, 21:50
November be damned, let's celebrate.


Better get it in now because come November IMO you will be seeing musical chairs to see whos left after the elections. One things for sure, this coming election is going to take its toll on the Dems. With any luck, Pelosi and Reid are going to go first and foremost.;)

While I hope you're correct, I fear the American public's lacking attention span, and that goes beyond just the ADD generation.

When conservatives stood up and clearly said that what Obama aims to bring to the country is no less than socialism, they were written off. Now its not a matter of argument, but a matter of fact.

dalem
25 Mar 10,, 23:04
Yeah, my post was the crazy one. Outstanding standards. Now I remember why I don't miss you. Thanks for the reminder.

See, right away you make it personal. I don't know what it is about me that causes you such distress, but I'm glad I still have it. :)

-dale

chakos
25 Mar 10,, 23:59
Reading this topic is frustrating to the extreme, against better judgement i shouldn't wade in but maybe i lack better judgement.

Firstly, The Democrats where elected in to power with a healthy majority, they are a left leaning party (by American standards) and they won the vote fair and square. It wasn't down to the wire, it wasn't close... it was a decent margin. Yes some media was with them but at the same time some was against them. Those of us with a brain watch both and make our own conclusions. What do you expect a left leaning party to push? Small government and less services? If people truly wanted that then the Republicans would have actually won.

Secondly, Its goddamn health care...The didn't dissolve congress, Obama didn't vote himself in as El Presidente for life, if you don't like it, vote against the Dems next time round. Theres no need whatsoever to act as if this is the start of a civil war or the next moment the U.S. flag will be red with a hammer and sickle where the stars used to be.

Thirdly, When the left act like idiots the mainstream left DO speak against it. The right may not pay it as much attention as they should but it does happen. I know of several left leaning posters on this site who have spoken out about the actions of the left when they do something moronic. What Im seeing here though are acts that are completely against the law at worst and disgraceful behavior at best and right leaning posters are like 'its a left conspiracy' or 'the left is just as bad'.

Lets look at this differently shall we. When a suicide bomber blows himself up the demands from this forum are for Muslims to stand up and denounce the behavior immediately, to show they are moderate and to push out extremist elements. This i agree with 100%, its the logical thing to do. When members of the right start acting like the loony fringe its ignored or given the attitude that 'what do you expect when the left is are traitors who are destroying the constitution'.

I consider myself fairly centrist politically (Thats far left crazy communist to some posters here) and im looking at this as objectively as possible and scratching my head.

Thank God, Buddha, Allah and the Omnipotent Donut Overlord that theres a great big ocean separating our countries because sometimes you lot are completely nuts :confused:

zraver
26 Mar 10,, 00:04
They were doing just that - running around, posting on trendy blogs, smoking pot, but tame and ignored, far from the mainstream political discourse.

absolute 100% Grade A Bullshitt. The anti-war movement's actions led to the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis as they gave the insurgency hope for a Vietnam part duex.

They engaged in physical violence or threatened to, pulled the discussion down to pure ad hominems and did their dambest to derail this country.


Every report on healthcare on our news shows the crowds, the yellow flags, the silly slogans of these lunatics, the left kept it's under relative control, you guys seem to ENJOY seeing your freaks run free.

Political demonstrations are not freaky.


This is creepy, GOP-tolerated if not endorsed, pseudo-corporate, astroturf-organised, HATE, towards your fellow countrymen, by a movement with not an iota of fact or nouse but a bucket of ass-backwards opinions trying to obfuscate what could have been an honest debate.

The Tea Party is not astroturfed, New York 23 proved that. But hey, keep repeating from the left wing scripted playbook. You've reduced a huge group of Americans to inhuman automatons- great job.

A funny thing about political violence in this country. Since WWI it has been almsot exclusively a left wing event on the national stage. Sure there are esome local KKK/WP nutjobs burning crosses. But the big events have all be leftist. The Wall Street Bombing, the Unabomber, Black Panthers, Weather Under Ground, SLA, Sirhan Sirhan, the attack on Conroes office.....

The right has a OKC and a few anti-abortion nutjobs but nothing really compares to the left. Some people might argue the militias are dangerous, but what have they done? Especially when compared to the overwhelmingly pro-democrat black street gangs.

gunnut
26 Mar 10,, 00:20
Reading this topic is frustrating to the extreme, against better judgement i shouldn't wade in but maybe i lack better judgement.

Firstly, The Democrats where elected in to power with a healthy majority, they are a left leaning party (by American standards) and they won the vote fair and square. It wasn't down to the wire, it wasn't close... it was a decent margin. Yes some media was with them but at the same time some was against them. Those of us with a brain watch both and make our own conclusions. What do you expect a left leaning party to push? Small government and less services? If people truly wanted that then the Republicans would have actually won.

You're exactly right on this count. The democrats are a left leaning party and we should have expected it. Unfortunately we can actually blame Bush on this one. Bush pissed off too many conservatives by his wild spending ways that many either didn't bother to vote, or actually voted democrats in 2006 and 2008 as a punishment for the republicans. The republicans were at fault here too. They abandoned the limited government concept and went along with Bush on his neo-con spending spree.

However I must correct you, the democrats did not vote on their own bill, per convention. They "deemed" the senate bill good enough and sent it on to Obama to sign. This "deem and pass" has never been done on a major piece of legislation, only amendments. So it wasn't "fair and square" as you claimed.



Secondly, Its goddamn health care...The didn't dissolve congress, Obama didn't vote himself in as El Presidente for life, if you don't like it, vote against the Dems next time round. Theres no need whatsoever to act as if this is the start of a civil war or the next moment the U.S. flag will be red with a hammer and sickle where the stars used to be.

If it's only health care reform, then so be it. But this is a legislation that forces us to buy health care at gun point (or worse, IRS). Those who can't afford will be subsidized by the government, at the expense of "the rich." However, this "rich" does not extend to politicians and union workers. Their fancy health care coverage will not be taxed (like income) when they reap the benefits. But ours will. Ask yourself this, if this legislation is so good, why do labor unions and politicians exempt themselves from it?

Further more, those with religious objections are exempt. Doesn't that violate the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.



Thirdly, When the left act like idiots the mainstream left DO speak against it.

When? Where?


The right may not pay it as much attention as they should but it does happen. I know of several left leaning posters on this site who have spoken out about the actions of the left when they do something moronic. What Im seeing here though are acts that are completely against the law at worst and disgraceful behavior at best and right leaning posters are like 'its a left conspiracy' or 'the left is just as bad'.

In no way do we advocate violence against any politician.

By the way, the left is NOT just as bad. It's worse.

zombietime (http://www.zombietime.com)



Lets look at this differently shall we. When a suicide bomber blows himself up the demands from this forum are for Muslims to stand up and denounce the behavior immediately, to show they are moderate and to push out extremist elements. This i agree with 100%, its the logical thing to do. When members of the right start acting like the loony fringe its ignored or given the attitude that 'what do you expect when the left is are traitors who are destroying the constitution'.

The left are traitors. They do destroy the constitution. But in no way do we advocate violence against them.



I consider myself fairly centrist politically (Thats far left crazy communist to some posters here)(at least you know that much :tongue:) and im looking at this as objectively as possible and scratching my head.

Thank God, Buddha, Allah and the Omnipotent Donut Overlord that theres a great big ocean separating our countries because sometimes you lot are completely nuts :confused:

We are not nuts. We just have a different background. We don't understand how you can have a country without the bill of rights. We think the way your government confiscate your guns is beyond lunacy.

Triple C
26 Mar 10,, 07:07
triple C,

the funny thing is that most center-left liberals are out there celebrating; the real hardcore lefties, though, think the bill was a massive corporatist sellout to the insurance industry and is worthless without single-payer (they don't even like "public option", -because- it is just an option). some have even advocated teaming up with the Tea Partyers/republicans to stop it, obviously for diametrically opposed reasons.

What cha' gonna do, they are the crazies. :rolleyes:

YellowFever
26 Mar 10,, 09:52
LoL...

The posts on this thread is very funny to me.

All the right wingers call themselves "right wingers" yet all the left wingers call themselves "left leaning moderates" :rolleyes:

Blue
26 Mar 10,, 14:29
All the right wingers call themselves "right wingers" yet all the left wingers call themselves "left leaning moderates" :rolleyes:

You've pointed out an important difference btwn the two types of people here. Right-wingers are not afraid to call themselves what they are. They are honest about what they are and what they do, for the most part anyway.

Lefties and thier ilk, like Obama, Pelosi and the majority of the dem party, can't come out in public and call themselves what they really are..... Socialists. As stupid as the people are that voted for him, they would be less apt to swallow the pill if they didn't label the bottle like they do. Its all marketing, Obama got into office on a brilliant marketing scheme. Would have made PT Barnum and Billy Mays proud!;)

Blue
26 Mar 10,, 14:41
FOXNews.com - Cantor Says Campaign Office Was Shot At, Accuses Dems of Exploiting Threats (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/rep-cantors-richmond-campaign-office-shot-overnight/)

So now Eric Cantors(R) office gets shot at! Hmm?

Rep Jean Schmidt(R) has gotten some really nasty VMs as well.

I would be very leary of tea partiers taking such action. I'm an active TPer and I've said before, this kind of action is not the way. If we have a disagreement we will say it right to your face. We don't need to hide behind anonymous emails and VMs and throw rocks at empty offices.

This crap is either fringe idiots or loose flag ops by the lefties themselves. Obviously it is not reps taking shots at reps, since they ALL voted against the HC Bill.

ShawnG
26 Mar 10,, 14:53
Its all marketing, Obama got into office on a brilliant marketing scheme. Would have made PT Barnum and Billy Mays proud!;)

That's the absolute truth. Being 27 and having a lot of interaction with the younger crowd--especially in college classes--marketing was the only reason. A great number of the people I know voted blue in the election were ignorant of the actual intent and stance held by the Obama administration, and simply voted because they were completely sold on the "McSame" slogan.

It's good to make a decision, but very dangerous to make an uninformed decision.

ShawnG
26 Mar 10,, 14:55
LoL...

The posts on this thread is very funny to me.


Your new avatar is very funny to me, and less of a headache. Your last one made me pop a blood vessel in my eye. :));)

Dreadnought
26 Mar 10,, 15:03
Anybody bother to see the new Headlines this morning from the Dems.

FIXED,PASSED AND DELIVERED!

*More like,

*"FIXED" IN THE BACKROOM DEALS USING EARMARKS FOR SENATORS STATES AS A REWARD FOR BEING A "YES" MAN. EARMARKS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE STOPPED BY THIS ADMINISTRATION BUT APPARENTLY THEY CAN BE USED IN ORDER TO GET THEIR WAY NO MATTER WHAT THEY TELL THE PUBLIC AND THE TAXPAYERS! AMAZING WHAT YOU WILL DO TO THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER FOR THE FUTURE OFFICES OF YOUR PARTY.

*"PASSED" WITH ALL REPUBLICANS VOTING AGAINST AND 30 DEMOCRATS VOTING AGAINST. THIS JUST SHOWS HOW IGNORANT THESE BASTARDS ARE AND HOW SCARED THEY ARE OF BEING A LAME DUCK BEFORE ELECTIONS COME. THE PEOPLE WONT BE FOOLED BY THIS!

*DELIVERED, A HEALTHCARE BILL THAT NOBODY WANTS. ITS PATHETIC TO THINK THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF THE US AND YET THEY PULL THIS BULLSHIT AND ARE IGNORANT ABOUT IT NONE THE LESS.

IMO, I SINCERELY HOPE YOU GET YOU WALKING PAPERS "DELIVERED" COME ELECTION DAY. YOU ARE AN EMBARASSMENT TO THE HARD WORKING PEOPLE OF THE US THAT NOT ONLY TRUSTED YOU BUT PUT YOU THERE IN OFFICE.
YOUR ALL NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF POLITICAL WHORES AND ONE DAY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WILL HOLD ALL OF YOU RESPONSIBLE, AND HOPEFULLY THAT DAY IS COMING VERY VERY SOON! SEE YOU ALL ON ELECTION DAY!

*Has anybody even noticed the new taxes in that bill? You know the ones they slip in until you read the fine print? Read it, you'll be surprised at how this will effect you as a taxpayer and citizen.;)

BenRoethig
26 Mar 10,, 15:26
I can see two groups doing things like this

1) the Tea party crowd.
2) the single payer or bust crowd

Blue
26 Mar 10,, 16:00
I can see two groups doing things like this

1) the Tea party crowd.
2) the single payer or bust crowd

Its not the TPers!! Its fringe nuts!! If you are doing this then you are NOT a TPer!!!!!!!!!!

Dreadnought
26 Mar 10,, 16:02
Personally, I see alot of people outraged at this. Its not that they dont know the country needs Health Reform, They have known this for years, but the way this Congress has gone about this deserves the backlash they are recieving. We also know they dont give a rats ass about the taxpayers because of some of the back room dealings that have been going on and the people who have been influenced due to the future of their party in power.

These clowns have the stones to state we need to be respectful and intelligent and do this in a civilized way? Tell us, where do YOU set the examples, because you surely have not yourselves!

The taxpayers are sick of being ignored and their money wasted on earmarks and rash financial decisions, bail outs etc, decisions that effect all of us. The people had zero say in this matter which should have been voted on by the people of each state and then their respective representitves voice their opinions for them in the Senate and the House. They did neither which negates all of us that put these people in power and trust them with our tax dollars from these important decisions. All they did was work their deals in order to bring you "their" lawyerized version of a bill that they have yet to explain to the American public. There are taxes leveled that many have no idea are included in these bills and all will effect what we care about most...the household income and insurance. All signed ,sealed and delivered just before election season.

Coincidence? I think not! More like assumption of ignorrance of the American people about sums it up that we dont know whats good for us and what we can afford.

ShawnG
26 Mar 10,, 16:55
If I were to mention my opinions on this health care bill to anyone in my classes at school, I would be kicked down the stairs. Already tons of students have mentioned that "I pay x amount of dollars for health care because I'm a part time worker/substitute teacher/etc."

I was actually told by a middle-aged woman, "You wouldn't feel that way if you were about to turn 23 and lose your parents health insurance." (dependent children eligibility extending to 26)

I kept my mouth shut before my reply was, "If I'm 23 and still fully supported by my parents, I would kick my own ass for being a bum." (unless I were pre-med)

gunnut
26 Mar 10,, 17:58
LoL...

The posts on this thread is very funny to me.

All the right wingers call themselves "right wingers" yet all the left wingers call themselves "left leaning moderates" :rolleyes:

Hey who you calling "right winger" here? I'm a registered democrat, damn it!!! I am definitely a moderate. :mad:

YellowFever
26 Mar 10,, 19:03
Your new avatar is very funny to me, and less of a headache. Your last one made me pop a blood vessel in my eye. :));)

Thanks.

It's a self-portrait of myself when I read some of the things tankie writes on this board. :biggrin::biggrin:

highsea
26 Mar 10,, 19:48
...However I must correct you, the democrats did not vote on their own bill, per convention. They "deemed" the senate bill good enough and sent it on to Obama to sign. This "deem and pass" has never been done on a major piece of legislation, only amendments. So it wasn't "fair and square" as you claimed.Gunnut- you weren't following my play-by-play. :biggrin:

They actually voted on both bills, in order (the WSJ had it wrong). The Rules Committee reversed themselves at the last minute. I watched the debates and votes.

This morning Pelosi signed the reconciliation bill amid much cheering and handholding by her cronies, then she blew out a candle on a cupcake (it's her birthday).

She called the bill her "gift" to the American people. :rolleyes:

Bluesman
26 Mar 10,, 19:52
Gunnut- you weren't following my play-by-play. :biggrin:

They actually voted on both bills, in order (the WSJ had it wrong). The Rules Committee reversed themselves at the last minute. I watched the debates and votes.

This morning Pelosi signed the reconciliation bill amid much cheering and handholding by her cronies, then she blew out a candle on a cupcake (it's her birthday).

She called the bill her "gift" to the American people. :rolleyes:

I have the receipt. Can I return it?

gunnut
26 Mar 10,, 19:53
Gunnut- you weren't following my play-by-play. :biggrin:

They actually voted on both bills, in order (the WSJ had it wrong). The Rules Committee reversed themselves at the last minute. I watched the debates and votes.

This morning Pelosi signed the reconciliation bill amid much cheering and handholding by her cronies, then she blew out a candle on a cupcake (it's her birthday).

She called the bill her "gift" to the American people. :rolleyes:

I stand corrected. I was not aware of the last minute rule change.

So today is the birthday of Wicked Witch of the West...I hope she doesn't have any more "gift" to the American people.

Bluesman
26 Mar 10,, 20:04
I stand corrected. I was not aware of the last minute rule change.

So today is the birthday of Wicked Witch of the West...I hope she doesn't have any more "gift" to the American people.

I can't afford all the stuff she and her Party have given me already. I hope that between now and November she doesn't go shopping for me again. And after that...I'm going to help cut up her credit card.

highsea
26 Mar 10,, 20:14
I have the receipt. Can I return it?I'm hoping the court returns it for all of us...

Something else was wonky- Not sure how many people were aware of this, but the reconciliation bill included provisions that completed the Federal takeover of the student loan business. They have "savings" planned and spent from this.

The Senate parliamentarian removed that portion of the bill, said it couldn't be included in reconciliation. Yet on the House floor yesterday, they all talked as if it was still in the bill. Then they appeared to vote those portions as a separate rule before the final vote on the reconciliation bill. It's convoluted- I'm not sure exactly what happened there, but I think they deemed the student loan provisions.

So as part of health care reform, they apparently dumped another $50 Billion or so into the Department of Education. :confused:

dalem
26 Mar 10,, 20:19
Last I checked the Student Loan takeover was in there as of Tuesday night.

-tovarisch dale

highsea
26 Mar 10,, 20:42
It was convoluted, Comrade. I guess the Senate only removed minor parts

House Passes Final Health Care And Student Loan Bill

By Patrick Yoest and Corey Boles, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday put the finishing touches on a sweeping $940 billion health-care overhaul, passing important tax and Medicare changes to a broader measure that became law earlier this week.

By a 220-207, the House passed the supplemental bill, which rewrites several provisions of a wider health-care bill signed into law by President Barack Obama on Tuesday.

The legislation also includes a drastic shake-up of the student loan industry, which bans private lenders from originating student loans. The move had been fiercely opposed by banks and other student lenders.

The bill of fixes was already approved Sunday in the House, but it required another House vote because Senate Republicans successfully argued that two minor student-loan provisions should be struck from the measure.

Senate rules attach special requirements to bills considered under budget reconciliation--a fast-track legislative tactic that was deployed by Democrats to pass the bill.

Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin ruled early Thursday that the two provisions must be stripped from the bill, after Republicans pointed out that they would have minimal revenue effect and were therefore extraneous.

Because the bill was changed in the Senate, it had to bounce back to the House for the second vote. The bill, removed of the two provisions, was passed in the Senate earlier Thursday by a 56-43 vote.

The votes culminate a precarious, but ultimately successful strategy put into motion after Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate with the January election of Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.).

While the larger health-care bill had already been approved in the Senate before Brown's victory, the second, smaller bill was devised to accommodate changes sought by House Democrats to the original bill.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that, together, the bills will extend insurance coverage to 32 million Americans.

Perhaps most notably, the bill passed Thursday would scale back an excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans and delay its effect until 2018. Another provision would make the legislation's subsidies to purchase private insurance more generous.

With the loss of a Senate seat in the Massachusetts special election, Democrats currently hold a 59-41 majority in the Senate, while 60 votes are needed to break a filibuster. So they hatched a plan to pass the second bill under budget reconciliation, which allowed them to bypass a filibuster and pass the measure by a simple majority of 51 votes.

The reconciliation bill closes a politically unpopular gap in prescription drug coverage under Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors.

House Democrats emphatically opposed a provision in the first bill that would give Nebraska aid to pay for all of the costs of an expansion of the low-income Medicaid program. In the reconciliation bill, that provision was extended to all states.

Another provision in the reconciliation bill levies a 3.8% Medicare payroll tax on investment income, including capital gains and dividends.

And while the excise tax on high-cost insurance plans will initially have a smaller impact than under the original bill, the threshold at which it would be triggered will grow at a lower rate and will thus affect more people in the future.

People who do not purchase insurance would, in some cases, face stiffer penalties as part of a provision that takes effect in 2014, as part of a change in the reconciliation bill. The annual penalty for individuals who don't purchase insurance would reach $695 or 2.5% of taxable income--whichever is higher--in 2016.

In the Senate, Republicans sought to scuttle the reconciliation bill by amending it, which required a marathon series of votes on the measure lasting from Wednesday evening until past 2 a.m. EDT Thursday morning.

Their amendments ranged from symbolic to substantive, but Democrats were able to defeat every one of them.

One highly publicized measure offered by Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) would bar insurance coverage of erectile-dysfunction drugs for sex offenders.

-By Patrick Yoest and Corey Boles, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-3554; patrick.yoest@dowjones.com

House Passes Final Health Care And Student Loan Bill (http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201003252117dowjonesdjonline000 860&title=house-passes-final-health-care-and-student-loan-bill)

chakos
26 Mar 10,, 22:29
However I must correct you, the democrats did not vote on their own bill, per convention. They "deemed" the senate bill good enough and sent it on to Obama to sign. This "deem and pass" has never been done on a major piece of legislation, only amendments. So it wasn't "fair and square" as you claimed.


You misunderstood what i was implying. I wasn't talking about the bill, i was talking about the election. They where voted in fair and square. Once in i expect any political party of any persuasion to use whatever dirty tricks it can in order to pass its policies (or to stop the other side passing its policies if its in the opposition). Its politics, lets not get too precious here and get upset when politicians do what politicians do.

I could count on one hand the amount of ethical, moral and fair playing politicians throughout the world. Its not what they do and both you and i know better.

Julie
27 Mar 10,, 01:26
The American dream now is just a dream. America is no longer unique.

This administration hasn't done anything about jobs, cuz they never intend to. They had rather the economy be stressed so they will have an excuse to "help us."

DO ANY OF YOU REALIZE WHAT THAT MEANS????

It means, THEY NO LONGER WORK FOR US......WE WORK FOR THEM.

America is now a monopoly board and our Government is the banker. You know when you land on the "Pay Taxes $75.00?" Well, it's no longer $75.00, but far, far from it.

I don't think I love America anymore....I don't even think I like her. I'm feeling very unpatriotic. :frown:

Shoot me.....please. :mad:

Julie
27 Mar 10,, 03:54
Thanks.

It's a self-portrait of myself when I read some of the things tankie writes on this board. :biggrin::biggrin:It gives me a headache. :redface:

Speaking of avatars....how far have you came creating mine? :confused:

Or, have you forgotten? :(

Blue
27 Mar 10,, 06:07
The American dream now is just a dream. America is no longer unique.

This administration hasn't done anything about jobs, cuz they never intend to. They had rather the economy be stressed so they will have an excuse to "help us."

DO ANY OF YOU REALIZE WHAT THAT MEANS????

It means, THEY NO LONGER WORK FOR US......WE WORK FOR THEM.

America is now a monopoly board and our Government is the banker. You know when you land on the "Pay Taxes $75.00?" Well, it's no longer $75.00, but far, far from it.

I don't think I love America anymore....I don't even think I like her. I'm feeling very unpatriotic. :frown:

Shoot me.....please. :mad:

Wipe off the sweat and drive on trooper! Don't give up the fight! Its just getting started!;)

highsea
27 Mar 10,, 18:21
Easy does it Julie. ;)

We are just at one extreme of a cycle- things can't stay this way, this country won't put up with it.

$20 trillion in debt in 2020? I don't think so. There would be a revolution, and they know it.

A hell of a lot of conservatives sat on the sidelines last election, they won't make the same mistake twice.

dalem
27 Mar 10,, 18:31
Easy does it Julie. ;)

We are just at one extreme of a cycle- things can't stay this way, this country won't put up with it.

$20 trillion in debt in 2020? I don't think so. There would be a revolution, and they know it.

A hell of a lot of conservatives sat on the sidelines last election, they won't make the same mistake twice.

But what about all of this "can't be repealed, settle for something less" talk? I admit that my morale is pretty low this week.

-dale

Julie
27 Mar 10,, 18:44
Easy does it Julie. ;)

We are just at one extreme of a cycle- things can't stay this way, this country won't put up with it.

$20 trillion in debt in 2020? I don't think so. There would be a revolution, and they know it.

A hell of a lot of conservatives sat on the sidelines last election, they won't make the same mistake twice.I just can't understand how Americans let it get this far off track...:confused: I just can't believe it.

bonehead
27 Mar 10,, 19:09
Its easy. Nearly half of the population believes the democrats can do no wrong and nearly half believe the republicans can do no wrong. So, people fight bicker and back stab, but too few want to wake up and realize that both parties have turned their back on the people and sold out to the highest bidder/special interest group. What we are stuck with is the system where the power vacillates between two political parties and neither party cares for the country or the people that live here. We the people are looked at as nothing but collateral damage to both political party's as they care about nothing but pushing their own agendas at all cost. To continue down this road and expect some miracle turn around, or change for the better, is nothing short of insanity. The sad thing is that it has been this way for decades and only now are some people waking up to this fact.

highsea
27 Mar 10,, 19:26
dale- repeal is not possible, either in political or practical terms. But there are things that can be done. Beaurocracies can be defunded. Mandates can be killed in court. There are provisions that can be repealed or amended to make them useful. Obama won't go along, so the repubs will have to go back to some of the standard tactics that the dems are using today (and the repubs have used in the past). i.e. attach the provisions to Defense, Foreign Operations, or Homeland Security appropriations. Distasteful, but necessary if the President won't go along. It will have to be piece-by-piece, but repairs can be made.

julie- apathy. Most of us don't really want to be involved in Washington politics. We have our own problems to deal with. So we count on our representatives. But they have failed us, and now we have no choice, so we'll do what we should have done 15 months ago. In November we'll make the change in the Congress, and we'll start working to undo the damage.

Time will pass, apathy will set back in among conservatives, liberals will mobilize again, and we'll repeat the cycle.

We outnumber them, but it only matters if we get out and vote.

dalem
27 Mar 10,, 20:10
The thing that saps me right now is that certain things should just Not Be Done. When the Republicans impeached Clinton I said the same thing - they never should have put the American President in the position to perjure himself in the first place. Now every time a president does something someone doesn't like it's "Impeach him!" I heard some well-intended fool on Medved's show yesterday pushing for impeachment of Obama, for Eff's sake.

Impeachment? Over policy disagreements? Please.

And now it's the same thing - the Dems have shown that they are willing to f*ck things into a cocked hat no matter what, as long as their agenda goal is met. It's the equivalent of raising someone $500 in a friendly neighborhood poker game - it's Just Not Done.

So now they did it, so now the only thing to answer if that's the game they want to to play is settle for nothing less than supermajorities, and settle for nothing less than fundamental change according to the Power De Jure's philosophy. There is no more middle ground.

That's not what people want, but now that's what we have been shown the game to be, and if we want to sit in, that's the price. In 100 years we'll be hanging each other from telephone poles down I-95 after every election.

And sure, that's easily dismissed as hyperbole, and moderation will return, but it'll be moderation in a Socialist state, and another generation of people will grow up with their eyes on Washington D.C. instead of on the horizon.

So if the Left wants to play the Reset game, I say fine, I'll sit at that table. But when it's our turn let's go Conservative-Libertarian apesh!t on their asses and make them start from their own zero.

-dale

highsea
27 Mar 10,, 21:20
dale- you're right about that. The dems never forgave the repubs for the Clinton debacle, and handed it back in spades to Bush. Remember Dick Durbin on the House floor comparing Bush to Pol Pot?

Everything is politicized.

In the 2004 elections, there were a series of terrorist threats that caused Tom Ridge to raise the alert level just prior to the election. At the time, Kerry was on his bus on the way to a big speech. Bush didn't want him to be caught off guard by reporters when he got to his event, but didn't know how to get hold of him. There was a woman working in the White House that knew a guy on the Kerrry bus- so she called him on his cell, and they were able to get the word to Kerry, so he could be prepared for questions.

The Bush administration did their best to keep it low-key, but they felt they had to raise the threat level because the threats were credible. And still the left politicized the crap out of it, and ignored the substance.

I don't know how you resolve that. It's insinuated itself into every aspect of Washington politics.

All I know is we have to keep up the good fight, and do our best to mitigate the damage that is already done. We absolutely have to reel in this uncontrolled spending- there's no option.

We just have to mobilize. We need to all get out and vote, and take back the Congress. A republican Congress can hold Obama in check till 2012, and take back the unspent bailout and porkulus money.

Julie
27 Mar 10,, 21:42
We outnumber them, but it only matters if we get out and vote.Bingo. Right now I think I'm more irate at the non-voters this last election than the dingbats now in office for the simple fact that people stayed home cuz they didn't want to vote McCain/Palin. I wasn't crazy about the idea, but I voted not so much for them, but AGAINST what is in there now.

If those that stayed home and didn't vote cuz they didn't want to be a part of the political process....well, their arses are damn sure going to be a part of it now ! :mad:

highsea
27 Mar 10,, 21:51
atta girl Julie. Stay mad.

I always vote, and it's always because I want to vote against any and all tax increases. It's extremely rare that I see something or someone that I actually want to vote for.

Like the South Park episode- it's always between a douche and a turd. :tongue:

Julie
27 Mar 10,, 22:34
Like the South Park episode- it's always between a douche and a turd. :tongue:You said it ! :biggrin:

2DREZQ
27 Mar 10,, 23:30
Lost in all of this is the near certainty that the cost of this "entitlement" (For that is what it will become in time.), coupled with a national debt that will push us into insolvency in less than ten years, will require a MASSIVE retrenchment in US military spending and commitments worldwide-Pax Americana is about to end with a whimper. The thing that puzzles me is; Obama and the dems in congress HAD to know this would be the outcome. It is almost as if they WANTED us to...

Time for more medication.

(Hi everybody, did I miss anything?)

Officer of Engineers
27 Mar 10,, 23:49
(Hi everybody, did I miss anything?)Confed and TopHatter's Liberal got married and had a baby girl. Think Shek got two more kids since you've last visited. Bigross went off to the 2006 War and thank the heavens he is safe. Firral was in the Georgian War and returned safe. Bluesman left the USAF but still doing the work as a civie.

And Pluto got demoted from a planet to a rock and is sulking in the dark.

That's off the top of my head ... welcome back.

highsea
27 Mar 10,, 23:52
...Obama and the dems in congress HAD to know this would be the outcome. It is almost as if they WANTED us to...Of course they knew.

That's why we can spend $36 Billion in pell grants, but we can't afford $1.4 Billion for another 14 F-22's.

That's why we scrap missile defense in europe for an alternative plan that is more expensive- because we'll never build the ships to actually implement the alternative plan.

And Pluto had it coming. Lazy planet never did anything anyway...

welcome back. :))

Julie
27 Mar 10,, 23:52
The thing that puzzles me is; Obama and the dems in congress HAD to know this would be the outcome. It is almost as if they WANTED us to...Oh, they know, they just don't give a damn. :mad:

Heh he, Sara Palin went to Harry's Reid's state and told him he was fired. You go girl !!

"Outside the dusty Nevada meeting grounds, the campers and cars rolled up carrying signs proclaiming, "Russia called, they want their socialism back," and "Follow me to Harry Reid's retirement party." At center stage, Sarah Palin had her audience. As the wind blew the flapping American flags behind her, Palin let 'er rip. The big government, big spending era in Washington is about to end, Palin announced. "You're fired!" she informed Senate Majority Leader Reid, President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi." ...

Sarah Palin in Nevada, Tells Sen. Reid: 'You're Fired!' -- Politics Daily (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/27/sarah-palin-in-nevada-tells-sen-reid-youre-fired/?icid=main|compaq-desktop|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.c om%2F2010%2F03%2F27%2Fsarah-palin-in-nevada-tells-sen-reid-youre-fired%2F)

Hey, pass me some of those meds....:redface:

2DREZQ
28 Mar 10,, 00:45
And Pluto got demoted from a planet to a rock and is sulking in the dark.

Dont think of it as SOL losing a planet, think of it as the Kuiper Belt gaining a...rock?

2DREZQ
28 Mar 10,, 00:48
I'm about 5% done reading the new law. 2409 pages. see you all again, soon.

Julie
28 Mar 10,, 00:59
I'm about 5% done reading the new law. 2409 pages. see you all again, soon.Let us know if you find anything worth mentioning.

Officer of Engineers
28 Mar 10,, 01:31
Dont think of it as SOL losing a planet, think of it as the Kuiper Belt gaining a...rock?How's your son doing btw? And your daughter got her sniper badge yet?

Mihais
28 Mar 10,, 10:54
Op-Ed Columnist - The Rage Is Not About Health Care - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html)

Can't say I disagree with the title.

2DREZQ
28 Mar 10,, 15:37
How's your son doing btw? And your daughter got her sniper badge yet?

He will be returning from Okinawa in a few weeks. He was going to MacDill in WA, but swapped with someone to get Minot, ND. He likes the military, "Dad, I'm really good at this." Gets superb evals.(Firewall 5 ??) and may go career.
He was able to return stateside this summer on leave in time to see his grandfather before he passed away. Daughter is doing well, on her 3rd run through college now, still dont like her boyfriend much.

2DREZQ
28 Mar 10,, 15:52
Let us know if you find anything worth mentioning.

Insurance companies will be required to return a part of the profits to individuals in the form of rebates. something to do with premium increases and some govt fuctionary (not a typo) seems to determine what "excess" means down the road.

LMA
28 Mar 10,, 16:57
Secondly, Its goddamn health care...The didn't dissolve congress, Obama didn't vote himself in as El Presidente for life, if you don't like it, vote against the Dems next time round. Theres no need whatsoever to act as if this is the start of a civil war or the next moment the U.S. flag will be red with a hammer and sickle where the stars used to be.



It's about way more than health care !!! It's about Politicians ignoring the Constitution, giving themselves powers they don't have.... individual mandates, telling states how they will regulate health care, telling unions the Cadillac law doesn't apply to them. It's about back room deals to the 10th degree. It's about painting those who disagree with you as not understanding or Now violent. It's about an entitlement program that was fraudulently sold to Americans... the way it was passed, the numbers they fed to the CBO ( removing the doctor fix, double counting the medicare money, ) it's about expanding government... let's add in the student loans which will cause job loss in the private sector, and job growth in the government .. IT'S ABOUT REDISTRUBUTION OF WEALTH.. Obama said it during the campaign, Baccus says it on a YouTube about health care, Rangle says it's socialism.


My dad was a policeman, he had many protective detail assignments, guarding the mayor who had death threats, bomb threats being extra security when a president came through town.. there have always been crazies! To say that because citizens are stridently opposed to legislation because they are vocal, and angry that therefore makes them violent is absurd!!

dalem
29 Mar 10,, 04:08
Like the South Park episode- it's always between a douche and a turd. :tongue:

I prefer my own analogy: You're gonna get shot, and you have a choice between a .22LR in the butt or a .44 Magnum in the belly. But you're GONNA get shot regardless- make your choice.

-dale

JAD_333
29 Mar 10,, 05:18
Op-Ed Columnist - The Rage Is Not About Health Care - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html)

Can't say I disagree with the title.

Let's see, we have one spitting incident, one slur against a gay Congressman, one racial remark against a black Congressman, a handful of broken windows and the usual assortment of threats. These incidents insofar as I can tell are being selectively amplified by the MSM that knows a good story when it sees one. Every Sunday morning talk show spent an obligatory 10 mins hand wringing over the incivility of a few angry people and hardly a moment on why they were angry.

dalem
29 Mar 10,, 07:00
CEO of a major bank a year ago gets cold-cocked in his gym and everyone cheers. A few rumors of bother for the few people who run this government and folks have their skirts up in a twitter.

I'd be glad to see the tar and feathers come out for some of these Congresscritters. Remind 'em who they work for, the arrogant fecks.

-dale

Bigfella
29 Mar 10,, 09:18
Let's see, we have one spitting incident, one slur against a gay Congressman, one racial remark against a black Congressman, a handful of broken windows and the usual assortment of threats. These incidents insofar as I can tell are being selectively amplified by the MSM that knows a good story when it sees one. Every Sunday morning talk show spent an obligatory 10 mins hand wringing over the incivility of a few angry people and hardly a moment on why they were angry.


Same old same old. Anyone who has ever gone to a protest knows that the most extreme sign or flag & the scruffiest/most dangerous looking protester will get the attention while the other 90%+ of the crowd get short shrift. Indeed, the extremists who are holding those signs or behaving aggressively often count on it.

My personal favourite was during my student days when a crowd of over 10,000 was represented in one daily with a photo of a girl with a blue mohawk & a pet rat. On another occasion the one red flag in a crowd of thousands got the pic.

Nothing new under the sun I'm afraid.

Mihais
29 Mar 10,, 11:07
Let's see, we have one spitting incident, one slur against a gay Congressman, one racial remark against a black Congressman, a handful of broken windows and the usual assortment of threats. These incidents insofar as I can tell are being selectively amplified by the MSM that knows a good story when it sees one. Every Sunday morning talk show spent an obligatory 10 mins hand wringing over the incivility of a few angry people and hardly a moment on why they were angry.

JAD,with all the respect,the point of the article was about a bigger trend.It wasn't about broken windows,nor media manipulations.The columnist's idea was about changing demographics and the accompanying change in culture(I agree with him on this matter).His corollary was that GOP and his mainly white constituents are facing doom and an inevitable loss of power(I don't think is so inevitable).It's also about cracks in the society.The rest were the usual buzzwords and labels of the left,demonization of the other side,etc...(not unlike the analogous labels and buzzwords of the right).I skipped the BS.

Bigfella
29 Mar 10,, 12:37
See, right away you make it personal. I don't know what it is about me that causes you such distress, but I'm glad I still have it. :)

-dale

...well since you appear to be sticking around.

Sorry to dissappoint, but your opinions couldn't distress me on your worst day. In fact, I am a regular reader of your little blog. It is hilarious. Look forward to your account of life as a 'serf'.

JAD_333
29 Mar 10,, 14:24
Same old same old. Anyone who has ever gone to a protest knows that the most extreme sign or flag & the scruffiest/most dangerous looking protester will get the attention while the other 90%+ of the crowd get short shrift. Indeed, the extremists who are holding those signs or behaving aggressively often count on it.

My personal favourite was during my student days when a crowd of over 10,000 was represented in one daily with a photo of a girl with a blue mohawk & a pet rat. On another occasion the one red flag in a crowd of thousands got the pic.

Nothing new under the sun I'm afraid.


But, interestingly, many local papers and broadcast news outlets will focus on the ordinary people at a demonstration especially if they're from area they serve. We're close to Washington, and the Washington Post, considered MSM, is available in--I'm estimating--1 out 10 places where papers are sold. People here trust more in two local dailies and several weeklies for the news.

dalem
29 Mar 10,, 18:12
...well since you appear to be sticking around.

Sorry to dissappoint, but your opinions couldn't distress me on your worst day. In fact, I am a regular reader of your little blog. It is hilarious. Look forward to your account of life as a 'serf'.

Excellent. Let me know if you have trouble with any of the big words.

-dale

Bigfella
29 Mar 10,, 21:18
Excellent. Let me know if you have trouble with any of the big words.

-dale

...but you don't use big words, just hysterical ones like 'serf'.

highsea
29 Mar 10,, 21:33
blech. :(

dalem
29 Mar 10,, 22:54
blech. :(

Sorry folks, I thought he might ignore me, but he can't so I've put him back on my Ignore list. Maybe I shoulda stayed away after all.

-dale

Bluesman
29 Mar 10,, 23:33
Sorry folks, I thought he might ignore me, but he can't so I've put him back on my Ignore list. Maybe I shoulda stayed away after all.

-dale

Tell ya, man: declare him dead, and treat him so. Oh, it gets a bit tough to do that when somebody quotes him (lookin' right at ya, buddy). But apart from posts from beyond the grave, it gives a sense of peace to think that you've virtually Hellfire'd his ass into WAB Afterlife.:cool:

Anybody that's an out-and-proud socialist has nothing good to contribute. He may be ignored with absolutely NO cost to anybody else.

dalem
30 Mar 10,, 00:15
Tell ya, man: declare him dead, and treat him so. Oh, it gets a bit tough to do that when somebody quotes him (lookin' right at ya, buddy). But apart from posts from beyond the grave, it gives a sense of peace to think that you've virtually Hellfire'd his ass into WAB Afterlife.:cool:

Anybody that's an out-and-proud socialist has nothing good to contribute. He may be ignored with absolutely NO cost to anybody else.

Oh it's not the lefty mouth gas that irks me - he's much more informed and logical about his views (I didn't know he's got full-blown Commie, that's too bad) than some that frequent these topics. It's his inability to stay away from the personal that spins me up. Kinda like that guy CMplayer on the old CM Pol Forum - turns me into Kevin Kline's character from "A Fish Called Wanda" every time: "Don't call me stupid!"

-dale

astralis
30 Mar 10,, 03:55
alright, that's enough of the personal attacks, guys.

Julie
30 Mar 10,, 04:39
Maybe we should rename this thread to read, "The backlash: Reform turns social." :))

dalem
30 Mar 10,, 06:50
alright, that's enough of the personal attacks, guys.

Like I said, I've already got him back on Ignore, and I dunno how long I'm going to stay active in the Politics forum anyway. Not a lot has changed in a year.

-dale

2DREZQ
30 Mar 10,, 16:39
Like I said, I've already got him back on Ignore, and I dunno how long I'm going to stay active in the Politics forum anyway. Not a lot has changed in a year.

-dale

Keep talking. I'm listening.

JAD_333
31 Mar 10,, 06:34
Well put:


Daily Telegraph (London Edition)
March 22, 2010, By Nile Gardiner

Congress health care vote: a dark day for freedom in America

The passage last night of Barack Obama's health care reform bill through the House of Representatives is yet another blow to freedom in America inflicted by the Obama administration. The legislation, which comes at a staggering cost of $940 billion, will hugely add to the already towering national debt, now at over $12 trillion. It is yet another millstone round the necks of the American people, already faced with the highest levels of unemployment in a generation.

It is also a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America's founding fathers. It has also been rushed through Congress without proper scrutiny, in the face of overwhelming public opposition, and with not an ounce of bipartisan support.

Above all the health care bill is a thinly disguised vanity project for a president who is committed to transforming the United States from the world's most successful large-scale free enterprise economy, to a highly interventionist society with a massive role for centralized government. The United States has thrived as a nation for over 230 years precisely because of its love for freedom and its belief in free markets.

What we have just witnessed is a massive slap in the face for limited government and the principle of individual responsibility. Its net result will be the erosion of freedom in America, and a further undermining of the country's economic competitiveness. This may be a political victory for the president and his supporters in Congress, but it is in reality a defeat for America as a great power, and another Obama-led step towards US decline.

Bluesman
31 Mar 10,, 07:09
Absolutely right. You people that supported and abbetted this really have no idea what you've done.

ShawnG
31 Mar 10,, 13:37
Well put:

Very well said. I was trying to think of how to summarize everything, but every time I would try I came up with a novel because I would get more and more p!ssed off when thinking/talking about it.

Bluesman
04 Apr 10,, 13:30
Huh...well, whaddaya know? Turns out all that racial slurring was totally made up, a reverse-smear by the lying Democrats (but I repeat myself). I think I may have made mention that this was going to be a BS story when I heard it, and I've been proven correct.

AGAIN.


Power Line Blog: John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff
Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com)
HomeMobileResponsesAbout UsContact UsArchivesPodcasts
The Democrats' Fake Hate Crime
Share Post Print
April 3, 2010 Posted by John at 10:36 PM
We have followed closely the biggest scandal of the past year, the Democrats' false claim that anti-Obamacare protesters hurled racial epithets at three black Democrats who waded into their protest in the apparent hope of stimulating such a response. The Democrats failed--no surprise there--but decided to lie and pretend that their mission had been successful. Mark Steyn sums up the scandal in The Democrats' Fake Hate Crime:

On March 20th, something truly extraordinary happened. On the eve of the health care vote, a group of black Democrat Congressmen (eschewing the private tunnels they usually use to cross from their offices to the Capitol) chose to walk en masse through a crowd of protesters, confident that the knuckledragging Tea Party goons they and their media pals have reviled for a year now would respond with racial epithets.

And then, when the crowd didn't, the black Congressmen made it up anyway. Representative Andre Carson (Democrat, Indiana) insisted he heard the N-word 15 times. He's either suffering from the same condition as that Guam-flipper from Georgia, or he's a liar. At a scene packed not only with crews from the Dem poodle media but with a gazillion cellphone cameras, not one single N-word has been caught on audio. (By contrast, see my post yesterday for how easy it is to get it on tape when real epithets are flying.)

I disagree with John Lewis (Democrat, Georgia) politically but I have always respected him as a genuine civil rights warrior. And I feel slightly queasy at the thought that he would dishonor both the movement and his own part in it for the cheapest of partisan points - in the same way I would be disgusted by a Holocaust survivor painting a swastika on his own door and blaming it on his next-door neighbor over a boundary dispute.

But that's what the Democratic Party has been reduced to - faking hate crimes as pathetically as any lonely, mentally ill college student. Congressmen Carson, Lewis, Cleaver and the rest have turned themselves into the Congressional equivalent of the Duke University stripper. Except that they're not some penniless loser but a group of important, influential lifetime legislators enjoying all the privileges and perquisites of power, and in all probability acting at the behest of the Democrat leadership.

Isn't that what societies with functioning media used to call "a story"?

Apparently not. As they did at Duke, the brain-dead press went along with it - and so, predictably enough, did much of the Republican leadership.

Whether our news media want to acknowledge it or not, the Democrats' shameless smear tactic is a huge story, one that will resonate with millions of voters between now and November.

Andrew Breitbart smelled a Democrat rat right off the bat when he heard of this highly improbable hatefulness from the Tea Partiers, and put up a $100,000 reward for anybody that could give him recorded audio that confirmed what the Democratic congressmen were accusing innocent Americans that were exercising their First Amendment free speech rights of yelling racial epithets.

He's going to be keeping his money.

Democrats are going to be keeping their bad reputations.

Julie
04 Apr 10,, 13:47
Democrats are going to be keeping their bad reputations.How pathetic. :(

dalem
04 Apr 10,, 17:02
My favorites are the horrified acting jobs of "I can't believe people are calling the President a (fill in blank)!" from all the lefty journos. As if they think we don't remember the labels and signs and editorials and articles and movies and protesters that called Bush every name in the book for years.

-dale

Julie
04 Apr 10,, 22:09
I would like to contribute this that I came across since it is so interesting:

Hey moonbats of Massachusetts - why won’t you pay more taxes?

You’re always lecturing the rest of us how taxes are an investment in the future, the price we pay for civilization, etc., etc. But when given the option of personally paying your fair share, hey, come back here, you pony-tailed trust-fund recipient you.

Put your hands up and step away from the Prius - slowly. What about the children?

As the deadline for filing 2009 state income taxes nears, once again the Beautiful People of Massachusetts are proving that while they enjoy talking the talk, walking the walk is another thing altogether.

We have a two-tier income tax in this state, you know. You have the option of paying either at the standard rate of 5.3 percent, or at the old, higher 5.85percent rate.

As of Wednesday, here are this years numbers, according to the state DOR:

Of 1,840,000 state tax filers, exactly 931 have opted to pay taxes at the higher rate. That works out to one-twentieth of one percent. Think of it this way: In 2000, only 60 percent of the Massachusetts electorate voted to cut the income tax, but a decade later 99.95 percent of the population has decided to take advantage of the tax cut a lot of them claimed they didn’t want or need.

The moonbat motto is: Do as I say, not as I do. Consider the charitable deductions (or lack thereof) of the most sanctimonious liberal politicians: Obama, Biden, Kerry. They throw around quarters - their own, anyway - like they were manhole covers. But they would gladly give you the shirt off somebody else’s back.

In Massachusetts, these 931 volunteers had to come up with an additional $54,500, enough to pay Billy Bulger’s pension for just over three months. So the average volunteer moonbat who decided to pay the extra .55 percent this year had a 2009 income of about $12,000.

As pitiful as those numbers are, they’re better than they were at this time last year, when 1.831 million taxpayers had filed, and only 731 ponied up. But those 731 chipped in $70,232, which means last year’s moonbats had an average income of $19,000.

Of course these Birkenstock-clad carpetbaggers from New York have their excuses for not paying the higher taxes they’re so adamant about wanting to impose on the rest of us. After all, they do a lot of public service . . . sending those no-nonsense letters to the editor of the boring broadsheet they no longer pay to read, putting the blast on greedy Republicans. Plus nowadays they write their own blogs denouncing the troop buildup in Afghanistan and how high gasoline prices are bankrupting the country and it’s all Bush’s . . . er, never mind.

I forgot to ask Gov. Deval Patrick Thursday if he’s volunteering to pay more taxes this year, so I e-mailed the question to his office Friday. No response, which I guess means he stands with that 99.95 percent of his constituents.

Moonbats wing it when it comes to paying more taxes - BostonHerald.com (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20100404moonbats_wing_it_when_it_comes_to_paying_m ore_taxes/)

Chunder
06 Apr 10,, 12:37
I don't know how many issues of TIME I've read regarding the health care debate - but I still find the tenure of the debate considerably confusing.

In any reform of the health system past just like present there has been considerable angst. Just like in reform past, documents containing many pages of detail on what is in essence a speculative attempt to address some underlying problems in the system are bound to cause disagreement. But the party line voting is a shame to citizens they are supposed to be representing - as is the people using the party line voting as a means to make ideological hay for dubious reasons signing on the clowns bandied together in the enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality. (In such a large document is it any surprise)

IMO I feel like chakos - it's absurd that either party could claim the moral high ground
... The US can't deliver proper healthcare to returned servicemen seriously for petes sake... and one expects either persuasion to have the answers? It's crazy! The Sad reality of health care is that politically you need to play around with it and waste billions trying to find a good mix between a dogs breakfast or dining off someone elses puke from the night before.

Clarification. It's a mess here too. But it is repeatedly on the agenda either side of the political spectrum, and it's long since been on the agenda. But our problems are focussed on the aspects of government regulation of universal healthcare, and many serious problems that legislation that has remained relatively dormant.

If we went ahead and repealed Medicare, we would be in all sorts of shit. Sure I wouldn't have to pay a medicare levy (a pivvling, pissant amount of my taxable income, which ensures I remain fit to pay more taxes in the future which some seem to have a problem with being taxed for - who wants to be taxed anyway)! But the breakdown in the established system would be hell. Like it will be for you guys, except that your already behind the 8 ball.

This thing needs 10 years to sort itself out. The thing is, any health reform has to pass through a myriad of political conciliations that make it pretty much all point in the same direction. It is no real coincidence that most of the 1st world have similar health systems in their workings. I'd wage the Republicans on the present approach will take Trillions upon trillions out of the economy and into the nations debt sheets by trying to repeal it. If they are not so brazenly shoving the middle finger at the low income workers of America. Not Even defence comes close to the existing cost projections.

It's pretty hard saying that because unfortunately as the pre-medicare medico's in Australia pointed out, the system was far more efficient without medicare - but they were days of better civic responsibility / ethos / entrepreneurial traits (even then there were considerable problems) But universal healthcare is the way the world seems headed where people expect service handed to them on a platter. The U.S seems constrained to the old text book of muddying the waters, confusing the average punter, pouring labels on each other, and gaining support for their ideologues from the ignorant masses. If Walter Reid isn't an eye opener for just what these people actually know about delivering health services, let alone assuring it's funding - why the beejeesus would the punter trust what they've got to tell you? All they try to do is sell the public a message, whilst the medico's roll their eyes in angst about how serious deficiencies in the system seem to be getting a blind eye.

ZekeJones
06 Apr 10,, 14:22
'Representative Andre Carson (Democrat, Indiana) insisted he heard the N-word 15 times.'

Interesting that he is involved, both he and his grandmother are known for playing the race card in Indianapolis. The area that they both served is heavily black and poor, but that is changing as the more wealthy are moving back to Center Township to be closer to the center of Indy. And there is talk of him not getting re-elected as his policies and political maneuvers are not liked by anyone, and it is his connection to his grandmother that got him elected.

troung
09 Apr 10,, 04:28
Prosecutors: Pelosi feared for family after calls
By JASON DEAREN, Associated Press Writer Jason Dearen, Associated Press Writer 43 mins ago

SAN FRANCISCO – The man charged with threatening House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was so livid over the health care overhaul that he made at least 48 calls to her offices and homes, leading the Democrat to fear that her family might be in danger, federal prosecutors said Thursday.

Gregory Lee Giusti, 48, of San Francisco cried and looked disheveled in a gray T-shirt and khakis as he appeared for the first time before Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman, who said Giusti may have bipolar disorder and should be receiving treatment.

Zimmerman initially refused a request by Giusti to be released to a halfway house, saying he would be able to walk away from such a facility.

Prosecutors said Giusti made at least four dozen calls to the San Francisco and Washington, D.C., offices of Pelosi between Feb. 6 and March 25.

Pelosi told the FBI the caller had used "extremely vulgar and crude language" on two occasions when she answered the phone at her Washington residence. She also thought her family might be in danger.

In one recorded call, Giusti said, "if you pass this freaking health care plan don't bother coming back to California cause you ain't gonna have a place to live," according to a transcript of the message included in an amended complaint.

Officials said the caller often recited Pelosi's home address and said if she wanted to see it again, she should not support the health care overhaul bill that since has been enacted.

Giusti left at least two recorded messages containing threats involving one of Pelosi's residences in Northern California, according to the complaint.

The calls and messages spurred an investigation by U.S. Capitol Police, who found the caller was using a "Magic Jack" device registered to someone other than Giusti. The device allows users to make calls over the Internet, and choose the area code where the calls originate.

Police interviewed the man who held the Magic Jack account, who knew Giusti and led authorities to him.

Giusti initially denied making the calls but later told investigators he had phoned Pelosi about a half-dozen times, called her a witch and said he did not like her "pushing the health care bill down the people's throats," the complaint stated.

During Thursday's hearing, the magistrate told the U.S. attorney's office to interview Giusti further to determine if he was mentally competent enough to be released to a halfway house or if he should continue to be detained because he posed a threat.

A detention hearing was scheduled for Monday.

U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello said Giusti had crossed the line between free speech and threats.

Giusti was charged with one count of making obscene, threatening or harassing phone calls to a member of Congress. No plea was entered, and Giusti did not speak, except to say and spell his name when asked. He was being held without bail.

Giusti sat in a jury box speaking with a federal public defender before the hearing. The magistrate appointed counsel for Giusti after determining he could not afford to hire a lawyer.

If convicted, Giusti could receive a two-year prison sentence, $250,000 fine and one year of supervised release.

During an interview in New York, Pelosi said she doesn't know more than she did when she found out Wednesday about the arrest. She declined further comment on the case, citing the ongoing investigation.

Giusti has had legal troubles in the past because of threatening behavior.

In 2004 he was sentenced to a year in jail for a felony violation of threatening to kill a conductor on a commuter train, authorities said.

Last year, Hamilton Square Baptist Church in San Francisco sued Giusti, asking a court to order him to cease a campaign of harassment against people associated with the church, court documents show. The suit is pending.

Giusti also had a 1991 misdemeanor conviction for making telephone calls with the intent to annoy.

___

Associated Press Writer Laurie Kellman in New York and Associated Press Writer Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

JAD_333
09 Apr 10,, 05:16
The number of threats related to the health care bill is unusually high, but threats are stock in trade for elected officials. The dems going public with the threats they've gotten following the health care vote is a bit by design to discredit the opposition. Every long-serving member of Congress has received tens of threats since taking office. The usual drill is to low-key them.


For many lawmakers, anonymous threats are seen as part of the job and typically shrugged off. The Federal Bureau of Investigation doesn’t count them. The US Capitol Police rarely comments on them.

Norman Leboon charges: threats against Congress nothing new / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0329/Norman-Leboon-charges-threats-against-Congress-nothing-new)

Julie
09 Apr 10,, 05:54
Nancy Pelosi being threatened...imagine that. :eek:

dalem
09 Apr 10,, 08:31
Hey, I'm all for the tar and feathers for these jackholes and their contempt for me. But threats are low class. Best threat is to unseat the dimwitted ho-bag in November - either un-elect her or turn her back into the Listener of the House, and then don't say anything to her except "Cream, no sugar".

The older I get the more I resent and see as unwise the elevation of elected officials. I mean, I'm a citizen, they're just a congressman, or judge, or president, or governor, or whatever. I'm not saying Go Roman on the deal, but hell's bells, we've got plenty more gasbags where they came from should we ever need one.

The job isn't that hard.

-dale

astralis
09 Apr 10,, 13:48
dale,


The job isn't that hard.

as with many things, the job isn't that hard...unless you want to do it well.

JAD_333
09 Apr 10,, 14:31
But threats are low class.

Couldn't agree more. They're counterproductive; they not only suck up media attention that ought to go to the issue at hand, but worse still, people tend to rally around the threatened individual.

Blue
09 Apr 10,, 15:04
What I think they don't realize is that the one who WILL shoot you, is not going to tell you they are going to.

The drama and fabrication of the seriousness of these threats are only elevated by the dems to draw public sympathy. Though they also don't seem to realize that most of the public has no sympathy for them anyway.

The dems are basically caught in a rushing river clawing desperately at the bank to save themselves. Unfortunately, they are pulling some of us in with them.

Genosaurer
09 Apr 10,, 18:27
The older I get the more I resent and see as unwise the elevation of elected officials. I mean, I'm a citizen, they're just a congressman, or judge, or president, or governor, or whatever. I'm not saying Go Roman on the deal, but hell's bells, we've got plenty more gasbags where they came from should we ever need one.

The job isn't that hard.

I like H.L. Mencken's idea...

My old suggestion that public offices be filled by drawing lots, as a jury box is filled, was probably more intelligent than I suspected. It has been criticized on the ground that selecting a man at random would probably produce some extremely bad State governors.

But I incline to believe that it would be best to choose members of the Legislature quite at random. No matter how stupid they were, they could not be more stupid than the average legislator under the present system. Certainly, they'd be measurably more honest, taking one with another. Finally, there would be the great advantage that all of them had got their jobs unwillingly, and were eager, not to spin out their sessions endlessly, but to get home as soon as possible.

dalem
10 Apr 10,, 07:24
dale,

as with many things, the job isn't that hard...unless you want to do it well.

Bullshit.

How hard is it to NOT do something that's none of your business?

-dale

dalem
10 Apr 10,, 07:25
I like H.L. Mencken's idea...

My old suggestion that public offices be filled by drawing lots, as a jury box is filled, was probably more intelligent than I suspected. It has been criticized on the ground that selecting a man at random would probably produce some extremely bad State governors.

But I incline to believe that it would be best to choose members of the Legislature quite at random. No matter how stupid they were, they could not be more stupid than the average legislator under the present system. Certainly, they'd be measurably more honest, taking one with another. Finally, there would be the great advantage that all of them had got their jobs unwillingly, and were eager, not to spin out their sessions endlessly, but to get home as soon as possible.

Yes, Yes, Yes, and more Yes.

-dale

Robert W
11 Apr 10,, 20:37
Hey, I'm all for the tar and feathers for these jackholes and their contempt for me. But threats are low class. Best threat is to unseat the dimwitted ho-bag in November - either un-elect her or turn her back into the Listener of the House, and then don't say anything to her except "Cream, no sugar".

The older I get the more I resent and see as unwise the elevation of elected officials. I mean, I'm a citizen, they're just a congressman, or judge, or president, or governor, or whatever. I'm not saying Go Roman on the deal, but hell's bells, we've got plenty more gasbags where they came from should we ever need one.

The job isn't that hard.

-dale


This couldn't be said better....top to bottom....
Out of "respect" of the office we have elevated these people way beyond what they have earned.....well...no more....

astralis
12 Apr 10,, 01:17
dale,


Bullshit.

How hard is it to NOT do something that's none of your business?

-dale

this is what happens when you take the Reagan Revolution to its extreme. we can agree that smaller government is -generally- more efficient, but the next step (and IMO a bridge too far) is the idea that government is -always- inefficient and -never- needed. this type of contempt eventually leads to scorn of even good governance.

on his list-serv recently, SM stirling had this to say (on an unrelated subject, yet it somehow fits):


-- in the 1830's, a guy from New York was in New Orleans when a fight broke
out on the waterfront. Nothing he wasn't used to... except that people
started shouting "Guards! Guards!" and guys in uniforms with cutlasses and
billyclubs came in and broke up the fight, carting the participants off to
the Calaboose.

This disturbed him. It was so -European-. American cities didn't have
uniformed police forces.

not all governance is bad.

dalem
12 Apr 10,, 02:38
dale,

this is what happens when you take the Reagan Revolution to its extreme. we can agree that smaller government is -generally- more efficient, but the next step (and IMO a bridge too far) is the idea that government is -always- inefficient and -never- needed. this type of contempt eventually leads to scorn of even good governance.

on his list-serv recently, SM stirling had this to say (on an unrelated subject, yet it somehow fits):


not all governance is bad.

I agree that not all governance is bad but it's a non sequitur; I'm not calling for anarchy and I'm also not invoking a slippery slope - you are. I'm decrying actual expansion of powers and actual increases in socialist programs.

To put it simply, I believe that the Federal Government has ENOUGH power and scope already. I wish to give it no more of either over ANYTHING forseeable. ANYTHING. I also wish to scale it back, but that's deliberate and debatable action. My certain belief that it has ENOUGH right now (hell, it had enough 5 years ago) is passive and requires NO action. NONE. I also happen to believe that its latest expansions are unConstitutional but better-informed heads than mine will be duking that out.

So please don't waste my time with some illogical argument that, because I think a tax rate of 35% (for example) is too high, the only tax rate I would accept is zero. Such claims are straw men that I have no interest in.

-dale

astralis
12 Apr 10,, 03:04
dale,

my post was against your original assertion that "the job isn't that hard", ie good governance means sitting back and doing nothing at all. sometimes that's the case. other times, no.

dalem
12 Apr 10,, 03:13
dale,

my post was against your original assertion that "the job isn't that hard", ie good governance means sitting back and doing nothing at all. sometimes that's the case. other times, no.

I think good Federal governance is almost solely concerned with doing nothing at all.

-dale

Blue
12 Apr 10,, 03:40
I think good Federal governance is almost solely concerned with doing nothing at all.

-dale

This threads getting pretty good. Dale is on a roll, I haven't posted because he just keeps saying what comes to my mind.

The above statement is exactly what our founders had in mind and exactly where we should be.

Ever notice that the growth of the federal govt is in literally direct proportion to our problems?

If this trend continues, it will collapse(hard), and drag those who depend on it down with it. All you DC boys should pack a really good bugout bag!;)

dalem
12 Apr 10,, 05:46
Aww, shucks.

I should add that I still stand by my original statement: these jobs are NOT THAT HARD. The growth of bureacracy may MAKE them hard, but the jobs themselves are not difficult, assuming you are the mythical federal elected official who actually has other sh!t to do with your life. If more of these guys simply decided that less government was desireable they'd automatically make their jobs even more easy.

Now judges are obviously on the clock all year, but if you're simply judging instead of enacting a policy, that gets pretty simple too. President? Well hell, a President should hate the job and want to effect as little change as possible, and be ready to stare down any tinpot losers who get too puffed up in foreign places.

Only a leftist shifty arrogant sh!thead punk with no practical life experience would want to use the office to ride this nation like a two dollar whore yelling "please stop!" just to show that he can.

It takes a liberal to divide a nation into "those who can" and "those who can't".

-dale

astralis
12 Apr 10,, 13:39
dale,


I think good Federal governance is almost solely concerned with doing nothing at all.

-dale

that's not what the Constitution states- otherwise we'd stick to the Articles of Confederation.

astralis
12 Apr 10,, 13:50
eric,


The above statement is exactly what our founders had in mind and exactly where we should be.

no, it wasn't. minimalism falls apart once a population reaches a certain mass; a system that works for a sparsely populated agricultural society simply doesn't work for a heavily populated post-industrial society.

even in the Founders' time, minimalism was getting somewhat untenable; the Founders noticed this by the early 1780s and instituted the Constitution in response. we saw further centralization by 1794 under George Washington in response to the Whiskey Rebellion-- ie we had the ultimate Founding Father put the Federal smackdown on the states.



Ever notice that the growth of the federal govt is in literally direct proportion to our problems?

at the same time, growth of the government was absolutely crucial to our growth. the US centralized immensely in jumps-- first time in 1787; second time from approx. 1801-1831; third time in 1861-1865; fourth time from 1880-1901. three more times in the 20th century (1914, 1930, 1941).

each jump saw exponential increases in national power. in terms of what the government could do, we reached the zenith in 1945. it's been on a relative downward slope since then-- we're probably enjoying the least amount of government interference in our lives since approximately 1929.

Blue
12 Apr 10,, 14:40
no, it wasn't. minimalism falls apart once a population reaches a certain mass; a system that works for a sparsely populated agricultural society simply doesn't work for a heavily populated post-industrial society.

even in the Founders' time, minimalism was getting somewhat untenable; the Founders noticed this by the early 1780s and instituted the Constitution in response. we saw further centralization by 1794 under George Washington in response to the Whiskey Rebellion-- ie we had the ultimate Founding Father put the Federal smackdown on the states. Well first of all, the whiskey tax was abolished later and secondly, Washington had good reason to levy the tax. The people protested because the tax wasn't fair to all, a problem we still have today.

Washington was just testing the waters to see what would happen.

Anyway, if the founders had envisioned the wasteful, bloated, corrupt mess of a central govt we have now, it wouldn't have taken 200 years to come up with enough ammendments to screw up everything, they would have simply pushed it down our throat like this healthcare debacle. But they didn't because they knew the people wouldn't stand for it, unlike now.:frown:






at the same time, growth of the government was absolutely crucial to our growth. the US centralized immensely in jumps-- first time in 1787; second time from approx. 1801-1831; third time in 1861-1865; fourth time from 1880-1901. three more times in the 20th century (1914, 1930, 1941).
War, war, internal war, foreign war, world war, depression, world war again.....I see a pattern here.



each jump saw exponential increases in national power. in terms of what the government could do, we reached the zenith in 1945. it's been on a relative downward slope since then-- we're probably enjoying the least amount of government interference in our lives since approximately 1929. So what federal programs have went away since 1945? None, and yet more have been installed! So how do you figure this relative downward slope?:confused:

astralis
12 Apr 10,, 15:04
eric,


they didn't because they knew the people wouldn't stand for it, unlike now.

like i said, different times. in the late 1700s, most US cities didn't have a police force, and fire departments were organized on a volunteer, ad-hoc basis. depending on where you were, those volunteers would only show up if you were wealthy or politically powerful.


War, war, internal war, foreign war, world war, depression, world war again.....I see a pattern here.

yup. centralization is always the first response to a foreign threat or massive internal crisis. that's also part of the reason why the de-centralization envisioned by the Founding Fathers (even post-Constitution) is untenable in the current world-- it's hard to deal with powers that have centralized if you're not.


So what federal programs have went away since 1945? None, and yet more have been installed! So how do you figure this relative downward slope?

we no longer have internment camps for US citizens. we're no longer conscripting people. presidential term limits. taxes are at their lowest level since 1929 (although we're "cheating" on this through borrowing). no more national labor work force. no more government-supported racial laws.

size of government as a proportion of GDP has remained relatively stable while the amount of wealth/power available to the individual has increased exponentially.

dalem
12 Apr 10,, 18:19
dale,

that's not what the Constitution states- otherwise we'd stick to the Articles of Confederation.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any sort of mandate for action. It's just a list of mechanisms for how it is allowed to get money, what the branches do, and how they're allowed to do it.

-dale

astralis
12 Apr 10,, 19:09
dale,


Nowhere in the Constitution is there any sort of mandate for action.

nor is there a non-mandate; the point of the Constitution and the government it formed is to "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

congress is specifically empowered to "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

thus, congress is free to do as little OR as much as they like in the boundaries of what is allowed within the Constitution.

dalem
12 Apr 10,, 19:54
thus, congress is free to do as little OR as much as they like in the boundaries of what is allowed within the Constitution.

Exactly. It's not the Constitution that's the problem, it's the government.

I would also add that the Federalist papers and such clearly indicate that the Framers intended an INACTIVE government, and I would also argue that such is explicitly stated in the 10th Amendment.

-dale

astralis
12 Apr 10,, 20:21
dale,


I would also add that the Federalist papers and such clearly indicate that the Framers intended an INACTIVE government, and I would also argue that such is explicitly stated in the 10th Amendment.


the reason why this is so contested is because that's not what all the framers believed. in fact, the writer of most of the Federalist Papers you mention, Alexander Hamilton, was a big believer in an activist government.

it was his opponent, Thomas Jefferson, whom believed in a minimalist and non-activist government.

Jefferson had the upper hand for most of the early 1800s (which didn't prevent most of Hamilton's ideas from getting through, such as the National Bank) but following the US's humiliating performance in the War of 1812, activist government became much more popular, at least until the Jacksonian era. it's clear (to me, anyway) that Hamilton's legacy has been much more enduring than Jefferson's.

astralis
12 Apr 10,, 20:33
on a side note,

this is what is interesting about the american political psyche. a lot of americans like to envision themselves as small-town Jeffersonian democrats (although Jefferson himself would have recoiled at the idea of small-town America-- he was a distinctly rural/big-estate guy. but the small town is the closest approximation we have to 18th century rural america).

however, at least since the 1840s, the US has operated more and more on a Hamiltonian model, especially as it became clear that the multiple attempts to revert back to a Jeffersonian model proved disastrous every time the US was involved in a conflict, foreign or domestic.

highsea
12 Apr 10,, 21:55
I doubt even Hamilton could have conceived of a federal government that consumed 25% of the nation's GDP.

astralis
12 Apr 10,, 22:11
no doubt, but the figure of 20-25% has been steady since approximately 1945 (it actually spiked far higher during WWII).

it's also par for course with the rest of the industrialized world (we're actually lower than quite a few countries).

highsea
12 Apr 10,, 22:27
no doubt, but the figure of 20-25% has been steady since approximately 1945 (it actually spiked far higher during WWII).More like 17-18% avg. post WW2. About the only time it got around 20% was the Carter recession.

it's also par for course with the rest of the industrialized world (we're actually lower than quite a few countries).Their brand of socialism is their problem.

Julie
12 Apr 10,, 22:51
no doubt, but the figure of 20-25% has been steady since approximately 1945 (it actually spiked far higher during WWII).

it's also par for course with the rest of the industrialized world (we're actually lower than quite a few countries).Wow, we are now on par with the rest of the industrialized world. That really makes me feel better.

astralis
12 Apr 10,, 22:55
highsea,


More like 17-18% avg. post WW2. About the only time it got around 20% was the Carter recession.

no, it was around 21-23% during the Reagan era. you're right, though; prior to Reagan and Carter, the average was closer to 17-18% (making the combined total avg around 20.7%). right now it's 19.9%, although i have no doubt it will spike for the 2010 figures because of the combination of slow economic growth and stimulus spending.

anyhow, for some reason i doubt hamilton or any of the founding fathers could have conceived of a US spending even 10-15% of the GDP...which we last saw circa 1910. different worlds.

astralis
12 Apr 10,, 23:01
julie,


Wow, we are now on par with the rest of the industrialized world. That really makes me feel better.

even then, not quite; the UK is at 45-50%. but that just goes to show you, does that really mean that a nation whose government size is bigger -necessarily- equal to tyranny/socialism? last time i checked, the UK is still a free market democratic society, despite a government size that is far beyond what we can imagine in the States.

in any case, what we're seeing is still well within the bounds of what the modern US is familiar with as a society.

and pursuant to my original posts, we do have a very strong Founding Father tradition of activist government (something which was actively celebrated from approximately 1865-1975). now there's a belief that every Founding Father was a Jeffersonian, and that simply isn't true.

dalem
12 Apr 10,, 23:54
dale,

the reason why this is so contested is because that's not what all the framers believed.

I agree, and am not trying to imply that the Framers intended a completely paralyzed federal government. Just mostly paralyzed.

-dale

dalem
12 Apr 10,, 23:57
anyhow, for some reason i doubt hamilton or any of the founding fathers could have conceived of a US spending even 10-15% of the GDP...which we last saw circa 1910. different worlds.

Could any of them have conceived of sending a citizen to prison simply for not buying a government-specified product?

-dale

highsea
13 Apr 10,, 00:08
...right now it's 19.9%, although i have no doubt it will spike for the 2010 figures because of the combination of slow economic growth and stimulus spending.The deficit this year will be what, $~1.5 trillion?

CBO says 2009 actual was 24.7%. Table 1:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/01-26-Outlook.pdf

Obama's FY11 budget is $3.8 trillion? So unless you are expecting a $20 trillion GDP, it's more like the 25% I stated.

Do you really believe the US economy is going to grow at 5-6% like the White House is counting on?

There is no reason to think this is going to get any better under democrat rule. More tax hikes, out of control spending, giant deficits. That's what's going on in Washington D.C. :mad:

highsea
13 Apr 10,, 00:11
Could any of them have conceived of sending a citizen to prison simply for not buying a government-specified product?Or a government that is buying car companies, or insurance companies, or mortgage lenders, or banks?

The federal gov't has gone completely haywire. They're living in an alternate universe.

In 10 years the Federal gov't will be nothing more than a pension plan with an army.

And 10 years after that, we'll be just like Europe- a pension plan without an army.

Gun Grape
13 Apr 10,, 00:33
Could any of them have conceived of sending a citizen to prison simply for not buying a government-specified product?

-dale

The Militia Act of May 8th,1792.




I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
They were also required to report for training twice a year. Court Martial proceedings were authorized for citizens that failed to comply.


Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial; and such officers shall, moreover, be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: [words added in 1795:] and be incapacitated from holding a commission in the militia, for a term not exceeding twelve months, at the discretion of the said court: and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned by the like sentence, or failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for the space of one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine.

It was signed by President Washington.

So yes, the Founding Fathers did believe in individual mandates.

dalem
13 Apr 10,, 02:44
National service is not a product. National service is set for a particular age group. National service serves a higher goal - the Common Defense. The two ideas - national service and buying of insurance - are not equivalent.

Would you send me to prison for not buying government-delegated bubble gum? A government-assigned handgun? A government-assigned house?

-dale

Gun Grape
13 Apr 10,, 03:12
National service is not a product. National service is set for a particular age group. National service serves a higher goal - the Common Defense. The two ideas - national service and buying of insurance - are not equivalent.

Would you send me to prison for not buying government-delegated bubble gum? A government-assigned handgun? A government-assigned house?

-dale



Read the Act. It requires you, the individual, to buy certain equipment. I highlighted that part but here it is again.


That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder;

It is your "Government assigned handgun", only much more.

And if you failed to buy that equipment within 6 months they could and would send you to prison.

Julie
13 Apr 10,, 04:34
Taxpayers filing their 1040s are likely wondering just where all their hard-earned tax dollars are going, anyway.

• Washington will spend $31,406 per household in 2010 — the highest level in American history (adjusted for inflation). It will collect $18,276 per household in taxes. The remaining $13,130 represents this year's staggering budget deficit per household, which, along with all prior government debt, will be dumped in the laps of our children.

• Government spending has increased by $5,000 per household since 2008, and nearly $10,000 per household over the past decade. Yet there is no free lunch: If spending is not reined in, then eventually taxes must also rise by $10,000 per household.

• Washington will spend this $31,406 per household as follows:

Social Security/Medicare: $9,949. The 15.3 percent payroll tax, split evenly between the employer and employee, covers most of these costs. This system can remain sustainable only if there are enough workers to support all retirees, which is why it risks collapsing under the weight of 77 million retiring baby boomers. Unless these programs are reformed, paying all promised benefits would eventually require doubling all income tax rates.

Defense: $6,071. The defense budget covers everything from military paychecks to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to the research, development and acquisition of new technologies and equipment. Lawmakers drastically reduced military spending after the collapse of communism in the early 1990s. The 9/11 attacks reversed this trend, and the inflation-adjusted $2,472 per household increase since 2000 has returned military spending closer to its historical levels (but still lower than during previous wars).

Antipoverty programs: $5,466. Nearly half of this spending subsidizes state Medicaid programs that provide health services to poor families. Other low-income spending includes: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, food stamps, housing subsidies, child-care subsidies, Supplemental Security Income and low-income tax credits. President George W. Bush increased antipoverty spending to record levels, and it has grown an additional 32 percent since the end of 2008 under President Barack Obama.

Unemployment benefits: $1,640. Unemployment costs have surged by 411 percent during the recession.

Interest on the federal debt: $1,585. The federal government is $13 trillion in debt. It owes $9 trillion to public bond owners, and the rest to other federal agencies (mostly to repay the Social Security trust fund, which lawmakers raided annually before the program went into deficit in 2010). Record-low interest rates have recently held down these costs. However, the national debt is set to double by 2020, which will combine with higher interest rates to raise annual interest costs to nearly $6,000 per household.

Veterans' benefits: $1,052. The federal government provides income and health benefits to war veterans. Spending is up 83 percent since 2000.

Federal employee retirement benefits: $1,018. This spending funds the retirement and disability benefits of federal employees, including the military.

Education: $914. Education spending is primarily a state and local function; 9 percent of the total comes from Washington. The federal education budget has leaped 125 percent since 2000. Most federal dollars are spent on low-income school districts, special education and college student financial aid.

Highways/mass transit: $613. Most highway and mass-transit spending is financed by the 18.4 cent per-gallon federal gas tax. Washington subtracts an administrative cost and sends this money back to the states with numerous strings attached.

Health research/regulation: $550. This spending is up 50 percent since 2001, and much of this growth is concentrated in the National Institutes of Health. The category also includes the Food and Drug Administration and dozens of grant programs for health providers.

Mortgage Credit: $470. While most of the bank bailouts occurred last year, the bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the rest of the housing market continue.

The programs listed above cover $29,328 per household. The remaining $2,078 is allocated to all other federal programs, including justice, international affairs, natural resources, the environment, regional development, farm subsidies, social services, space exploration, air transportation and energy.

Washington will spend $31,406 per household this year - St. Petersburg Times (http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/washington-will-spend-31406-per-household-this-year/1086283)
By Brian Riedl, Heritage Foundation
In Print: Monday, April 12, 2010

Julie
13 Apr 10,, 04:35
I don't mind buying a few guns to defend our country. But that above, it is ridiculous.

Blue
13 Apr 10,, 14:52
yup. centralization is always the first response to a foreign threat or massive internal crisis. that's also part of the reason why the de-centralization envisioned by the Founding Fathers (even post-Constitution) is untenable in the current world-- it's hard to deal with powers that have centralized if you're not.

If our federal govt would focus on no more than what they are supposed to(art 2 sect 8), then we wouldn't have the problem. Maintain an Army for national defense and levy taxes according to Art.II. Instead, they spend thier time investigating major league baseball while there is a war going on. The list of trivial, wasted time could stretch from coast to coast! We don't need 99% of the crap congress wants to control, including and especially healthcare!



we no longer have internment camps for US citizens. we're no longer conscripting people. presidential term limits. taxes are at their lowest level since 1929 (although we're "cheating" on this through borrowing). no more national labor work force. no more government-supported racial laws. Point taken, but as each one goes away another gets implemented to exert that now lost control over those people affected and more. The healthcare bill is just the latest installment. Obama wasn't kidding when he said "this is just the first step". Hold onto your hats because there is more to come.


size of government as a proportion of GDP has remained relatively stable while the amount of wealth/power available to the individual has increased exponentially.

Yea, growing. Not a good thing.

dalem
13 Apr 10,, 17:26
Read the Act. It requires you, the individual, to buy certain equipment. I highlighted that part but here it is again.

It is your "Government assigned handgun", only much more.

And if you failed to buy that equipment within 6 months they could and would send you to prison.

...as a condition of national service. Buying insurance is now a condition of breathing.

-dale

astralis
13 Apr 10,, 20:04
eric,


Maintain an Army for national defense

well i'm an AF guy so i take exception to that comment :biggrin:


The list of trivial, wasted time could stretch from coast to coast! We don't need 99% of the crap congress wants to control, including and especially healthcare!

ultimately most of that crap is being driven by -some- constituent, particularly those with enough money/power to want it solved at the federal level. this is something i suspect the Founding Fathers didn't foresee at the time of the Constitution-- parties (which most of them originally looked down upon, and then joined anyway by the late 1790s), and groups able to drive a domestic agenda on a national basis.

which made perfect sense, because at the time most people didn't care, didn't know what was going on, or have the power to do anything beyond the local level, much less at the state or federal level. now, it's harder to play the disinterested, inactive statesman when your job depends on DOING something a constituent wants.


Point taken, but as each one goes away another gets implemented to exert that now lost control over those people affected and more. The healthcare bill is just the latest installment. Obama wasn't kidding when he said "this is just the first step". Hold onto your hats because there is more to come.


from the way i see it, the method of control is different both quantitatively and qualitatively. for instance, sure, a healthcare mandate is a form of "control"; but it's not the same as forcibly conscripting someone. similarly, we no longer have a confiscatory 95% upper tax rate.

also, because we've vastly enlarged the number of eligible voters, these are controls a much larger section of the populace have -agreed to- than in the past.

so the main problem we're facing now is not so much the specter of too much government but people wanting too many services. this is understandable because people don't feel the downsides to desiring these services, as we borrow instead of tax.

this idea is reflected in the fine fellow whom screamed at the town hall to "keep your government hands off my Medicare."

highsea
13 Apr 10,, 20:24
The problem with earned entitlements is, once you have paid for them you feel you really are entitled to them. Funny how that works.

The idea that the general public is demanding all these "services" is BS, imo. There was no big public outcry to dump $107 Billion into the Dept of Ed. as part of the so-called stimulus package. The dems did it because they could. It wasn't debated.

99% of federal social programs would never be missed by the vast majority of the population if they were cancelled tomorrow. The fact is, most people don't even realize they exist. There are over 1000 of them today throughout the various agencies. New ones get added with every spending bill.

astralis
13 Apr 10,, 20:50
highsea,


The idea that the general public is demanding all these "services" is BS, imo. There was no big public outcry to dump $107 Billion into the Dept of Ed. as part of the so-called stimulus package. The dems did it because they could. It wasn't debated.

99% of federal social programs would never be missed by the vast majority of the population if they were cancelled tomorrow. The fact is, most people don't even realize they exist. There are over 1000 of them today throughout the various agencies. New ones get added with every spending bill.

by far the biggest drivers of the deficit is medicare/medicaid and social security. we won't really solve the deficit problem until we fully address this. yet the second anyone on either side does anything to touch this, seniors in general and the AARP in particular will screech like chickens getting thrown into the pot.

re: the other point on services, money is dumped because there's an obvious constituent interest in having money there, ie demand. there's less advantage in putting money towards something when doing that doesn't satisfy a key voting constituency.

highsea
13 Apr 10,, 21:49
...there's less advantage in putting money towards something when doing that doesn't satisfy a key voting constituency.Of course. Which shows it's special interests driving the spending, not a general demand by the public.

The $107 Billion to ED satisfied teachers unions, allowed schools to retain teachers, give raises, etc. But it wasn't something that was demanded by the public at all- there wasn't any debate on that decision whatsoever.

It was a strictly payoff by the party in power to one of their voting blocks.

highsea
13 Apr 10,, 22:26
Here's another example:

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/2010_IN_Conf_Disclosure.pdf

That's 62 pages of earmarks from just one bill- the 2010 appropriations for Dept of Interior. The first several pages are earmarks Obama put in- remember his campaign pledge about earmarks?

A couple months ago, the House passed the bill for 2011. They created a new program for the Forest Service, many millions of dollars- restoring parks, education programs, etc. Exactly what Americorps does. So why not just put the money to Americorps? Why create a new agency within the forest service that does the exact same thing?

astralis
13 Apr 10,, 23:02
highsea,


Of course. Which shows it's special interests driving the spending, not a general demand by the public.

like i said, that still doesn't cover the two biggest items-- medicare/medicaid and social security.

but past that, i agree, most of the other spending is being driven by special interests. as i mentioned to 7th, this is something that the founding fathers did not really foresee.

highsea
13 Apr 10,, 23:50
I know what the big drivers are, and that's exactly why the gov't shouldn't be involved in ponzi schemes.

And they should be prohibited from using the term "trust fund", and this new health care bill has created at least 4 more new ones for them to raid.

Imagine that.

but past that, i agree, most of the other spending is being driven by special interests. as i mentioned to 7th, this is something that the founding fathers did not really foresee.Good. That should put an end to the myth that the American people are demanding more services than they are willing to pay for.

No one is demanding those services outside of narrow groups with their own interests, the rest of the country be damned.

The US Congress doesn't have the backbone to say no, which is why they have to GO.

astralis
14 Apr 10,, 00:06
highsea,


That should put an end to the myth that the American people are demanding more services than they are willing to pay for.

what do you think the big elephant in the room is? what's medicare/medicaid and social security, if not services??

highsea
14 Apr 10,, 00:20
...what do you think the big elephant in the room is? what's medicare/medicaid and social security, if not services??SSI and Medicare were sold to the public as "insurance policies". People are forced to pay into the system their entire working lives, on the promise that there will be something for them at the end. In the meantime, the gov't has pissed the money away and the programs are bankrupt. Simple actuarial discipline could have prevented that from ever happening.

Notice the gov't exempts themselves from those programs? I wonder why...

Medicaid is a "service", since it's not an earned entitlement. Also paid for by payroll taxes, so no choice there either.

But the point- I hear the left wing proponents of big government making same the statement you made all the time. It's simply not true. The vast majority of the public asks for very little from the Gov't.

Don't lie to us.
Stop wasting our money.
Stop bankrupting the country.
Stop stealing from the next generation.

No means NO. I expect this will be made painfully apparent in about 7 months.

JAD_333
14 Apr 10,, 01:58
Funny how every politician on the stump rails against special interests, yet fawns over them for campaign contributions.

I don't know if they still do, but lobbyists for associations used to rent meeting rooms in Congressional office buildings and throw receptions to introduce their members to Congressmen and staff. Not many congressmen went, but staffers loved them because they had great shrimp.

Speaking of shrimp...

astralis
14 Apr 10,, 04:04
highsea,


The vast majority of the public asks for very little from the Gov't.


i think the word "vast" is probably a tad overstated, considering that Democrats are still a going concern for the Republicans. the nation is roughly split 25-40-35 between liberals/moderates/conservatives.

seriously, if everyone was so against government services as you claim, republicans would have rolled the democrats a long time ago.

hell, in the case of social security/medicare/medicaid, i wouldn't mind seeing it rolled back a nice long ways myself. but i'm not seeing republicans or democrats touching that one.

Julie
14 Apr 10,, 04:12
highsea,seriously, if everyone was so against government services as you claim, republicans would have rolled the democrats a long time ago. They did, and they blew it. Now Democrats are doing the same thing. Getting control is one thing, keeping it is something different entirely that neither has seem to master yet.


hell, in the case of social security/medicare/medicaid, i wouldn't mind seeing it rolled back a nice long ways myself. but i'm not seeing republicans or democrats touching that one.Once you give a child a candy sucker, you can't take it back, or there will be hell to pay.

Highsea was right about the vast majority of the public asking for very little from the Gov't. It is the politicians that bargain for deals for political gain, and the people get what they get. It's just piling up, and dragging our country down.

Blue
14 Apr 10,, 04:25
well i'm an AF guy so i take exception to that comment :biggrin: A former branch of the Army that was designed to take me where I need to go, in a hurry!!:biggrin:;)




ultimately most of that crap is being driven by -some- constituent, particularly those with enough money/power to want it solved at the federal level. this is something i suspect the Founding Fathers didn't foresee at the time of the Constitution-- parties (which most of them originally looked down upon, and then joined anyway by the late 1790s), and groups able to drive a domestic agenda on a national basis.

which made perfect sense, because at the time most people didn't care, didn't know what was going on, or have the power to do anything beyond the local level, much less at the state or federal level. now, it's harder to play the disinterested, inactive statesman when your job depends on DOING something a constituent wants. True, but the only special interest driving the healthcare bill were select democrats in congress.




from the way i see it, the method of control is different both quantitatively and qualitatively. for instance, sure, a healthcare mandate is a form of "control"; but it's not the same as forcibly conscripting someone. similarly, we no longer have a confiscatory 95% upper tax rate. Does it really matter HOW someone rapes you?


also, because we've vastly enlarged the number of eligible voters, these are controls a much larger section of the populace have -agreed to- than in the past. The populace was against the HC bill and a number of other recent bills. Congress has gone rogue on the people AFAIC.


so the main problem we're facing now is not so much the specter of too much government but people wanting too many services. this is understandable because people don't feel the downsides to desiring these services, as we borrow instead of tax. I agree, they are idiots, we need to educate them. There is are growing numbers of people speaking out and others figuring it out so there is hope.


this idea is reflected in the fine fellow whom screamed at the town hall to "keep your government hands off my Medicare." Same kind of idiot that thought the Iraq war was to go kill Iraqis. I know these people. My neck of the woods is full of them. Its exhausting trying to educate them. :rolleyes:

astralis
14 Apr 10,, 04:28
julie,


Once you give a child a candy sucker, you can't take it back, or there will be hell to pay.

Highsea was right about the vast majority of the public asking for very little from the Gov't. It is the politicians that bargain for deals for political gain, and the people get what they get. It's just piling up, and dragging our country down.

this is a characterization i've heard often. the american people are independent, hard-working, center-right country...then the people get a government service and they're children.


It is the politicians that bargain for deals for political gain, and the people get what they get. It's just piling up, and dragging our country down.

similar to the above. we're a democracy, which means we're responsible for our own government. this type of characterization is something that absolves the people of responsibility for their actions.

taking responsibility for your actions, your government, and your country. isn't this supposed to be a -conservative- meme?

astralis
14 Apr 10,, 04:38
eric,


A former branch of the Army that was designed to take me where I need to go, in a hurry!

never fast enough for you is my guess :biggrin:


True, but the only special interest driving the healthcare bill were select democrats in congress.

and of course, whatever percentage of their constituents whom wanted the reform. the funny thing is that there was a surprisingly large part of people whom were against the healthcare bill because it wasn't liberal enough.


Does it really matter HOW someone rapes you?

in a more extreme example, the classic highwayman saying is "your money or your life!" yeah, both options suck but i can tell you which option sucks a lot less.

ultimately government is an exercise in domination, wealth-shifting, and making people do what they might not necessarily do themselves. yet there's obviously utility in it or people wouldn't have governments in the first place. the question is finding the medium...which in this case means the shades of "rape" :eek:


Congress has gone rogue on the people AFAIC.

if so, as highsea says, we should see the results of that soon enough.


I agree, they are idiots, we need to educate them.

mostly i'd just like to see people holding consistent beliefs. you want big government? fine, but you have to persuade people the need for high taxes. you want low taxes? fine, but you better not complain when your library shuts down early or your unemployment benefits get cut off.

from what i see, though, people are for low taxes and small government...until something happens, and then they screech and complain how the government wasn't there for them when they needed it.

JAD_333
14 Apr 10,, 05:17
SSI and Medicare were sold to the public as "insurance policies". People are forced to pay into the system their entire working lives, on the promise that there will be something for them at the end. In the meantime, the gov't has pissed the money away and the programs are bankrupt. Simple actuarial discipline could have prevented that from ever happening.

HS:

It doesn't seem to be that either program was ever truely based on actuarial principles. If they had been, the deductions from earnings would have been set much higher from day 1. My take is that Social Security is a mandated social program, not an insurance policy. (I noted that you put quotation marks around 'insurance policies'.)